By experience, some solicitors will say they can get you the stay and once you give them the money they will write to the Home Office and say let wait for them to respond to the application or the letter which can still take ages. Many solicitors will say don,t worry, get on with your life till we hear from the Home Office. I think you do not want any more delays and therefore should be sure they can get you the stay or an assurance that it would not be another wait for years please.

I hope this will help.

The Court found that where a family had completed seven years’ residence before the policy was withdrawn, then they were entitled to the benefit of the policy, even where they had not sought to regularise their position until after its withdrawal. It therefore found that the decisions in Mr. Rahman’s and Mrs. Adams’s cases not to give them and their families the benefit of the policy was conspicuously unfair and amounted to an abuse of power. The Court therefore quashed the decisions and ordered the Secretary of State to consider their applications under the policy.

However, in the case of Mrs. Abbassi, she and her family had completed their seven years about nine months after the withdrawal of the policy and her application failed.

Although this is a welcome decision, it is of serious concern that the Secretary of State has been implementing the withdrawal of the policy in a manner which the Court found to amount to an abuse of power.

It is also important to bear in mind that the withdrawal of the policy does not mean that long residence of families with children now counts for nothing. It is still a relevant factor to take into account in determining whether removal would violate the right to respect for family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, when the policy was withdrawn, the then Immigration Minister Mr. Woolas stated that the policy had been replaced ‘with consideration under the immigration rule and article 8 of the ECHR’.
Good luck all…

Administrative Court says that the Home Office must take account of withdrawn seven year child concession where
residence was accrued before policy’s withdrawal
November 18, 2010
R (on the application of (1) F Abbassi & Ors (2) M Rahman & Ors (3) O Adams & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin) concerned the 2008 withdrawal of the concessionary policy, DP 5/96, for children with seven years’ residence. The policy created a general presumption that indefinite leave to remain would be granted to families where one or more children had accumulated at least seven years’ continuous residence in the UK.

The Court found that where a family had completed seven years’ residence before the policy was withdrawn, then they were entitled to the benefit of the policy, even where they had not sought to regularise their position until after its withdrawal. It therefore found that the decisions in Mr. Rahman’s and Mrs. Adams’s cases not to give them and their families the benefit of the policy was conspicuously unfair and amounted to an abuse of power. The Court therefore quashed the decisions and ordered the Secretary of State to consider their applications under the policy.

However, in the case of Mrs. Abbassi, she and her family had completed their seven years about nine months after the withdrawal of the policy and her application failed.
Good Luck !!!!!

Hope things will go right for as in the future.