Is this a viable health cover option

[oldgit72]

Hi all.

 

Since the changes to healthcare cover in France for those moving after November 2007 I have been considering what options are open to us (early retired 55/53) having bought a property here in January 2008. Although not ideal, an option for us would be to live in France from April to October each year (182 days), spend 3 months (91 days)in the UK outside of this period and 3 months travelling to warmer climes during the 3 coldest months of the year. Does anyone use a similar pattern of residence and if so, do you qualify for UK based healthcare/E111?

Thanks

[AnOther]

Not quite enough to go on unfortunately but ultimately all will depend on your residency. This can be a complicated issue and not simply down to days spent in France.

In terms of your plan I would say that if you no longer own a property in UK then you would likely be considered French resident and therefore ineligible for NHS healthcare.

 

[powerdesal]

Ernie,

I am not sure that "owning" a property in UK is required, a very large number of people rent these days, perhaps "having permanent access to a property in UK" may be a more realistic description. IMHO.

[AnOther]

Perhaps so Steve, the salient point being though that it's not all about juggling days.

Whether the French property was bought as a Maison Primaire or Secondaire could be a crucial factor [;-)]

 

[cooperlola]

On the face of it, o/p, what you propose seems to involve spending more time in your French property than anywhere else.  That seems like the definition of French residency to me as clearly it would be your main residence.  If you only live in the UK for 3 months each year, then it's quite clear that the UK would not be your principal residence.

[powerdesal]

Surely, from the perspective of the French Govt, if you have a maison secondaire in France (as a UK citizen / resident) their rules state (I believe) that you may spend up to 183 per 365 day period in that house without being considered a French resident.

From the UK perspective, if you are a UK resident ( ie an address, taxes paid etc) and are retired and can afford it, you can spend your retirement swanning off on holiday anywhere in the World that you wish. I don't believe there is any 'minimum' time that you must spend in UK to maintain resident status. That is, I believe, what personal freedom is all about.

As I see it, the critical factor is being a UK resident tax payer, local taxes and national if required.

[cooperlola]

I agree with your point in principal, Steve.  However, as Ernie points out, the residency principal is incredibly complicated, and in fact the way the UK views this and the way France does is different.  But the above proposal conveys to me that the o/p wishes to spend most of his/her time residing in France and not the UK.  That is the basis of the residency rule. 

Re the taxes - you can't chose where to pay them - you pay them in the country where your principal residence is - you don't chose a country in which to pay your taxes, then call it your principal residence as a result.

But it is all a bit chicken and egg!

[Sunday Driver]

By considering this 'limbo' existence in order to retain your NHS rights, any medical costs you incur during the majority of the year you'll be spending outside the UK will be only partly reimbursed - you can't obtain complimentary cover to top up the state shortfall.  Furthermore, you will never achieve the five year residency qualification which will entitle you to establish your healthcare rights here. 

You may be better off considering the normal route of obtaining an E106 which will entitle you to state heathcare insurance for, say, the first two years, then obtaining private health insurance for the next three years which will complete the full residency qualifying period.  As a resident, you will be subject to French tax and you may find that the difference between what you'll be paying in tax here and what you would have paid in the UK can go towards funding your PHI for the interim period.  You can use the Impots on-line tax simulator to run a 'what if' scenario and once you've got the UK/France comparative figures, then you can make an informed decision on how to proceed.

Budgeting increased healthcare costs into a French move is now an unfortunate fact of life......

 

[powerdesal]

Perhaps it is a bit more complex but....

Lets forget ,for a moment, the French maison secondaire. Consider a  couple in UK, they dont own the house they live in, they rent it. They then retire and, having the wherewithal, decide to spend their retirement (and money) doing all the travelling that they never got the chance to do whilst working. Visits to the childen in Australia / NZ/ USA/ UAE ?. A world cruise (or two), this travelling takes up a year or more, maybe lots more. They return periodically to their (rented) house in UK, to "re-charge" their batteries so to speak.

Question. Are they still resident in UK, or rather are they still UK residents?

I believe the answer is yes.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="powerdesal"]Perhaps it is a bit more complex but....

Lets forget ,for a moment, the French maison secondaire. Consider a  couple in UK, they dont own the house they live in, they rent it. They then retire and, having the wherewithal, decide to spend their retirement (and money) doing all the travelling that they never got the chance to do whilst working. Visits to the childen in Australia / NZ/ USA/ UAE ?. A world cruise (or two), this travelling takes up a year or more, maybe lots more. They return periodically to their (rented) house in UK, to "re-charge" their batteries so to speak.
Question. Are they still resident in UK, or rather are they still UK residents?

I believe the answer is yes.

[/quote]I think it's yes also.  But the o/p wants to spend 6 months in France (or a day less) then the other six months in a variety of other places, none of them for as long a time as he/she proposes to stay in France.  Thus it would, on the face of that posting at least, appear to be the proposed main residence (how else would you define it?)  Your hypothetical certainly suggests to me that the UK would be their "base" as they would have no other.  Not true in what our o/p proposes.

On the whole, I think Sunday Driver is right - if you try to buck both systems at once, you risk ending up  belonging to neither.

[nectarine]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

You can use the Impots on-line tax simulator to run a 'what if' scenario and once you've got the UK/France comparative figures, then you can make an informed decision on how to proceed.

[/quote]

 

Can you tell me where I might find this tax calculator, please?  Thanks.

[Clair]

http://www3.finances.gouv.fr/calcul_impot/2008/

[powerdesal]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

[quote user="powerdesal"]Perhaps it is a bit more complex but....

Lets forget ,for a moment, the French maison secondaire. Consider a  couple in UK, they dont own the house they live in, they rent it. They then retire and, having the wherewithal, decide to spend their retirement (and money) doing all the travelling that they never got the chance to do whilst working. Visits to the childen in Australia / NZ/ USA/ UAE ?. A world cruise (or two), this travelling takes up a year or more, maybe lots more. They return periodically to their (rented) house in UK, to "re-charge" their batteries so to speak.

Question. Are they still resident in UK, or rather are they still UK residents?

I believe the answer is yes.

[/quote]I think it's yes also.  But the o/p wants to spend 6 months in France (or a day less) then the other six months in a variety of other places, none of them for as long a time as he/she proposes to stay in France.  Thus it would, on the face of that posting at least, appear to be the proposed main residence (how else would you define it?)  Your hypothetical certainly suggests to me that the UK would be their "base" as they would have no other.  Not true in what our o/p proposes.

On the whole, I think Sunday Driver is right - if you try to buck both systems at once, you risk ending up  belonging to neither.

[/quote]

The 'bold' does not seem to be a problem as far as the French Govt is concerned, the rules say you can do it. Where the rest of the time is spent is material only to UK Residence, and we are agreed that the UK don't actually care, or don't appear to, as long as you pay your dues. Oddly enough, there is apparently no official definition of 'resident' in the UK.  see :-

There is no formal legal definition of "residence". The Inland

Revenue's practice - based on a mixture of statute and court decisions

-  is to regard you as resident in the UK during a tax year if :

· You spend 183 days or more in the UK during the tax year, or

· Although

here for less than 183 days, you have spent more than 90 days per year

in the country over the past four years (taken as an average). You will

then be classed as UK resident from the fifth year.  (my bold)

There is also

no statutory test of ordinary residence. You will be classified as a UK

ordinary resident if the UK is your "normal place of residence".

On

leaving the country you will continue to be regarded as UK ordinary

resident unless you go abroad with the intention of taking up permanent

residence overseas. This also applies for individuals returning to the

UK.

The Inland Revenue normally interprets "permanent" to mean 3 years or more.

The subject of 'main residence' is also open to interpretation it seems:-

"No specific legislation exists concerning the subject of sole or main residence, however several important High Court cases

have helped establish guidelines for determining a person's sole or main home."

It may be that we, as lay-persons, would say that the OP's main residence was in France, but that's our perception, and not (necessarily) the legal standing. The legal situation seems very 'fluid' to say the least.

[Poppy]

A few years ago we did what the op is proposing. We bought a mobile home on a residential park in the UK and lived for approx 4 months there and spent 2 to 3 months in Spain, the remainder of the time in France. We were French resident at the time submitting French tax forms and were completely honest with French and English tax authorities.The result was that we submitted UK tax returns, registered with a UK doctor, used at that time E111 in France, and obtained travel insurance for trips to Spain. This arrangement continued without problem for 5 years and only changed ,without problem, when we sold the mobile home and became French resident again.

We were at the time very healthy and probably with hindsight had the security of knowing that anything medical would be be classed an emergency. Nowadays it might depend on what restrictions the UK apply to the UHIC, this would need to be investigated. I guess the moral of the story is that it all revolves around the E111/EHIC.

 

[cooperlola]

Here is a quote from the Hutton instructions on how NHS trusts must now establish that a person is resident in Britain and entitled to free treatment.  The document is 77 pages long, but I quote this bit in order to emphasise the possible difficulties  which attempts to by-pass the system could give you.  It is now in force in hospitals throughout the UK.  It's very complex, and I admit that it is a very grey area.  But I still reckon the o/p needs to be extremely careful before going down the route s/he proposes.  I can supply a full copy of the document, if anybody wishes to e-mail me.

Asking the baseline questions

5. Anyone who has lived lawfully in the UK for at least 12 months immediately preceding treatment is exempt from charges, so the baseline question continues to be based on this and is:

"Where have you lived for the last 12 months?"

However, because the exemption now expressly applies only to those living here lawfully, you need to follow this first question with another:

"Can you show that you have the right to live here?"

6. These questions need to be asked every time a patient begins a new course of treatment at the hospital and is entered onto the trust’s records for in-patient or out-patient care, either on paper or computer and either by administration or ward staff, in order to comply with the Regulations. The system should allow the questioner to record either that the patient has lived in the UK for 12 months or that there is some doubt. In all cases where the patient has not lived here for 12 months, or there is an element of doubt (for example because they have been unable to provide satisfactory evidence of their right to live here) the patient

16

should be referred for interview by the Overseas Visitors Team. The questioner should inform the patient that he or she will be further interviewed.

 

[Russethouse]

Goodness, does the document go into the acceptable means of proving you have lived here for the past 12 months ?

[cooperlola]

Yes, it does, but as I say it's 77 pages long!  Believe me - this is a subject I have learnt a little about over the past few months.[Www]

EDIT : Having said all that, I still supsect that a British Passport would say a lot to an over-stressed NHS administrator!  But it's just as well to be aware of the pitfalls before taking a decision of this kind these days.  More and more controls and checks are being put into place every day. 

[Poppy]

OOOPS guess things have changed a lot in the last six years. Doesn't time fly.

We actually registered with a UK doctor and had no problem doing so therefore UK hospital treatment etc was no problem. We did think the E111 was a bit of a grey area and enquired several times only to be informed what we were doing was within the rules at the time.

 

 

[cooperlola]

There is of course, a lot more stuff in the document, which clearly recognises the kinds of grey areas that those who travel a lot or have homes in two or more countries could fall into.  Without reproducing the whole thing here, it's tough to go into all the different possibilities and nuances in it - the best suggestion I can offer is that I pass a copy on to the o/p and they can decide for themselves whether or not it is a risky strategy, and then it is up to them to decide.

But in that, Poppy, I am sure you are right.  Things have changed and various governments throughout Europe are becoming more and more aware of the fact.  The truth is that the "right to free movement" isn't as great as it sounds in theory for the person who wants to exercise it.

[Ron Avery]

Steve said "They then retire and, having the wherewithal, decide to spend their retirement (and money) doing all the travelling that they never got the chance to do whilst working. Visits to the childen in Australia / NZ/ USA/ UAE ?. A world cruise (or two), this travelling takes up a year or more, maybe lots more"

To people who have the wherewithal and can afford two world cruises why would the inconsequential cost of PHI for three years be an issue?

[cooperlola]

There's that, Ron![:D]

[Poppy]

Don't want to change topic but based on an experience in the last year I agree with Coop that the influence of a British Passport is something I would never have believed would happen. 

[Russethouse]

Does the 'centre' of financial interest' question come into this ? If it does then I think you would have to be very careful if you hoped to persuade the authorities that the single place you spend most time in is not your main home.

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Steve said "They then retire and, having the wherewithal, decide to spend their retirement (and money) doing all the travelling that they never got the chance to do whilst working. Visits to the childen in Australia / NZ/ USA/ UAE ?. A world cruise (or two), this travelling takes up a year or more, maybe lots more"

To people who have the wherewithal and can afford two world cruises why would the inconsequential cost of PHI for three years be an issue?

[/quote]

It was an OTT  hyperthetical scenario to illustrate a principle. Obviously it would not be a cost effective way of behaving, (unless of course one or other could not in fact get the comprehensive PHI due to pre-existing conditions.)

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Does the 'centerer of financial interest' question come into this ? If it does then I think you would have to be very careful if you hoped to persuade the authorities that the single place you spend most time in is not your main home.[/quote]I think that was my point really, R/H (world cruises not withstanding!)  I reckon most people probably know instinctively where their home really is, and that a government's instincts would be pretty much in line with one's own.

By the way, oldgit - does the 72 mean we are in the same department?