durhamboy

Trevor - you are right that you do not need your wife's first marriage cert. Also Thai year 2541 is indeed 1998.

Can you recall what you put in the initial Settlement Visa application? It seems everything was accepted then.

Frankly I very much doubt that anyone would pick up on the apparent error in the divorce cert and even if they did I would say that it is not a material error or ommission on your part.

Yes Rob, and at the end of the day we are going there to put money into their economies! I have cancelled a holiday before because of the difficulty of getting a visa - Italy about 15 years ago. Sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot. A little more customer care would not go amiss.

Whilst I can understand the argument that it is better to get a visa and be safe I still find it all faintly ridiculous when our Thai spouses have the right to visit Europe without a visa.

In getting this unnecessary visa we are expected to :-

1. Get our marriage certificate translations certified by the Thai Embassy.

2. Possible be asked for visa and admin fees.

3. Spend money on registered post for our documents.

4. Have our passports and other docs out of our hands for a period of time with the possibility that they may be lost.

There was one case recently where the couple just went (to France I think) without a visa and there was no problem. Are we all just getting a bit too paranoid?

_{You may not need to provide evidence of meeting the English language requirement if you have previously done so as part of a successful application for leave as a partner}

_{https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419920/Appendix_FM_Section_1_21.pdf}

_{Under paragraph 32D of Appendix FM-SE if an applicant under the partner or parent routes submits an English language test certificate or result and the Home Office has already accepted it as part of a successful previous partner or parent application (but not where the application was refused, even if on grounds other than the English language requirement), the decision-maker may accept that certificate or result as valid if it is:}

_{(a) from a provider which is no longer approved, or}

_{b. from a provider who remains approved but the test the applicant has taken with that provider is no longer approved, or}

_{© from a test centre which is no longer approved, or}

_{(d) past its validity date (if a validity date is required under Appendix O),}

_{provided that when the subsequent application is made:}

_{(i) the applicant has had continuous leave (disregarding any period of overstaying of no more than 28 days) as a partner or parent since the Home Office accepted the test certificate as valid; and}

2. _{the award to the applicant does not fall within the circumstances set out in paragraph 32B of Appendix FM-SE.}

So Rob, your wife's Bulats pass should be acceptable. Btw i have recently applied for my wife's FLR on the above basis.

Yes Trevor - it is a 74 page form much of which is either irrelevant or a duplication of info already submitted. Whilst I think my wife and I fulfil all the criteria for FLR there is always that nagging doubt that I may have ticked the wrong box or some other minor error. The English language part is very confusing. I have double checked and triple checked. What if the person assessing the application isn't up to speed with everything? Just another load of bureaucratic expensive nonsense i.m.o.

Is a UK BRP sufficient evidence along with the marriage cert?

Hi Greg, I have just applied for my wife's FLR (and still awaiting the result). I used the same form (updated April 15) and I also found it confusing. I believe the transitional arrangements it refers to are related to other changes in approved testers. Before I sent the FLR form I double checked that 32D was still in effect and it is. I made specific reference to it in the place for Other Information on the form. I know of one other poster on TVE whose wife had her FLR accepted with a BULATS test previously accepted - sorry I can't recall his name.

Btw, my wife's BRP letter came through from the Home Office. Not sure if that is a sign that her FLR is accepted. Anyone know?

I may be wrong but isn't there a rule that bank statements need to be provided for the period up to 28 days before the date of the application. I think that is the case for FLR applications.

There will always be a time lag in the system - especially if the ECO takes 3 months to make a decision.

Trevor, I think you can get an IHS surcharge refund. In the website where you make your payment and get a reference number there is a refunds section. No idea how good it is but good luck.

I agree Woolly - keith would be taking a drastic step after having come this far. I think it just highlights the frustration and unfairness of the system. More and more hoops and costs.

Also, as keith alludes to, I really question these wonderful benefits of ILR - the main benefit is no longer having to go through and pay for all the pallava. What do you really get? The right to claim benefits - most people work and pay in to the system. A UK passport (once you've paid a further grand for citizenship etc) which means you can go to Europe without a visa - something which is an EU Treaty right anyway for the wife of an EU national.

Oh yes, and you can vote - almost certain to be meaningless in a first past the post system.

7by7 - good point when you say :-

"It is setting the fees way above the government’s own calculations of the actual costs involved, over double the cost for the initial visa and FLR and nearly four times the cost for ILR and similar profits on most other categories, which I object to."

The cost of ILR is now £1500. Presumably the "so called" cost to the government remains around £278. Therefore the charge is well over 5 times the cost!!!!!!!!!!

Can anyone justify why FLR is £649 (bad enough in itself!) and ILR is £1500? I can't.

Interesting isn't it? We get a lot of stories like the ones above of horrendous treatment by vfs and visa denials yet apparently there is a 95% success rate in obtaining visas! Someone's telling porkies somewhere.

No I don't think they need to be signed. The lady in the bank just did that as it is part of my bank's procedures.

Benefits of living in the UK such as free schooling are the right of the people paid for by taxpayers. Most, if not all, sponsors will have paid a lifetime of taxes to the UK government and therefore it is their right to have free schooling etc for their family. Same with NHS treatment.

As for the cost to the government of issuing visas it seems we have to accept what they say without an explanation as to how they calculate the figures. It is in their interests to make them as high as possible. In accountancy, apportionment of fixed overheads is always a contentious issue. In short, I think these costs are over-inflated.

Also look at the increases in visa fees over the last 15 years and compare that to the rate of inflation.

Sorry 7by7 that's not strictly true. I just did my wife's FLR and needed up to date statements from my bank (a well known high street bank). I have 5 different a/cs and they printed off all the statements, stamped them and signed them at no cost.

Furthermore 7by7 I would question how the government calculates the cost of visas - £378 for SV and £278 for FLR/ILR seems excessive to me.

Are they direct fees i.e. fees that you can directly attribute to the visas or, as I suspect, do they include a proportion of overhead? E.g. is the cost of the Home Office buildings and support staff apportioned out to the services provided. Probably yes.

yes 7by7 I think your maths are correct.

samsong101 - you can also use other sources of income to reach the £18600 figure e.g. interest income. You mention cash savings so it's likely you have some interest income. That would at least reduce the amount of cash savings you require - for every £1 of income reduces the cash savings needed by £2.50.

Actually MAGIC I haven't personally heard anyone complain about the value for money of the health surcharge. The complaints I and others have made are that this comes on top of extornionate visa fees and some spouses/partners are already paying their National Insurance contributions out of their work pay and so they are double paying for the service.

I agree with your figure of £5,000 for the whole process. Unlike you I do begrudge it because in my opinion it is a government money making exercise that takes advantage of a captive market.

I've just applied for my wife's FLR.

You can still use cash savings and combine it with any other income except that from self-employment.

Cash savings must be held by you for at least 6 months - so you'll need 6 months bank statements for that. I imagine that they will use the LOWEST balance in the account in the last 6 months to determine the amount that qualifies.

Income is over the last 12 months so I think it is best to include the last 12 months bank statements for this as that will help to verify the payslips.

Remember, you will also have to pay the IHS Surcharge of £500 in addition to the FLR fee (currently £649 by post).

In an earlier post someone did sue the home office however the Judge although sypathetic to the applicant said the Home Ofiice do not have a duty of care to applicant or spouse disallowed and he had to pay costs.

Maybe they are above the law they certainly act like it.

Did the judge mention negligence ? Duty of care and negligence are entirely different.

Duty of car is a huge subjective argument and that gives the Home Office a lot of wriggle room. However negligence is negligence. That's the keyword . I'm not aware of the details of that case but if you can prove negligence then you're onto a winner. As in every case its how confident you are of your case in that they followed their own guidelines and if not that you are out of pocket as a result. If not this is negligence.

Duty of care only means they could have done better - ie picked up the phone, asked for clarification etc etc none of which they are obliged to do. (would be nice of course but not obliged)

Some barristers (and I emphasise a barrister not Joe Bloggs High Street solicitor) will give you a percentage chance of winning your case before you start handing over wads of cash for legal fees.

Interesting angle Benroon and you may be right although, in my opinion, I don't think a negligence claim would work.

As I'm sure you know the expression "duty of care" is a formal legal term that determines whether someone is liable to someone else if something goes wrong.

Duty of care covers innumerable situations in our lives e.g. I think it can even extend to crazy situations where a burglar injures himself in a house by falling through weak floorboards and the owner of the house has a duty of care to ensure that the condition of the house is not such that anyone would be injured in it. So the owner could be sued by the burglar for negligence.

But, as I found out to my cost, the Home Office owes no duty of care to immigrants or their sponsors. Therefore I think a negligence claim would fail although I would love to see it succeed.

Yes ukguy51 that was me who tried to sue them - see my post #96 above.

That was over 15 years ago but I doubt if anything has changed. I was looking for compensation because my then wife had to make 2 settlement visa applications even though she/we fully satisfied all the requirements in getting the first visa and, in fact, because she had been in the UK for over a year she was entitled for ILR which we had applied for! So even if you comply with all the rules you still don't necessary get what you are entitled to.

Another little quirk in the system is that it seems that there is no such legal entity as the Home Office! When I sued them I had to put their solicitors as the defendants of the case! Crazy!

Totally agree Bob. It beggars belief what some people think they are entitled to assume just because it may just fit in with their warped views about society! Reminds me of a lot of the farang bar talk I heard in Thailand. I heard much more prejudice there from fellow Brits and Aussies there than I have heard in the last 35 years in the UK.

Was actually mildly pleasantly surprised by the visa fee, was under the impression that was £1000 so expected it to be over £1200 by time it had been converted to US dollars and back again. Came in at 1530 which is £974 or thereabouts.

I would suggest that this is probably because the pound went up recently against the US Dollar. So by the time the visa cost went from pounds to dollars and then back to pounds (which is effectively what happens) then the rate probably went in your favour and you came out even! If rates do not change then the usual loss is about 8% which, as 7by7 says, is scandalous.

Btw, I paid my wife's IHS surcharge for her FLR recently. I had a few problems with the system. At one point I thought I'd paid it when in fact I hadn't. The problem is that they give you the reference number BEFORE you've paid it so it can look like it is paid. Just something to be aware of. Imagine having an FLR refused for not having paid the IHS surcharge when you thought you had paid it and possibly losing the FLR fee of £649!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually I think the IHS surcharge for the initial settlement visa is £600 not £500. This is because it is for 2 years and 9 months and they round it up to 3 years at £200 p.a.

Yes, always in their favour. They charge you for 3 months (£50) that your wife will never have + the exchange rate ripoff!!!!!!!!!!!

Totally agree with all the sentiments expressed above.

Unfortunately our immigration system has become so convoluted that fairness and compassion from the Home Office has gone out of the window. Yes, I agree that it is the Home Office to blame not the ECOs. The problem is that the Home Office is not really accountable to anyone. I sued them once and the judge was sympathetic to the facts of my case but I lost and had to pay costs because the judge said that the Home Office did not owe a duty of care to either myself or my then wife.

I have just done my current wife's FLR application. 74 page form + £649 fee + £500 NHS surcharge + 100 mile trip to get a BRP (if successful). All for a 2 1/2 year visa in addition to all the hoops and costs we went through for the initial settlement visa. Quite sobering to think we are only about half way through the whole process! Meanwhile, and yes 7by7 I'll say it again, people from the former Soviet block just roll up at Dover and stay for as long as they like without paying a penny and without having to pass any tests.

Stop the world I want to get off!!!!!!!!!!!!