durhamboy

Thanks rasg. Ferries and Eurostar are not really feasible from where we live. Regarding your previous research a couple of questions :-

1. Do you know if the couple who boarded the plane were allowed entry to their schengen destination? 

2. Do you know of any instances of couples being refused boarding of the airplane?

Cheers

Thanks rasg. I don't think brexit has changed anything yet. At the moment we are still in the EU (although not the schengen) and therefore the rules should be the same until when and if we leave. We do particularly want to go to Bruges as I have a bit of a history there - I briefly worked for the Common Market in Bruges in the 1970's (ironic isn't it!).

The cost of us attending a personal appointment in London is probably more than a couple of cheap air tickets to Holland from where we live so I'm thinking of trying it without a visa. Not sure at the moment.

Thanks for your advice. I'll email [email protected] to see what they say and I'll post their response if they say anything worthwhile.

All seems a bit crazy to me. We're supposed to have free movement in the EU for spouses yet they seem to make it so difficult. My wife has already had her biometrics taken for her UK Residence Card (BRP). I took her to Dubai (UAE) recently. Yes she needed a visa but it was all done online with the minimum of fuss. No personal visit to embassy etc.

Frankly I'm beginning to wonder if it is worth it just for a 10 day holiday.

Any further comments/experience would be appreciated. Thanks.

Donutz, many thanks for the information. A lot of websites give similar advice although this is somewhat at odds with the websites that I quoted.

Where it says "a FREE visa which should be granted swiftly (accelerated procedure) and with minimum hassle." do you know if this means that the spouse still has to attend in person for an interview? If so, then as most people here do not live in London, this would cause a lot of hassle.

Once again, many thanks.

Thanks for your replies. With respect, I don't think it is as simple as you say. If you look at the website https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/apply-from-uk/ it says the following :-

"Does the spouse of British national with UK permanent residence need a Schengen visa?

Yes, the non-EU spouse of a UK national requires a visa to travel to the Schengen Area. However, if the following conditions are met then they are not required a visa:

• The spouse holds a UK Residence Permit that states that the holder is a family member of an EU/EEA National.
• Travelling with or joining the EEA/EU spouse."

Furthermore, if you look at the EU Directive 2004/38/EC on Free Movement - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32004L0038 - Article 5 says the following :-

"

Right of entry

1.   Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, Member States shall grant Union citizens leave to enter their territory with a valid identity card or passport and shall grant family members who are not nationals of a Member State leave to enter their territory with a valid passport.

No entry visa or equivalent formality may be imposed on Union citizens.

2.   Family members who are not nationals of a Member State shall only be required to have an entry visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 or, where appropriate, with national law. For the purposes of this Directive, possession of the valid residence card referred to in Article 10 shall exempt such family members from the visa requirement.

Member States shall grant such persons every facility to obtain the necessary visas. Such visas shall be issued free of charge as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure.

3.   The host Member State shall not place an entry or exit stamp in the passport of family members who are not nationals of a Member State provided that they present the residence card provided for in Article 10.

4.   Where a Union citizen, or a family member who is not a national of a Member State, does not have the necessary travel documents or, if required, the necessary visas, the Member State concerned shall, before turning them back, give such persons every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove by other means that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence.

5.   The Member State may require the person concerned to report his/her presence within its territory within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time. Failure to comply with this requirement may make the person concerned liable to proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions."

Therefore, to paraphrase, it seems that a family member (which includes a foreign spouse) does not require a visa if they have a valid residence card. The nagging question in my mind is whether the UK Residence Permit is a valid residence card or not. If not, then there is also the backstop (pardon the word!) of proving the spouse's status at the entry border to the schengen area (provided check-in staff at UK airports allow boarding of the plane).

The reason I am anxious not to have to get a free of charge visa for my wife is that I think she would need to have a 500 mile roundtrip to London to apply for the bloody thing.

Surely there must be some active members in this forum who have tried to go to the EU for a holiday without first getting a visa. Thanks.

My Thai wife has FLTR in the UK (till 2020) and a UK Residence Permit (BRP) which says "Spouse/Partner" under type of permit. We would like to take a short holiday together to Holland and Belgium in September. Assuming Brexit has not happened by then - does she need a schengen visa? 

Apologies if this question has been asked before (couldn't find an exact match when I did a search). I've researched various websites and they have conflicting advice. The more "reliable" websites say a visa is not required for the spouse of a UK citizen with a residence permit stating that he/she is a "family member of an EU/EEA national" My wife's BRP implies this but does not expressly state it. I suppose it could be interpreted that she may be the spouse of someone who is not an EU/EEA national but who has the right to live in the UK.

Anyone had recent experience of travelling with their spouse/partner to the EU in similar circumstances?

A few years ago (before BRPs I think) the advice was be on the safe side and get a visa (which should be free). However the Dutch embassy talks about applying in person in London for a visa which is a long way from where we live.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Now that the engagement of Prince Harry to an American citizen, Meghan Markle, has been announced and their intention is to marry and live in the UK does this mean that she will have to apply for a fiancee visa and go through many of the hoops that others have to e.g. 5 year route, Life in the UK Test, NHS surcharge etc.?

Trevor, 

I agree entirely with your sentiments about the absurd nature of this test. It is yet another hoop in this whole expensive and lengthy process. 

It is a requirement for ILR and therefore must be passed if you don't want to be applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years until your wife is 65.

What I have found difficulty in finding out is what happens in the exam room when they take this test. I have 2 queries in particular :-

1. Is there a voice-over options so the candidate can hear the questions rather than just having to read them?

2. Are the questions in upper or lower case?

I have heard that there is a voice-over which would be very useful. I have also heard that the questions are in upper case which would be a bit crazy because every test question from every website seems to be in lower case. I wrote to a test centre about this but never got a reply. 

Surely some of you people reading this have partners who have taken the test and can enlighten us. Thanks.

I've heard that the LITUK exam questions are all IN CAPITALS (i.e. upper case) whilst all the example questions seem to be in lower case. Does anyone know if this is true? Most Thai people are learning English in lower case e.g. email, computer, phones etc and are not so sure of upper case - e.g. the letter G and g are quite different. Many thanks.

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

So who do you guys think owns a limited company then?

It's the shareholders and stuart is a shareholder.

If stuart owns 30% of the company and it had £100million in the bank and no other debts and liabilities then stuart would own £300,000 of it. So if the company was liquidated by the shareholders he would get £300,000 paid into his own personal bank account.

And you guys call me a moron. Jesus!

Stuart - Yes she earns it but it's not exactly the same situation because she earns it from you and thereby REDUCES your income. Get real.

EL you say :-

"Incorrect.

It's coming from the company. Not stuarts money at all. The money is the companies not stuarts."

And stuart owns the company so it is his money. We're going round in circles.

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Well if you would like to quote where it says in the rules income cannot be used where a family member owns shares or is a director of that company I will agree with you.. Don't forget in one of my posts I explained we got her spouse visa with my PAYE income from a company I own shares in and also was a director of 6 months prior to the application... They make the rules and as long as I am applying within those rules they can't really refuse

Yes you got the visa before because it was your income. That's not the same as your proposal here. Here your wife is using your income.

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Why does she need a sponsor in terms of finance if she earns 18600 per year. She's self sufficient in terms of the requirements for the visa.

She is not self-sufficient because the money comes from stuart's company so it is his money that is paying her!

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

Durhamboy, do you know the difference between a person and a company?????

Yes I do - not only was I a commercial lawyer but I am also an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries. What a dumb question.

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

I think also people comparing a bloke with 10000 grand knocking up payslips for his wife is completely different from Stuart wife working for a Ltd company that her husband is a shareholder. The Ltd company is a separate entity the same way is if she was supplying wage slips from tesco. She's not working for Stuart she is working for the Ltd company

If you read my initial post (#23) where I introduced this possible ridiculous scenario I said that the bloke with £10k could set up a company. That could be a limited company in the same way that stuart's is a limited company.

It is not a separate entity the same as Tescos because both stuart and the bloke with £10k have an ownership of the companies. Thereby effectively they are paying someone in their own household which is precluded by section 4.2.

Apart from 7by7 none of you have explained why you think section 4.2 stops stuart and the 10k bloke from doing this. 7by7 at least attempted to justify it by saying it doesn't apply to sponsor and applicant but nowhere that I can see in these regulations does it say that.

If it can be done then virtually everyone could meet the financial requirements. You wouldn't really need the £10k just get a loan by remortgaging your house.

It really doesn't matter what HMRC think although it is a useful analogy. What matters is what UKVI think and if they know that stuart owns the company then alarm bells will ring.

Stuart - I can't understand your posts. One minute you're calling me a moron and the next minute you "like" my post (!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!!!!).

So stuart you think that a couple with just £10k in the bank and no income can get a visa? Can you please answer that before you call me a moron again?

You say that the only advice you were looking for was if you could use your wife's earnings alone. So wonderful you knows all about the financial regs of visas EXCEPT the very basic thing that you are asking about. Of course you can just use your wife's earnings. What I don't think you can do is pay her out of your pocket because in that case you contravene section 4.2 in my opinion.

Your response to that is that I am moronic. So you know everything - go ahead and risk a rejection.

Stuart - you are the one who started this thread and came looking for advice. It seems to me that you only want to hear advice that suits your purpose. If you think what I and others say is moronic then that is absolutely fine. We have no axes to grind and we are just trying to help. Maybe what you are proposing will work. Frankly I don't think it will because, as I've already pointed out, you cannot receive income from someone in the same household. Of course income can be combined as 7by7 says but that is not the same as income which comes out of the pocket of someone in the same household.

If what 7by7 is true then the ridiculous scenario I outlined of a couple with just £10,000 savings (see above) would be granted FLR. That cannot be right and section 4.2 means that it will not be accepted. I see nowhere in the rules that says section 4.2 does not mean applicant and sponsor. Slightly more complicated in your case because, as I understand it, you are a shareholder in a company. At the end of the day it's your wife's visa and your money (i.e. visa fee) so you do what the hell you like.

Finally to you and 7by7 - try and be a little more polite when dealing with advice that doesn't fit with your own views of the visa rules. Just dismissing other views as moronic and thinking that the rules are simple demonstrates great ignorance from both of you. I'm an ex-commercial lawyer and the Financial Regulations is a long and complex document that even I have trouble getting my head around. Good luck.

7by7 you say " "Income from others who live in the same household" means people who are neither the applicant nor sponsor."

Where does it say in the rules that this does not mean people who are the applicant or sponsor?

The only reason I can see for having this rule is that it is meant to cover the applicant and sponsor or else what would be the point of having this exclusion.

Actually 7by7 it is not ridiculous.

Your comment dismissing what I said led me to look at the rules. These say :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469692/Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement_August_2015.pdf

4.2. Sources that are not permitted

4.2.1. Income from the following sources will not be counted towards the financial requirement:  Any subsidy or financial support from a third party (other than child maintenance or alimony payments, academic maintenance grants/stipends or gifts of cash savings that meet the requirements specified in paragraph 1( of Appendix FM-SE).  Income from others who live in the same household (except any dependent child of the applicant who has turned 18 and continues to be counted towards the higher income threshold the applicant has to meet until they qualify for settlement).

As you can see it says income from others who live in the same household cannot be counted towards the financial requirement. So it would seem that in the scenario I gave the income would all be disallowed. In stuarts case I would imagine that the income that would be disallowed would be in proportion to his shareholding in the company e.g. if he owns 60% of the company then 60% would be disallowed.

However one caveat to what I say. This is a complex area of the rules (despite what you try to imply) and I am not entirely sure what the outcome would be.

Stuart, this is nothing to do with conspiracies or the rothschilds (?). We are trying to help you. The rules can be quite complex in certain areas especially with regards to self-employment. I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules but I think there must be some conditions applied in respect of a husband paying wages to his wife.

Let me give a possible scenario :-

UK man married to Thai wife applying for FLR in 6 months time. They have no jobs, no other income. They only have just over £10,000 in the bank. So in no way can they meet the financial requirements for FLR.

So man sets up a company and pays his wife £9300 for 6 months. So she can now demonstrate earnings of £18600 pa and thereby qualify for the visa. No income tax liability because she will earn less than her personal allowance for tax. She might even be able to claim tax credits! Only expenses would be minimal - cost of setting up a company plus possible national insurance costs.

If all this was possible to get the visa then everyone could do it so there surely must be stringent conditions against this contained in the visa rules.

Be interesting to hear what 7by7 has to say about it.