O setor de assistência social está se tornando usado para aumentar os níveis de escrutínio colocados nele pelo escritório em casa. Não é incomum receber uma resposta a uma solicitação, dando ao provedor 5 dias úteis para reunir jangadas de informação e documentação para a consideração do escritório em casa. LIMITADO
Case update – Hartford Care Group Limited v SSHD EWHC 3308
The aforementioned scrutiny is regarding requests for Certificates of Sponsorship which are needed to recruit and extend the visas of international employees sponsored under the Skilled Worker route. It is not uncommon to receive a response to a request, giving the provider 5 working days to collate rafts of information and documentation for the Home Office’s consideration.
This approach, and specifically the rejection of a Defined CoS application by the Home Office on the basis that evidence of genuine vacancies for the role was not provided, was recently challenged in the courts by Hartford Care Group Limited ("Hartford Care") (R (Hartford Care Group Limited) v sshd [2024] ewhc 3308). O resultado foi que o Supremo Tribunal decidiu contra a decisão do Ministério do Interior de recusar seu pedido de 70 aplicativos de DCOs do reclamante. Mudar proibindo cuidadores e cuidadores seniores de levar seus familiares para o Reino Unido com vistos dependentes. Em particular, contratos com autoridades locais que garantiram horas de trabalho para os 70 candidatos futuros para determinar que havia "
In this case, Hartford Care, an established and frequent sponsor of Skilled Worker visas, applied to the Home Office for 70 DCoS to sponsor care workers on 9 January 2024, in anticipation of the 11 March 2024 rule change prohibiting carers and senior carers from bringing their family members to the UK on dependant visas.
On 19 January 2024, the Home Office asked Hartford Care to provide additional information. In particular, contracts with local authorities which guaranteed hours of work for the 70 future applicant’s to determine that there were “ vagas genuínas" disponível para todos os candidatos. O requisito de vaga genuíno confere à discrição do escritório em casa ao considerar os pedidos e a capacidade de desafiar se há ou não um papel vago a ser patrocinado como o requerente sugere. A aplicação do DCOS foi rejeitada com base em que eles não forneceram contratos que exigem emprego imediato e genuíno para todos os 70 candidatos. A posição do Ministério do Interior era que uma função exista no momento da solicitação de um DCOS para atender ao requisito de vacância genuína e não se basear na demanda esperada e, como tais contratos, especificando as horas de trabalho para cada DCOs solicitado. Os empregos de Hartford Care não eram genuínos. que não garantiu que eles teriam emprego em tempo integral ”.
Hartford Care provided contracts with three local councils, however, the contracts that were provided were all flexible contracts which did not guarantee the hours of work for members of staff, as is the norm. The DCoS application was rejected on the basis that they had failed to provide contracts requiring immediate and genuine employment for all 70 applicants.
Hartford Care argued that such contracts do not exist in the care sector and that flexible contracts are common in the sector. The Home Office’s position was that a role has to exist at the time of applying for a DCoS to meet the genuine vacancy requirement and not be based on expected demand and as such contracts, specifying the hours of work for each DCoS requested must be provided.
High Court Judgment
The High Court held that the Home Office should have
“taken steps to gather relevant information before reaching the decision that [Hartford Care’s] jobs were not genuine. Had the [Home Office] made any sufficient enquiry of those in the care sector, it would have been immediately clear that it was irrational to take into account the lack of official contracts with guaranteed hours. The guarantee of hours was properly found in the sample employment contract between [Hartford Care] and the care worker. That was the evidence which confirmed that the care worker was not being recruited on a ‘zero hours’ basis or on some other basis which did not guarantee that they would have full time paid employment”.
O Supremo Tribunal concordou com a Hartford Care e encontrou a prática em desenvolvimento do Ministério do Interior de esperar contratos de horas garantidas insatisfatórias, descrevendo -o como irracional e inadmissível. Foi solicitado que o Supremo Tribunal emitisse uma declaração de que quaisquer DCOs e vistos emitidos como resultado desse desafio bem -sucedido do tribunal permitissem que os trabalhadores de cuidados traziam suas famílias como dependentes, apesar de terem sido emitidos após a mudança da regra. Its logic was that:
The High Court however refused this request. Its logic was that:
“there is no evidence about the circumstances of those who would apply, in particular as to their family circumstances. It is a matter of speculation whether those recruits would have applied for immigration status prior to the 11 March 2024 changes. It would be wrong to restrict the discretion of the [Home Office] in considering any such application and it would be too early to do so at this stage. Any such historic unfairness would be a relevant factor to Leve em consideração, mas precisaria ser equilibrado com todas as outras circunstâncias individuais que se aplicavam na época e, como tal, o [escritório em casa] pode decidir conceder alguns ou todos os 70 DCOs na reconsideração após esse julgamento ”. dos níveis de atendimento ou pessoal necessários, não significa que os provedores não continuarão a ver esses tipos de solicitação de informação do escritório em casa. Eles continuam prevalecentes ao fazer pedidos de licenças de patrocinador e certificados de patrocínio. Há também um número crescente de visitas de conformidade sendo realizadas pelo Ministério do Interior, analisando a conformidade com a licença do patrocinador e a conformidade com as obrigações do direito ao trabalho. Rastreadores, evidências do status aprovado do provedor e solicitações de horas adicionais de suporte. Times escalas. Downtown in Business
What does this mean for care providers?
The fact that the High Court found that job vacancies can be genuine, where there are no commissioning contracts explicitly detailing the number of hours of care or staffing levels required, does not mean that providers won’t continue to see these types of information request from the Home Office. They continue to be prevalent when making applications for sponsor licences and Certificates of Sponsorship. There is also an increasing number of compliance visits being carried out by the Home Office, looking at sponsor licence compliance as well as compliance with right to work obligations.
What this case does do however, is it increases the likelihood of a provider receiving their sponsor licence or requested allocation of Defined or Undefined Certificates of Sponsorship where alternative documentation is provided, such as standard employment contracts, internal vacancy and hours trackers, evidence of approved provider status and requests for additional support hours.
Further, sponsors with previous rejections in comparable circumstances may wish to consider reapplying and referencing this High Court’s decision should an information request be received.
Despite this victory for the care sector , it remains important for employers and sponsors to ensure that they are maintaining accurate and complete documentation and are able to provide these to the Home Office within tight timescales.
This article first appeared on https://www.wardhadaway.com/insights/updates/the-care-sector-bi-annual-update-care-home-operator-takes-on-the-home-office-and-wins/
