VisasPlus

The savings need to be in cash to count toward the financial requirement.

If he puts the money into a bond then it is only any income received from that which would count, not the value of the bond.

Can you know take your obsession with AP elsewhere and allow this topic to get back on topic?

That's fine then - he simply adds the equity cash payment into the Nottingham immediate access, non-resident, cash account running at 3.25% interest and restructures any mortgage he may have so he is not out of pocket. Simple.

Why do you always do this? Have your say, respond to a point and then tell other posters to stop? Its strange, like an obsession to have the last word / say.

Anyway, Angry will read this now and we have helped him.

Back on topic and it may also benefit the OP in that he could go down this route and his Thai LTFs can be kept in cash (inclduing the soon to mature second LTF mentioned)

There might be a problem. The sponsor has to declare the source of his savings ( especially if they have recently been deposited ). If he declares the truth ( which he must do) then the use of the equity as savings will not be allowed. Paragraph 20(d) of the Appendix states :

20(d) Equity in a property cannot be used to meet the financial requirement.

Now, whether the savings are "savings", or still regarded as having been equity, could be a debating point. I think the intention of the rule is that you can't say " my house is worth a million, so I have a million", but the rule, taken literally, could be a problem.

The money would also need to be in the account for 6 months, of course.

Lots of discussion points here:

Firstly, the "savings" do have to be under the sponsor's control, not just in his possession, which does rather rule out long term bonds, etc. It will be interesting to see how the appeal courts in the UK might interpret " under their control".

Secondly, the rule changes which come into force on 13th December have changed the goalposts slightly. It looks like any employment in the previous 12 months can be used ( the total gross income) to meet the requirement, not just the last 6 months worth of wage slips. The current rules require that, if with the same employer for at least 6 months, then the last 6 months of wage slips must be provided. From these 6 months, the lowest month will be used, and multiplied by 12 to give an "annual" income. So, if you had a month with no salary (sickness, etc) you couldn't qualify ( your annual income would be nil). This looks to have changed. The new rules ( from 13/12/12) say :

2. In respect of salaried employment in the UK, all of the following evidence must be provided:

(a) Wage slips covering:

(i) a period of 6 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months (and where paragraph 13(b ) of this Appendix does not apply); or

(ii) any period of salaried employment in the period of 12 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) of this Appendix), or in the financial year(s) relied upon by a self-employed person.

(b ) A letter from the employer(s) who issued the wage slips at paragraph 2(a) confirming:

(i) the person's employment and gross annual salary;

(ii) the length of their employment;

(iii) the period over which they have been or were paid the level of salary relied upon in the application; and

(iv) the type of employment (permanent, fixed-term contract or agency).

(b ) Personal bank statements corresponding to the same period(s) as the wage slips at paragraph 2(a), showing that the salary has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly.

and then :

13. Based on evidence that meets the requirements of this Appendix, and can be taken into account with reference to the applicable provisions of Appendix FM, gross annual income under paragraphs E-ECP.3.1., E-LTRP.3.1., E-ECC.2.1. and E-LTRC.2.1. will be calculated in the following ways:

(a) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months, their gross annual income will be (where paragraph 13(b ) does not apply) the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from their employment as it was at its lowest level in the 6 months prior to the date of application;

(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and

(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

(b ) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) , their gross annual income will be the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from employment as it was at the date of application;

(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and

(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

I take this to read that any income in the 12 months prior to the date of application can be used. In theory, if you earned enough in, for instance, 9 months of employment but took the last 3 months off, then that will still meet the requirement.

The rules also say, in respect of employment outside of the UK, for a sponsor returning to the UK :

3. In respect of salaried employment outside of the UK, evidence should be a reasonable equivalent to that set out in paragraph 2.

4. In respect of a job offer in the UK (for an applicant's partner or parent's partner returning to salaried employment in the UK at paragraphs E-ECP.3.2.(a) and E-ECC.2.2.(a) of Appendix FM) a letter from the employer must be provided:

(a) confirming the job offer, the gross annual salary and the starting date of the employment which must be within 3 months of the applicant's partner's return to the UK; or

(b ) enclosing a signed contract of employment, which must have a starting date within 3 months of the applicant's partner's return to the UK.

So, if the sponsor earned enough money overseas in his last year, then he would seem to meet the requirement, but the requirements of paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Appendix FM-SE must be met. With respect to all, that is a lot to post here.

Karen,

These are the changes ( for sponsors in salaried employment in the UK). Paragraph 2 is the financial requirement, and paragraph 13 is how you can meet it :

2. In respect of salaried employment in the UK, all of the following evidence must be provided:

(a) Wage slips covering:

(i) a period of 6 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months (and where paragraph 13(b ) of this Appendix does not apply); or

(ii) any period of salaried employment in the period of 12 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) of this Appendix), or in the financial year(s) relied upon by a self-employed person.

13. Based on evidence that meets the requirements of this Appendix, and can be taken into account with reference to the applicable provisions of Appendix FM, gross annual income under paragraphs E-ECP.3.1., E-LTRP.3.1., E-ECC.2.1. and E-LTRC.2.1. will be calculated in the following ways:

(a) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months, their gross annual income will be (where paragraph 13((b ) does not apply) the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from their employment as it was at its lowest level in the 6 months prior to the date of application;

(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and

(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

(iv ) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) , their gross annual income will be the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from employment as it was at the date of application;

(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and

(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

So, it looks like, if your total salary for the 12 months prior to the date of application was 18,600 or more, then it doesn't matter is you had a low salary ( or nil salary) for any one of those 12 months. The changes come into effect on 13th December 2012.

i only earnt 14,000 last year, just a shame about my rent money not going into my bank, anyway i,ve sorted that now all rent is going into my bank, but sounds like i,ll still have to do another tourist visa....thanks again tony

tony, i,ve got this all wrong,,ok i earnt 14k last year but i havent included the tax and national insurance i payed. i also will have one months rent money of 800 pounds or if i wait another month, thats 2 months 1600..plus tax and national insurance...i think i might scrape it over the 12 month period...am i writing correct

It might be okay, but I would like to see the documents to confirm it.

Is that correct 747 you cannot get married on a VV? sorry then please disregard my last post I had no idea of this fact. Also ruins number 91 on my bucket list, import a flip ladyboy and marry her dressed as Elvis. These ECO's are nothing more than dream wrecking nazis

Or, better still, both you dress as Elvis - like a his and hers graceland gig.

GaryUK also said - "That would be a breach of a visitor visa, it specifically bars you from getting married. To do that I'd have to apply for a Fiance visa with all the extra requirements that entails."

The requirements for a visit visa include this at paragrapgh 41(x): "does not, during his visit, intend to marry or form a civil partnership, or to give notice of marriage or civil partnership;" .

You can interpret "does not intend during his visit " in different ways. Was the intention there before the visa was applied for, or did the couple decide to marry at as later stage ( during the visit to UK, for instance) ? There is, of a course, a specific visa that enables a visitor to marry in the UK, so a fiancee visa is not the only other choice. Paragrapgh 56D says :

56D. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor for marriage or civil partnership are that he:

(i) meets the requirements set out in paragraph 41 (i) - (ix) and (xi) - (xii); and

(ii) can show that he intends to give notice of marriage or civil partnership, or marry or form a civil partnership, in the United Kingdom within the period for which entry is sought; and

(iii) can produce satisfactory evidence, if required to do so, of the arrangements for giving notice of marriage or civil partnership, or for his wedding or civil partnership to take place, in the United Kingdom during the period for which entry is sought; and

(iv) holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity.

This is the website of a reputable school that teachers English. The website contains the prices and hours for normal courses, but I'm sure that they can pattern special courses, at a price of course. Contact them direct for further info:http://www.tlslanguageschool.com/

CTLS ( tls language school) do advertise an A1 level test, but I believe that you have to do their English course leading up to the test. I'm not sure about that as we have not had any applicants that have used them. I did contact them to ask for details of costs, etc, but never got a reply on that. If I do hear from them I will post details.

PM the poster know as Visaplus - he has an accredited school. Or contact vantage Siam.

We no longer have a test centre. There are three in Bangkok.

The requirements are actually published. Here:

The Appendix FM-SE is changed by the new immigration rules ( from 13th December 2012). The changes are to be found in HC 760 :

hc760.pdf

Karen,

These are the changes ( for sponsors in salaried employment in the UK). Paragraph 2 is the financial requirement, and paragraph 13 is how you can meet it :

2. In respect of salaried employment in the UK, all of the following evidence must be provided:

(a) Wage slips covering:

(i) a period of 6 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months (and where paragraph 13(b ) of this Appendix does not apply); or

(ii) any period of salaried employment in the period of 12 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) of this Appendix), or in the financial year(s) relied upon by a self-employed person.

13. Based on evidence that meets the requirements of this Appendix, and can be taken into account with reference to the applicable provisions of Appendix FM, gross annual income under paragraphs E-ECP.3.1., E-LTRP.3.1., E-ECC.2.1. and E-LTRC.2.1. will be calculated in the following ways:

(a) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months, their gross annual income will be (where paragraph 13((b ) does not apply) the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from their employment as it was at its lowest level in the 6 months prior to the date of application;

(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and

(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

(iv ) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) , their gross annual income will be the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from employment as it was at the date of application;

(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and

(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

So, it looks like, if your total salary for the 12 months prior to the date of application was 18,600 or more, then it doesn't matter is you had a low salary ( or nil salary) for any one of those 12 months. The changes come into effect on 13th December 2012.

Nothing stopping him from applying now; but he would need to convince the ECO that he has a valid reason for needing to visit the UK again so soon after a 5 month visit. As his reason is to be with you while you are working, I doubt this would be acceptable.

He was in the UK for 5 months and will presumably want to spend the full 6 months next time. So to avoid possibly falling foul of the 'no more than 6 months out of any 12' convention I'd suggest 6 months after he left the UK, i.e. 1st March 2013. He can submit his application up to 3 months before this and ask for the visa to start on 1st March.

Remember that if he does apply earlier than this and the ECO does grant him a visa, for example because he says he only wants to stay a month or less, that he could still be refused entry when he arrives in the UK if immigration feel that, on the balance of probabilities, he will be spending more than 6 months out of 12 in the UK as a visitor.

7 by 7 could you give me a link on where it says i can apply 3 months earlier,,,for a visit visa,,thankyou

Karen,

I don't remember all the background to your proposed settlement application ( as was ). There have been changes ( yesterday) to the rules, or, rather, to the specified evidence to show that you can meet the financial requirement. I haven't got my head around it all yet, but it looks like a sponsor might be able to use the whole previous year's gross annual salary, even if there are months missing ( for instance, you were in Thailand for 2 months ). If you remember, you had to provide all of the previous 6 months wage slips, and the lowest monthly salary was multiplied by 12 to give a gross annual salary. It looks like ( and, as I said, I'm still trying to work it out ) you can choose the option to provide evidence of 12 months wage slips, and those 12 months must meet the 18,600 threshold. I hope I'm getting it right, and forgive me If I'm wrong.

Changes to the poorly crafted immigration rules have been announced. They will come into effect on 13th December. This is the link :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/immigration/statement-policy-immig-rules

And these are the new rules :

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/statementsofchanges/2012/hc760.pdf?view=Binary

There are minor changes to many parts of the legislation, and to Appendix FM-SE, including the requirement for sole responsibility. That loophole didn't last long.

So how about adding a service charge to your bill, and then giving it all to the server(s) ? That way everyone has a smile on their face. If the customers are not happy with paying for service ( that is, they didn't get good service) then they can vote with their feet, and drink/eat elsewhere. If they like your service, then they will happily return and pay the service charge. You can presumably make the service charge anything you want ? 1%, 3%, 5% ? A 1% service charge on a 99 THB bill will sort out ( almost) that pesky 1 Baht.

Left hand, right hand Tony

Really wants to make you trust their information !

Yesterday we had tried to make an appointment at VFS for 23rd, and they told us ( we phoned them ) that all appointments were full for that day !

Aside, and I am wrong, but if the applicant is applying for a family visit visa and not the Settlement visa - how would anyone even know that they were being foreced into it? Quite simply, they know they wouldnt qualify so they just apply for the visit visa, sort out their affairs and then apply for settlment.

Of course, you would know as an agent as your client would likely have sort your advice etc but John public doing the application on his own wouldn't be informing anyone unless, as you rightly say, it was refused and went to appeal.

Cheers

It will depend on how the application is presented. Applicants could lie, and say that they are both returning after a 6 month visit to the UK. Or, they could tell the truth, and say that only the Thai partner is coming back after the visit. Either way, the ECO now knows that the goalposts have now been moved, and some applicants who really want to settle in the UK are unable to qualify, and will be trying to circumvent the rules by obtaining visit visas.

Good to hear that we were able to help your friend.

I am sure that you have obtained visit visas for a plethora of applicants in the poster known as Angry's situation.

Not really, as this is whole new situation. We haven't really had the situation before where an applicant wants a settlement visa, but is forced to apply for a visit visa because the sponsor is not in a financial position to sponsor a settlement visa, they live together but the sponsor must return to UK, and the couple want to be together. There are also human rights implications, of course, but I doubt if an appeal could be won on those grounds alone.

It's an interesting scenario. Both Saudi Sid and 7x7 have made valid points. Saudi Sid's comment - "So, there is no reason to break up a family as they can apply for a 6 month visa IF the the Brit spouse needs to return to find a job." - is, however, rather simplistic. Of course, they can apply for a visit visa, but that certainly does not mean that a visa will be issued. As 7x7 says, the reasons for return, on the part of the Thai applicant are very different when the UK sponsor is not returning too.

That said, I would be very happy to try to obtain a visit visa for an applicant in these circumstances. It would be a "family visit" application, attracting a right of appeal, and UKBA would have to defend any refusal decision at appeal. That would be interesting !

To be honest I think it depends on individual circumstance. I don't think it is as easy as 'just get a visit visa AND THEN apply for a settlement'. I think UKBA will be looking a bit harder at these applications thinking that people maybe using it the get their foot in the door and not leave once the visa has ended, break the rules and work

This is the worry I have with my application. Although I earn above the required amount I took a months unpaid leave when I found out I was pregnant to go and stay with my husband. That means for one month I was only paid my shift enhancement of about £200 instead of by basic pay. £200 x 12 = 2400/year according to the new rules. As I'm on mat leave I have to submit wage slips 6 months prior to my leaving and sadly that includes this wage slip. I'm not due back of mat leave until the end of April.

I would apply for a visit visa but as my husband has not property (lves rent free in his bosses shop), has no fixed income (he works commission only) and only has a verbal contract with his boss I don't have any evidence but my word he will return to Thaland at the end of the visa to apply for settlement. I don't think this will be enough of UKBA and I think there will be many more people in this position.

You are right that there are many more people in this situation. The government were aware that when they introduced the 18,600 GBP a year threshold something like 45% of new, or potential, applicants would be unable to meet the requirement.

I'm being informed by a lawyer on another forum that my assessment above is wrong, and that "sole responsibility" still applies. Presumably that means that the UKBA response is also wrong. I have asked for a fuller explanation of how and why sole responsibility still applies in the scenario described. I will keep the post updated.

I think I've found your discussion, and that's not quite what he said. He pointed out that Paragraph A280(d) keeps Paragraph 301 alive for families of members of HM Forces. Also, as I said in my previous post, Paragraph 297 (for parents settled in the UK) still has a sole responsibility clause.

He's also advising against trusting the Immigration Directorate Instructions. The current version was written before A280(f) was added, which resuscitated Paragraph 301 for children of parents who got limited leave to remain under the old rules.

I'm not sure that you are correct. He understands exactly what I was saying, but he doesn't agree with it, even though UKBA do.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "switching". People cannot switch between sections of the law that are more favourable to them, at least not in this matter, although it would indeed be favourable to them !.

Well, there may be people granted a fiancée visa under the old rules who could switch by letting the visa lapse and applying for a new one. Spouses could fail to apply for ILR. (Old ILR would take two years to lose.) As far as I am aware, it is not as tricky as trying to upgrade from British citizenship by descent to a British citizenship by naturalisation. None of these methods are appealing, and the Surinder Singh route would probably be better.

I fear the question you posed might be considered ambiguous - the mother could have been granted indefinite leave to enter. My reading of the rules is as follows. If custody of the child is actively shared between the biological parents, one is settled in the UK and the other is resident in Thailand, then the sole responsibility rule of Paragraph 297 still applies, in virtue of Paragraph A280(. However, if one has been admitted under the new rules to the UK with a view to settlement and the other is resident in Thailand, then Appendix FM Section EC-C applies and sole responsibility is irrelevant!

Whether ECOs, adjudicators and judges will agree that this is what Parliament intended is another matter. (Personally, I don't believe Parliament gave any thought to the matter.) It would also be consistent with an intent to abolish sole responsibility except for applications under the old rules, except that through exceptional circumstances (e.g. bereavement), indefinite leave might conceivably already have been granted under the new rules!

I thought the scenario I put to UKBA was simple . It said :

The applicant wishes to join his mother in the UK. His mother applied for, and was granted a visa ( and leave to enter ) after 9^th July 2012. The child applicant will therefore fall to be considered under Appendix FM. Is sole responsibility a consideration ?

So, it was clear that the mother had not been granted ILE or ILR under the old rules.

There's quite a bit of chat about 'Rental Income' being useful in reaching the new £18,600 requirement. But the UKBA clearly states that income from one's Main Residence cannot be counted. So, what does that exactly mean ? It is important for me and could be for many others because many ex-pats have a property (their own) which they rent out while abroad. IF 'main residence' just means the place one lives when back in the UK, then that opens the obvious possibility of leaving the tenants where they are and the rental money coming in, and going elsewhere to live in a rented place oneself. This would be especially handy if the rent from one's own property was a lot more than the rent on a little rented place. It gets even more interesting if one's own property was originally bought on a 'But-To-Let' basis (mine was) but has since been lived in as one's own home - but the mortgage remains a buy-to-let. So what exactly is one's 'main residence' - where one lives or what one owns or pays a mortgage on - and how would UKBA deal with the situation i describe ?

I think what they are saying is that any rent from a lodger living in the same house as you cannot be counted as rental income. Unless, it is a self contained flat, or similar, and then that would not be your main residence, as you are not living in it.

Hi, thanks for that. I understand the part about not being able to include Rent from a Lodger sharing one's house, but your answer does not touch on my main question : what IS one's 'main residence', and could one count Rental Income if one had made the decision to leave tenants in place and go to a smaller rented place oneself. It should be simple really but as so often with government texts isn't - is one's 'main residence' where one is LIVING, or the property one OWNS ? I might be being stupid here - say so if that's the case - but i don't think you have answered that.

There is no single answer to your main question. You can look at these, and make your own decision :

You can use this ( re Council tax) :

http://www.bristol.g... Discount_0.pdf

or this :

Sole or Main Residence

There is no legal definition of sole or main residence, the principles for determination are those that were established under community charge and in subsequent case law.

The following factors should be considered:-

‘Sole or main residence’ implies that the resident has to actually live in the dwelling

If a person has never lived in the dwelling in question, it cannot be their ‘sole or main residence’.

Not everyone has a sole or main residence

Residence implies a degree of permanence – security of tenure might have a bearing, but is not conclusive;

Temporary presence at an address does not make a person resident there;

Temporary absence does not deprive a person of residence, for example in the case of a mariner;

The lawfulness or otherwise of any home is irrelevant in considering whether that place is the individual’s residence;

In determining whether a person not present at a given place is legally resident there, it is relevant to ascertain whether that person intends to return, and whether or not he or she could return without breach of any public or private obligation.

Or this :

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A person's primary residence, or main residence is the dwelling where they usually live, typically a house or an apartment. A person can only have one primary residence at any given time, though they may share the residence with other people. A primary residence is considered as a legal residence for the purpose of income tax and/or acquiring a mortgage.

Criteria for a primary residence consist mostly of guidelines rather than hard rules, and residential status is often determined on a case-by-case basis.

Or this :

Sole or Main Residence

A person is regarded as living in a property for council tax purposes if it is their sole or main residence. Although this is straightforward if a person only has one home, when a person has more than one home we have to decide which is their main residence.

Main residence is not defined in law but over the last few years there have been a number of tribunal / court cases to decide what is and is not main residence. The kind of things we will take into account in deciding somebody's main residence are based on judgements from these cases and include the following:

Security of Tenure / Rights of Occupation

Personal Ties

Family Ties

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "switching". People cannot switch between sections of the law that are more favourable to them, at least not in this matter, although it would indeed be favourable to them !.

I was confused by the lack of any mention of sole responsibility in the new rules, and it is mostly early days for dependants of a sponsor granted a visa under the new rules to be applying to join them. However, I put a simple scenario to the UKBA :

The applicant wishes to join his mother in the UK. His mother applied for, and was granted a visa ( and leave to enter ) after 9^th July 2012. The child applicant will therefore fall to be considered under Appendix FM. Is sole responsibility a consideration ?

I have today received this response :

"You are correct that in this scenario there is no sole responsibility requirement to be met. This point is currently under review and may be subject to change in the near future."

It looks to me like someone forgot all about sole responsibility when they drafted the new rules, and UKBA are now in the position of having to try to retrieve the situation as quickly as possible. What it does mean is that the OP here, if he was applying for a settlement visa for his girlfriend/wife, and her child, now, he would not have to worry about whether the child lives with his mother or any other relative, come to that. Sole custody would not have to be proved. I suspect that by the time the OP comes to applying, then this loophole will have been fixed by UKBA.

This is, however, a pretty major loophole in the Rules at the moment, so take advantage while you can ! Mods may wish to make a separate thread of this information ?

I'm being informed by a lawyer on another forum that my assessment above is wrong, and that "sole responsibility" still applies. Presumably that means that the UKBA response is also wrong. I have asked for a fuller explanation of how and why sole responsibility still applies in the scenario described. I will keep the post updated.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "switching". People cannot switch between sections of the law that are more favourable to them, at least not in this matter, although it would indeed be favourable to them !.

I was confused by the lack of any mention of sole responsibility in the new rules, and it is mostly early days for dependants of a sponsor granted a visa under the new rules to be applying to join them. However, I put a simple scenario to the UKBA :

The applicant wishes to join his mother in the UK. His mother applied for, and was granted a visa ( and leave to enter ) after 9^th July 2012. The child applicant will therefore fall to be considered under Appendix FM. Is sole responsibility a consideration ?

I have today received this response :

"You are correct that in this scenario there is no sole responsibility requirement to be met. This point is currently under review and may be subject to change in the near future."

It looks to me like someone forgot all about sole responsibility when they drafted the new rules, and UKBA are now in the position of having to try to retrieve the situation as quickly as possible. What it does mean is that the OP here, if he was applying for a settlement visa for his girlfriend/wife, and her child, now, he would not have to worry about whether the child lives with his mother or any other relative, come to that. Sole custody would not have to be proved. I suspect that by the time the OP comes to applying, then this loophole will have been fixed by UKBA.

This is, however, a pretty major loophole in the Rules at the moment, so take advantage while you can ! Mods may wish to make a separate thread of this information ?

There's quite a bit of chat about 'Rental Income' being useful in reaching the new £18,600 requirement. But the UKBA clearly states that income from one's Main Residence cannot be counted. So, what does that exactly mean ? It is important for me and could be for many others because many ex-pats have a property (their own) which they rent out while abroad. IF 'main residence' just means the place one lives when back in the UK, then that opens the obvious possibility of leaving the tenants where they are and the rental money coming in, and going elsewhere to live in a rented place oneself. This would be especially handy if the rent from one's own property was a lot more than the rent on a little rented place. It gets even more interesting if one's own property was originally bought on a 'But-To-Let' basis (mine was) but has since been lived in as one's own home - but the mortgage remains a buy-to-let. So what exactly is one's 'main residence' - where one lives or what one owns or pays a mortgage on - and how would UKBA deal with the situation i describe ?

I think what they are saying is that any rent from a lodger living in the same house as you cannot be counted as rental income. Unless, it is a self contained flat, or similar, and then that would not be your main residence, as you are not living in it.

Have you actually read the Immigration Directorate Instructions document I linked to earlier; which explains the financial requirement in full?

A firm job offer on your return to the UK does count, provided you have also been earning at least £18,600 p..a. outside the UK for at least the 6 months prior to your return.

Savings above £16,000 will reduce the amount of required income on a sliding scale; the more savings you have above this the less income you need until savings of £62,000 or more mean that no income is required.

These savings can be gifted to you by a family member or friend, but they must be a gift, not a loan and have been in your possession and under your complete control for at least 6 months.

You say that you own property in the UK. Do you live in it when in the UK or do you rent it out. Rental income does count towards the financial requirement; see 'Property Rental Income' in section 5.4.3 of the document.

Your husband could apply for another visit visa, but you have said he has only recently returned to Thailand after spending 5 months in the UK. There is no actual rule, but the convention is that a visitor should not normally spend more than 6 months out of 12 in the UK. Unless there is an exceptional reason for his needing to make another long visit to the Uk so soon after his last one he will probably be refused.

Even if he were to get another visit visa the maximum time he could spend in the UK would be 6 months and he would not be able to work.

Most of us here have had to spend months separated from our loved one whilst their visa was sorted out; in my case it was close to 6 months between my leaving Thailand and my wife finally arriving to live with me in the UK. Looking back now, nearly 12 years later, the wait was not only worth it, but doesn't seem so long; though at the time it seemed like forever!

Whether one agrees with the new financial requirements or not (personally I agree with some, but not all) these are the rules and if you want your husband to live with you in the UK you and he will have to follow them.

In an ideal world there would be no need for visas and anyone would be able to live anywhere with whomever they choose; but it's not an ideal world.

Hi, great thread, thanks. I was very interested to read this from you -

"You say that you own property in the UK. Do you live in it when in the UK or do you rent it out. Rental income does count towards the financial requirement; see 'Property Rental Income' in section 5.4.3 of the document."

Because the guidance in the UKBA notes left me in the dark about the situation regarding rental income. It seems pretty dogmatic that rental income from one's 'MAIN RESIDENCE' can not be counted. This seems to refer to, for example, money coming from having a lodger in the house one is also living in. But it says nothing about the situation of someone returning to the UK who has their own house already rented out, and then takes on a rented place to live in, leaving the tenants and the rental income as it is. The problem i see is around how they define 'main residence' ? Is it for example, one's own property (still mortgaged or paid off), at which one is registered with the council and the doctor etc ? If rental income is allowed from one's own house, it would make a very big difference to my annual income and get me close to the £18,600 requirement when added to state pension and some small investment interest.

I think what they are saying is that any rent from a lodger living in the same house as you cannot be counted as rental income. Unless, it is a self contained flat, or similar, and then that would not be your main residence, as you are not living in it.

Your current hypothesis falls down on the fact that paragraph 301 does not exist any more. It was removed when the new rules came into force on the 9th July 2012.

The replacement of Section 8 (Family Members) for completely new cases by Appendix FM was not at all obvious. (The continuing relevance of paragraph 301 for old cases was not stated until September!)

I'm not sure what your point is ?