Eff1n2ret

I hope you have ensured a reliable supply of back copies of the Daily Mirror and the Sun in which to wrap these delicacies.

If you mean naturalisation as a British citizen, the 'qualifying period' is set out quite clearly on this page under 'Residential Requirements':-

http://www.ukba.home...rtnerofcitizen/

That doesn't seem anything like as 'poorly defined' as your confusing post.

The OP is not doing anything illegal. Unfortunately some Immigration Officers anywhere in the world seem to struggle with the concept of dual nationality - a friend who is a dual Thai/Brit national had a problem when she arrived at BKK for the first time for many years and presented both her Brit passport and the new Thai passport which had been issued in London. The IO refused to admit her as a Thai citizen and insisted on stamping her Brit passport as a visitor.

If he presents a pristine Brit passport at the Malaysian border the question uppermost in the IO's mind should be whether it is genuine and whether he is the rightful holder thereof, so he can expect to be held up for a bit and will probably also have to produce his Aussie passport by way of explanation. Thereafter it would be up to the MYS IO which document he chooses to endorse.

He might as well have a go. The cost of a new Oz passport is probably less than the airfare to Penang/KL.

I agree with the OP about hotel prices in the UK - they are prohibitively expensive, and I wouldn't go back there if I couldn't stay with friends and family - the trick is not to outstay one's welcome. This will be the third summer I go back for a few weeks, and every year I wonder if it will be the last time as airfares become more expensive. The real irritation for me is the differential between buying tickets BKK-LHR-BKK and LHR-BKK-LHR on the same flights.

7by7, on 2012-05-21 23:28:35, said:

I suspect it is just covering their backs by sticking to the letter of the Rule which says  "the applicant provides an original English language test certificate in speaking and listening from an English language test provider approved by the Secretary of State for these purposes". The companies approved are those 5 main companies on the UKBA list, and whilst some of the operators in Thailand may be direct subsidiaries, others are independent companies acting as agents. Were one of those latter to decide to issue a certificate of their own, and were listed as a test provider by the Bangkok embassy or VFS, there could be a legal challenge some way down the line. A bit picky, I know, but stranger things have happened.

Another reason may be that if the list doesn't include absolutely every possible local test provider, they are open to charges of unfairness, and establishing a comprehensive up-to-date list may be a hassle they do not want. I seem to remember some post on this or another forum where someone had been told by VFS that a certain company providing one of the Cambridge tests wasn't approved because it wasn't on their list, but it was listed on the Cambridge website.

What I can't understand is why none of these test providers have responded to the market and provided a test which meets the customers' requirements. It's absolute nonsense to make candidates take reading and writing tests that they don't need because that is the only exam on offer. They could easily create a "speaking and listening" qualification if they wanted. At the time the new list was created I had some discussions with one of the companies (who don't offer tests in Thailand), and their attitudes and practices seemed to be stuck in the 1960s. It certainly wasn't a practical business opportunity.