stuartsko

Your wage slips are no good as a limited company on their own. They would need to be accompanied with at least a full financial years submitted accounts, bank statements, dividend vouchers and so on. you would have been better off as you being the sole director and paying your wife at least the just under 19k a year required and letting her use just her own wage, if she wasn’t a director of the company just wage slips, personal bank statements would be fine as long as she earned the qualifying amount during the rest of the year, or has 6 months pay slips in her new job. I would take on the advice of a good accountant and read section 9 of appendix FM - SE inside out, everything you need to know is there.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Took my wife to Leeds in December to do her A2, very similar to the A1 but she had to tell the assessor a little bit about her life in the U.K. I.e., where she works, what I do for work, what she enjoys doing in her spare time.. she passed it with no problems, as I'm sure any Thai that has spent a few years living in England would. I would tell your partners they have nothing to worry about.

Just goes to show how important it is to keep your eye on forums such as this, just to keep up to date with changes to the UKVI rules... The changes come into force the month before my wife applies for her FLR.. It's not a massive problem, day trip to Manchester to a trinity test centre is not a massive inconvenience.. Will more than likely go for the B1 test as this will be valid for the ILR stage.. Assuming UKVI don't move the goalposts again.

Yes stay well clear of easy visa

Great news, congratulations

In relation to the op regarding credit checks, I monitor my credit report rigorously... I have made 2 applications for my wife's settlement visa, there are 2 kinds of searches that can be made against you.. 1 is a full report, the other is what they call a generic identification report, this is when your details only are requested by an agency... Both checks will show on your report no matter who has searched them and ukvi have never done such a search against my name..

First of all I'm sorry to hear about your illness.

I'm pretty sure that it's not possible to extend a general visa in the circumstances you describe, ie the accompanying partner is unable to travel due to a medical problem.

I do know that a visa national can apply to extend their visa if they're undertaking private medical treatment, and whilst common sense dictates that she should be able to, I don't know if that's the case.

I do wonder what would happen if she was unfit to travel, would she be removed once her visa expired, I suspect not.

I would hope that there is a way round this, again common sense dictates there should be, maybe TonyM might be able to advise if there are any options available.

On a related point, I note you no are longer resident in the UK, did you encounter any problems accessing the NHS?

I hope you make a speedy recovery.

It is a terrible shame ukvi don't allow for this type of scenario.... Could be an idea to get your local mp involved depending on what constituency you are in, if your mp is an opposition member or a sympathetic conservative the issue could get raised... My friends father returned to England after 15 years In Pattaya, the memorial hospital kept draining his lungs (also his money) until he had to return to UK... It was far too late for him unfortunately, an incorrect diagnosis of his health in Pattaya meant he wasn't correctly treated for 2 years.. He had no issues getting treatment in the UK, and I know I have never been asked for an NI number before been treated in the past... But a heavily stretched NHS will eventually cotton onto this eventually I expect.

Hi, just Quick question, my friends GF has been granted a visitors visa for 6 months, The plan is that she will be in the UK for 2 months before she returns home and then my friend is going over to bangkok where they plan to get married. They are going to apply for a spouse visa after getting married, but my Question is, could she come back over to the UK on the raiming visitors visa for the remaining time on the visa and then return to Thailand to obtain the spouce visa. The plan is, that his GF will do the listening and speaking exam while on the visitors visa like my wife did many moons ago. My friend tends to think that their would be a risk with future visa,s if she did return married on a visitors visa. This will be her 2nd visitor's visa with a break of 12 months without coming back into the UK.

My wife, then girlfriend did 3 years ago.. We stayed in the UK from April to the beginning of June.. We returned end of July to mid October.. She did get asked why she was back but she just said my boyfriend has to work and they let her through.. Maybe she was lucky I don't know... As long as the information they give when you apply is accurate at the time there is no reason why they can't make a 2nd visit as per conditions of the visa.. The only thing I think could present a problem is the marriage.. This is a change in circumstances that may lead boarder agency staff to think she has less reason to return now and trying to bypass the spouse visa route

Yes durhamboy, it's all a fraud.. I've even faked all this to get my wife a visa https://www.facebook.com/SheffieldKitchenOutlet/posts/922471787843962

Note to moderators, I posted the link to make a point that the guy who is pretending he is a commercial lawyer was wrong... No identifying information is contained in this link.. Just a company already in the public domain.. My personal details at companies house are registered to my accountants office... Regards stuartsko

The one with the pac man arcade machine? Lol nice. I love the black and white one. What's that material called for the worktops on that one is it curian/corian? Something like that? Looks stunning and modern

That's the one lol... It's call Minerva, like corrian but it's solid with no core material, good stuff... I got it in white... Off topic and will prob be deleted

Thank you mate.. The one with the big oak island is mine lol

Yes durhamboy, it's all a fraud.. I've even faked all this to get my wife a visa https://www.facebook.com/SheffieldKitchenOutlet/posts/922471787843962

What exactly is a commercial lawyer

You know my friend I haven't got a clue, where I'm from they call them selves solicitors???? I don't think Durham is too far from me either... I think lawyers are what they are called in America and cuckoo land

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?

Where do you get the 53450 from?

Definitely wrong company, our last financial year showed about 30k, couldn't get it any lower.. Still paid nowt in tax though.. Was due to new machinery we purchased

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?

Where do you get the 53450 from?

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?

Haven't got a clue EL

Profit is after PAYE salary and other expenses..... I don't think that Mr commercial lawyer understands that???

I think my company should show less than that in profit.. It's called clever accounting... Many times has our accountant managed to reduce our tax liability, it's what he's paid to do... 2 years ago it was using a provision for warranty (saved us 20k in tax) last year it was the right off for new machines we bought (tax relief to encourage manufacturing in UK).. This year will be the same... You know the really simple stuff a commercial lawyer should know

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?

I would say wrong company son haha. For a start we have 7 directors.. And as a commercial lawyer (pmsl) you would know what counts is the pay the directors are drawing and the dividends the shareholders are taking... Only a business that relies heavily on credit has to show a profit, you know that stuff a company gets taxed on haha

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

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!

Commercial lawyer lol he would get 30 million actually. It would still be the company's money until he drew it down presumably as a dividend not sure if it's still a dividend if the company is wound down or there is a different term. But that would be a dividend from the company money to Stuart and a tax bill for Stuart to go with it.

It's called a dissolution when a company winds up voluntary with no creditors, assuming the company can honour any redundancy pay.. I give insolvency advice through a local IP to clients who want to go insolvent but carry on trading out of the other end, as it's illegal for the IP to offer said advice... Lets see what the commercial lawyer has to say about this

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!

Commercial lawyer lol he would get 30 million actually. It would still be the company's money until he drew it down presumably as a dividend not sure if it's still a dividend if the company is wound down or there is a different term. But that would be a dividend from the company money to Stuart and a tax bill for Stuart to go with it.

Ive just got this image in my head of him sat in my board room in front of me and 6 other seasoned directors proposing to represent us.. He would get laughed out with some of the views he has expressed

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!

No I wouldn't I would have 30 million

It's not his money. It's a Ltd company money. He is not a sole trader. He is a shareholder in a Ltd company. Look at my above post

He's a corporate lawyer haha

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.

No it's her income, she earns it Mr commercial lawyer.. Exactly the same situation

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

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?????

I cannot believe that, despite all the evidence, certain posters are still trying to convince us that what Stuart is proposing is fraud and his wife risks deportation and he imprisonment for tax evasion if this fraud is discovered!

It isn't fraud, there is no risk.

That has been amply demonstrated by links to and quotes from the financial requirement and a reputable tax advisor.

Of course, as the link from that tax advisor says, things like paying a 10 year old £50 per hour to stuff envelopes would not be considered by HMRC to be genuine; but Stuart's wife is genuinely employed by his company to do proper, genuine work and is paid the rate for the job.

I'm not going to go all through that again; the evidence is there for all to see, even if some prefer to ignore it.

However, a couple of points I will deal with; in the vain hope of putting this to bed.

1) Durhamboy says "..... 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."

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.

Of course, as he acknowledges, sponsor's and applicant's income can be combined to meet the requirement; and they must be living in the same household otherwise the application would be refused!

2) Both durhamboy and Trevor1809 have been banging on about fraudulent documents.

Well, of course people do use fraudulent documents in visa and LTR applications; I'm sure some of them get away with it.

But it's not a case of knocking up a few payslips on a computer and printing them out!

As anyone who has actually read the financial requirement appendix and the specified evidence appendix knows, more than a few payslips and possibly a P60 is required. For starters, bank statements covering the period showing the wages have been paid into the person's bank.

So, whilst it is entirely possible that someone could and would go to the trouble of falsifying all the required evidence, and also entirely possible that they would be successful, doing so in Stuart's situation and those in similar ones would be a complete and utter waste of time.

Plus there is the factor of constantly living in fear of discovery. Even after ILR has been granted, if it is discovered that fraud was used at any stage then that ILR will be cancelled and the person deported with the very real possibility of being banned from the UK in any capacity for life.

This could even happen if the fraud was discovered after the person had been granted British citizenship.

Finally, Stuart, please come back and tell us once your wife has the decision on her FLR application.

In the extremely unlikely event that she is refused because UKVI don't accept that she is legitimately employed and legitimately paid what she says in her application then I certainly offer my deepest and humblest apologies for misinforming you.

When (if) she is granted FLR then I hope that those who have been trying to convince you that what you are doing wont work will do the same.

But I somehow doubt that they will.

Hi 7x7 I certainly will keep you informed, I can assure you I won't believe you have miss advised me... I really can't see any problems arising, at worst re applying with my income alone... But if they did refuse on grounds her income came from a COMPANY Not a person that happens to own 30% of the shares in then I would certainly challenge that decision first as they would not be playing by their own rules.. I asked you if an applicant could apply using their own wages alone and I am grateful for your advise... However I am not worried as her employment is genuine and her rate of pay is easily justified....

Durhamboy, I liked your post because I found it amusing