Trevor1809

The same applies to the schooling for those children; most of them are British citizens.

Not forgetting of course that since being in full time education up to 18 is a legal requirement, there is no option of not sending kids to school, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to provide free education.

Why oh why do so many now believe they are owed so much by the government?

Errrr because we paid into it over out entire working lives may be. The trouble some people think a pension is charity rather that we paid for it in the first place.

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO!

Please explain why UKVI charged me £2000 for my wife's FLR and not the £500 that is the legal figure? Where is the bargain if I am have to pay 4 times as much or not get an FLR.

Samsong101 You said second job? I guess as only 6 months records are needed as 7by7 said that would be alright but why are you ignoring the first job? I have to say this is what I don't understand, you have to meet £18600 pa but only supply 6 month's worth of data.

As the article says, these cases have been going on for some time while they slowly wend their way through the legal system.

I expect them to end up at the ECtHR before a final decision is reached, which could take another couple of years at least.

The British partner can claim any and all to which they may be entitled as a single individual, but cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant partner living with them. The immigrant partner cannot claim anything until they have ILR; which takes at least 5 years to obtain. Five years during which their British partner and/or themselves have been working and paying tax and NICs.

.

And NHS surcharge and VAT and air passenger duty and I am sure a few more taxes that I haven't thought of. And all of that at a much higher rate than the multi nationals pay.

PEO means Public Enquiry Office which is now called Premium Service Centre (thanks rasg)

Thanks,ajb1985. Our marriage contract doesn't need translation as it's already in english.(married in another country). We have seen the caseworker look through all our documents so I suggest that you submit translated documents. My wife was called once by the caseworker to confirm the rental income payment from the bank statements. It's better everything is covered.

Did you have any trouble paying the NHS surcharge as they insisted this was paid before accessing the appointments system then said that there were no appointments available? In the end I paid it 4 times before getting an appointment and then had to get a solicitor to do it . Eight months later and I am still waiting for a response from the Home Office as to why they think that is acceptable.

So in may case it was a very expensive process.

The key change in the draft would prevent someone using residence in another EU country to by-pass the immigration requirements of the home country.

Why should it be OK for a dodgy agent in the UK to sort out accommodation and a non-existent job specifically to allow someone to avoid the financial rules, language requirements etc. This is not fair and should be stopped.

The whole business of spousal immigration isn't fair but I don't see anybody dealing with any of that. Get a dodgy agent making some money out of immigration and suddenly it isn't fair.

What is fair about making tax paying spouses pay the NHS surcharge for instance. What is fair about refusing visas the expecting people to incur appeal fees yes I know the actual appeal fee is refunded, I am referring to legal fees)

Can anybody point me in the direction of a site that shows how many spousal applications there are in the UK each year and the success rate?

You can get a translation done then get the Embassy in London to authorize it.

Isn't this how MPs are supposed to earn their money sorting this sort of problem out? That would have been my first port of call.

Hi Trevor 1809

I tried to to get some help for a Visa Refusal for my Thai wife some years ago She ( Local MP) was too busy looking after her children in our meeting so i

was palmed off with the rest of the meeting with her secretary advising i should write to Immigration Damien Greene at the time

and mention how much i love my wife to get the Visa Refusal Overturned....Priceless Advice!!!!

POMCHOB

I suppose visa refusal is one thing but getting a constituent the services that they are legally entitled to but not getting is another. Its called discrimination.

Hi Trevor 1809

I totally agree with your sentiment, it is discrimination i just happen to be of the opinion MP's aren't as useful as you hope them to be from

most of my dealings anyway. At My Original GP Surgery my wife was refused her registration because the utility bills were not in her name and wouldn't accept her Bank Account Details.So i moved to another GP's and they accepted her at that surgery that was in England with two forms of ID Passport and Bank Account Statement.This may of been under older rules for Settlement Visa 2012 things may of changed a lot by now.

POMCHOB

Well I have to agree that MPs are pretty crap at doing anything but we after all supposed to live in a democracy so denying somebody who is in the country legally the right to services that they entitled to is discrimination. Imagine the flak if a Syrian refugee was denied access to an NHS doctor. I have to say that it was pretty straight forward with my GP. I can't remember what they asked to see now whether it was just the passport or her NI number confirmation.

Isn't this how MPs are supposed to earn their money sorting this sort of problem out? That would have been my first port of call.

Hi Trevor 1809

I tried to to get some help for a Visa Refusal for my Thai wife some years ago She ( Local MP) was too busy looking after her children in our meeting so i

was palmed off with the rest of the meeting with her secretary advising i should write to Immigration Damien Greene at the time

and mention how much i love my wife to get the Visa Refusal Overturned....Priceless Advice!!!!

POMCHOB

I suppose visa refusal is one thing but getting a constituent the services that they are legally entitled to but not getting is another. Its called discrimination.

Isn't this how MPs are supposed to earn their money sorting this sort of problem out? That would have been my first port of call.

An ECO is allowed to make errors, they are human! The idea that a very expensive application is to be rejected for the price of a taxi fare strikes me as crackers. The ECO actually accepts this is the case 'de minimis' so why on earth did he or she not do something about it.

Clearly the applicant is going to meet the requirements with little or no effort so why was there no phone call to ask why the figures were short? Tens of thousands short, thousands short - refuse but tens??

If the ECO can use terms such as de minimis then he or she are well enough educated to think for themselves.

UKVI are making more and more bizarre decisions and making lots of errors, clearly they should accept the fact that they need to show a degree of commonsense even when they have no flexibility under the rules.

I would assume that you would have the right for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate maladministration. Apparantly with the Home Office the Ombudsman finds in favour of the complainant in 67% of cases.

Why on earth did the ECO not make a phone call requesting evidence of an additional £36. A question of beaurocracy gone bonkers.

Nobody in their right mind is going to apply short of £36 so it has to be an error on the part of the applicant or ECO. If the applicant cannot show the additional £36 then the visa will be rejected but nobody with these savings will be unable to demonstrate an additional small sum such as this!

If the ECO has missed something then request a review on the grounds that the ECO has made a mistake. Jobsworth to the extreme!

The ECO should be retaining full copies of documentation, how else are they supposed to fight appeals!

I have long accepted there is a form of madness taking over at UKVI but this is the worst example yet!

Just goes to show that providing everything that UKVI ask for and that you meet all the requirements that there is not zero risk of a rejection.

No I didn't spell it incorrectly, according to the Home Office.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35381365

Don't the Home Office computers have spell checkers?

We will be submitting 12 months payslips and at least 1 p60

A check with HMRC would confirm your documents.

Trevor's hypothetical cash-in-hand guy seems to be inflating his earnings to reach the threshold - equating his net income to his claimed post-tax income. Supporting bank statements would require advance planning.

But would they actually check with HMRC. If they did check then there would be no need to supply all the paperwork. I am somewhat surprised that they don't do any some sort of direct online check with HMRC. I suppose it is all down to data protection but in the interests of Immigration why they don't do it. It amazes me that I have to write to HMRC and ask for an SA302 then send it with the application. Immigration could just ask HMRC to confirm it.

P60s are not asked for - and with employment of only 6 months, might not be available. Payslips are asked for. I have often wondered how payslips from a small employer are supposed to be checked by an Entry Clearance Officer.

We will be submitting 12 months payslips and at least 1 p60

There you go it is even easier. A spreadsheet package can produce a pay slip.

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.

I am glad that you raised this scenario as it is very similar to the one I could see as getting past scrutiny. A cash in hand working exceeds the threshold but can't substantiate what he earns as the paperwork that a self employed person submits is much more onerous.

I am not sure that you would even have to go as far as setting up a company, would UKVI really go to all the lengths of verifying a company at Companies House or follow up on references.

Just get some free payroll software, knock off the pay slips, P60, put the same amount of cash into your bank account as the net pay. Download an employment contract and it all on the face of it meets the guidelines. The joke is as an employee you only supply 6 months worth of pay slips.

Now I would never suggest that anybody does that but it is possible.

If you were earring cash in hand and set a company up to use you cash in hand as earnings then you would be legit.. My god you just get better don't you

And still you don't get it. They are FAKE pay slips, they are FAKE P60s. You don't make the returns to HMRC. Year end wind after getting the visa wind the company up . Tell hmrc the company didn't get off the ground.

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.

I am glad that you raised this scenario as it is very similar to the one I could see as getting past scrutiny. A cash in hand working exceeds the threshold but can't substantiate what he earns as the paperwork that a self employed person submits is much more onerous.

I am not sure that you would even have to go as far as setting up a company, would UKVI really go to all the lengths of verifying a company at Companies House or follow up on references.

Just get some free payroll software, knock off the pay slips, P60, put the same amount of cash into your bank account as the net pay. Download an employment contract and it all on the face of it meets the guidelines. The joke is as an employee you only supply 6 months worth of pay slips.

Now I would never suggest that anybody does that but it is possible.

Trevor I thought you ran your own business??? If you did you would know that all modern wages packages are now integrated with hmrc and submit online... All the forms are now downloaded through the wages packages directly from hmrc... Why don't you know this???? Judging from your comments I dread to think what kind of business you run.. I wouldn't trust you to run a corner shop

Well you completely missed the point so I will elaborate. Who said anything about pressing the submit button. You can produce a pay slip without submitting to HMRC. No they are not generated by HMRC. Only if you chose to use their s/w package. I use a third party package because I could never get their package to work on my computer. At the year end you have a load of fake pay slips. So having produced the iffy pay slip do a roll back the submit a zero return to keep HMRC happy. I was very generous to you and did not suggest anything suspicious but since you want to raise the tempo if you wife's FLR is a year way I don't see why you aren't planning to get the accounts in order to submit with the FLR application. You painted this up as ruse to pay your wife to avoid getting into the 40% tax bracket so by upping your wife's salary to £18600 you avoid 40% tax and she alone meets the earnings requirement.

Well that is one thing but what I don't get is why you are doing this to avoid the hassle of submitting the paperwork since this would have to be generated anyway for company purposes which leaves me to believe that there is far more to this than meets the eye.

I knew that my problem was getting the 2014/15 accounts in time to meet my wife's FLR application so I had the fore thought to get the accountant into gear to produce the accounts early ready for the FLR.

The next problem I have is that the ILR is in May 2017 so no way can I get 2016/17 accounts in time. I am now closing the financial year in December to run two full 12 month Jan - Dec years.

I haven't thrown up my hands and said this is all too difficult lets pay the wife £18600 a year as cleaner or dogs body and I can forget submitting the company stuff.

Zero risk? Well your choice if yours if you wish to risk a rejection. 7by7 says this is perfectly legal. I am suspicious as to why you are so keen to avoid having to submit legitimate paper work.

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.

I am glad that you raised this scenario as it is very similar to the one I could see as getting past scrutiny. A cash in hand working exceeds the threshold but can't substantiate what he earns as the paperwork that a self employed person submits is much more onerous.

I am not sure that you would even have to go as far as setting up a company, would UKVI really go to all the lengths of verifying a company at Companies House or follow up on references.

Just get some free payroll software, knock off the pay slips, P60, put the same amount of cash into your bank account as the net pay. Download an employment contract and it all on the face of it meets the guidelines. The joke is as an employee you only supply 6 months worth of pay slips.

Now I would never suggest that anybody does that but it is possible.

My wife would not be overpaid, she would earn the same as the staff that operate the machines... The only advice I have taken from this forum is from 7x7 who advised I could use her income alone.. 7x7 and tony m are the most respected members of this forum and I trust what he says.. The rest is down to me, my accountant and my knowledge of running a multi million pound company for the last 12 years... I don't even know why 7x7 continues to give the much valued advise on this forum as he is constantly up against trolls... So thank you once again 7x7 for your valued advice and sorry you had to put up with the ridiculous comments from people that haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

I thought you said that you were employing her as a cleaner? Now you are paying her as if she operated the machines. Contrary to what 7by7 says, from HMRC's perspective, no you can't employ who ever you like, to do what ever you say they do, for what ever salary you like. Otherwise I could employ my son to do computer programming or clean the office or run errands, pay him the tax free threshold then get £10600 off of my taxable salary. I think that there is a degree of acceptance by HMRC in husbands (or wives) employing their spouse but they are within their right to reject it as tax avoidance, which it is quite frankly.

The point is it is totally contrived, the same as MPs employing their family to admin jobs.

Personally I don't care what you do but to say this is zero risk isn't right.

And no way I am suggesting that it is illegal. If it was that easy I would have done the same as you. First of all my accountant would have had something to say and second I don't believe in zero risk, in anything. Given some of the rejection notices that get published on this site why temp fate is all I am saying.

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

I understand fully but can you explain why is my salary alone exceeds £18,600 plus my wife's greatly exceeds £18600 I am still expected to apply under category F and supply company accounts. Why did you not propose the solution of ceasing to be a Director. The trouble is does being a controlling share holder mean you still have to apply under code F.

You say zero risk and yes what the op is doing meets the requirements however it is very contrived. I don't know of many cleaners exceeding £9 per hour. I would be interested to read the contract of employment, assuming that there was one.

I would love to see the op get this one past HMRC if they went to town on a tax investigation.

It doesn't matter where her income comes from as long as it is legal, which it is... I can't understand why both you and Trevor are turning this into some kind of conspiracy theory... I blame the rothscilds

Is it really zero risk?

As I understand it stuart is proposes to pay his wife from his own company.

If the company is, for example, trading at a loss and was otherwise insolvent but for, say, bank loans wouldn't that be in contravention of the rules. It could certainly be construed as circumventing the rules in those circumstances.

Btw, I'm not in any way suggesting stuart's company is insolvent and may well be very profitable for all I know. The point being that I don't think it is that simple when a husband and wife are paying themselves.

That goes some way to explain my concerns as well and why people in control of a company apply under category F. Otherwise you just submit a pile of contrived documents to meet the requirement.

Anybody can put money into their account to look as though they are earning at more than £1550 per month, down load some free payroll software, knock off some pay slips and a P60 and hey presto. There are no checks with HMRC that the tax and NI is actually paid. All totally fictious.

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

I understand fully but can you explain why is my salary alone exceeds £18,600 plus my wife's greatly exceeds £18600 I am still expected to apply under category F and supply company accounts. Why did you not propose the solution of ceasing to be a Director. The trouble is does being a controlling share holder mean you still have to apply under code F.

You say zero risk and yes what the op is doing meets the requirements however it is very contrived. I don't know of many cleaners exceeding £9 per hour. I would be interested to read the contract of employment, assuming that there was one.

I would love to see the op get this one past HMRC if they went to town on a tax investigation.