durhamboy

Bob, many thanks for the comprehensive advice.

7by7 and Bob, many thanks for the advice. Looking at the fee waiver guidelines they say that this cannot be given for ILR applications (but can for FLR applications!). Seems strange but it was a long shot anyway and she will just have to pay the fee.

Bob, you are right in saying that it is easy to identify the irrelevant sections - which is about 80% of the form! It seems that you had some experience of this form with your sister-in-law (I remember from a previous topic) so may I ask if you agree with 7by7 that the whole form needs to be printed off and completed? - pity the poor trees!

Thanks again.

About a year ago the British husband of a Thai friend of ours died whilst they were living in the UK. She is currently here having just got FLR before her husband died. She now wants to apply for ILR and I am trying to help her.

I understand the application form she needs to submit is :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447863/SET_O__Version_08-15.pdf

This is an 84 page form the vast majority of which has no relevance to bereaved spouses. Most of it concerns applications in other categories and LITUK and B1 English which she does not require as a bereaved spouse.

So a few questions if I may :-

1. Do I need to print off and submit the entire form or only those sections that apply in this case?

2. Will the fact that she has waited for a year after her husband's death make any difference? Personally I think not as she is legally here with her FLR.

3. I heard that the fee of £1500 can be waived in cases of financial problems. However I can't see any reference to this in the form or guidance notes. The fee has to be paid with the application so would a letter requesting a refund be appropriate?

Many thanks.

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.