bobrussell

Worth making sure you include a working phone number. If there are concerns or questions then you can be contacted. 

These are important checks to try to reduce the risk of abduction and/or trafficking so the inconvenience is a small price to pay.

There may be questions on arrival in Denmark so try to be available at the arrival time as well.

If you are not sure (deeds etc) then include the facts in the covering letter and state they are available if required.

On arrival immigrants have contributed nothing towards the cost of the NHS. I don't see anything wrong in a payment to partly cover the costs early in the settlement process. 

Some will work and pay tax/NI. Only a proportion of this will go to the NHS.

The 5 year timescale seems quite appropriate to me. Someone earning and paying a lot of tax can, presumably afford it easily. Those on low pay may well be contributing below 'cost'.

I question the amount being paid. I suspect that even at the new figure it is good value albeit an extra unwelcome cost.

Students have been able to use the NHS free of charge until a payment was introduced. In effect a subsidy by the tax payer.

There are still many benefits to settlement in the UK (free schooling for children for example) so as long as the NHS charge is proportionate to the cost I will give it my support. 

It is only for a five year period and it gives unlimited access to NHS services whatever the cost of treatment.

Not sure there is anything to add really. 

This is a serious criminal offence and not a suitable topic for amateurs however experienced. 

There is nothing wrong with an expectation that a newly arrived person should contribute for a time. I agree that there is not really double payment.

Most arrive having contributed nothing to the NHS. Those that work start to contribute via tax and NI but still have put nothing in the pot.

Even at £400 a year this would have to be better value than insurance. 

Private medical insurance in the UK does not cover GP services nor chronic conditions and it is not uncommon for it to cost £100 a month or more.

In her first year my wife probably cost the NHS a £1000 but in the following decade or more has cost little. No NHS surcharge then or now as she is a British citizen. 

Not much sympathy to be had from the majority of the UK population. 

Clearly will not be welcomed by those aiming to settle in the UK.

This just confirms that immigration is an easy target for extra charges.

Not sure if anyone has actually worked out the average cost to the NHS of each person in the UK prior to gaining ILR.

Overall I suspect it remains value for money but I for one would make sure my wife/family took full advantage of every facility offered by the NHS.

However much we dislike these increases there is little chance much will change. Too easy a target for revenue generation.

Not a bad idea to send a copy of the signatory's passport with the application but recent experience in the UK shows they are doing more checking up on signatory's  than in the past.

Shortest queue every time! However non-EU line can move a lot faster as it tends to be better staffed.

Congratulations!

It is true that an application can be successful where there are limited family ties and no employment to come back to.

What is required is a sound argument as to why someone on the balance of probabilities, will return.

A relationship and the quality of the evidence for that relationship does count. 

My wife (then gf) had here first visit visa application refused and I was advised by an ECO at the embassy that a bit more time elapsing and a few more photographs of us together should make a difference to the outcome. It did!

How things have changed! You cannot talk to the ECO's now and they they don't want photographs!

It is the quality of the application that matters and it proves that the doom-mongers are often wrong!!!

The key issue with Sheffield is the use of 'cheap' labour and a general lack of experienced staff. Many highly experienced senior members of staff have not found the idea of moving back to the UK (and Sheffield) attractive. Not having  a pop at Sheffield (or any other part of the UK but it is unlikely to be as attractive as a foreign posting. Many of these people are highly employable elsewhere particularly those with language skills.

It would appear the UK government was expecting VFS (or equivalent) to identify suspect documents as part of the scanning process. Otherwise as has been pointed out, the UK staff are working from copies and therefore are unlikely to be able to detect a dodgy document as easily.

Not sure which countries were used to trial this system but it comes as no surprise that not every document arrives intact!

Evidence for this concern was given (albeit Croydon and Istanbul!) in:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631520/An-inspection-of-entry-clearance-processing-operations-in-Croydon-and-Istanbul1.pdf

"One obvious way of retaining expertise and knowledge is for Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs) to return to a UK DMC on completion of an overseas posting. However, for a range of reasons, a cross-posting to the Croydon DMC to continue doing entry clearance work is not seen as an attractive option by returning ECOs and Entry Clearance Managers (ECMs). According to staff in Croydon, no effective process exists for capturing and sharing the local knowledge and expertise of ECOs who have returned there"

The article suggests the applicant also has an English degree. Assuming this was to bachelors /masters or PhD this would meet the requirements for the application.

The real story is much more likely that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence of this qualification. It may be they provided evidence of meeting the requirement with a non-approved qualification that was then, rightly refused.

Perhaps the BBC headline should have been "Visa applicant failed to read the application form carefully". 

Does not really have quite the same ring to it does it?

The requirements are really quite clear and state what evidence needs to be presented. It is only fair that everyone has to meet the same standards.

Her English was not too good, her comprehension of the form was not good enough.

It seems that the local authority really makes the decision. At what stage does a visitor lead to loss of the 25% single occupancy discount?

3 weeks, 3 months, 3 months 3 days?

I would consider there is a degree of moral argument for losing this discount for longer term visitors. They are using some council facilities but are not going to be eligible for many of the services offered. Education, social care would be no but Police or the Fire Brigade might be yes as would bin men clearing the rubbish bags.

There really does not seem to be a simple answer. As stated before, check with the local council and accept their decision. My council said the discount remained in place.

As I see it from reading the legislation below, a visitor does not have a freehold interest, does not have any form of lease agreement nor any security of tenure or contractual right to live there, written or not. Therefore they would appear to be exempt and my council was right to continue with a single person occupancy until she became settled in the UK. Still one for the council to agree to and there is still the possibility of taking the moral high ground and paying for the time the visiting partner is staying in the UK:

"(2)A person falls within this subsection in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day if, on that day—

(a)he is a resident of the dwelling and has a freehold interest in the whole or any part of it;

(b)he is such a resident and has a leasehold interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling which is not inferior to another such interest held by another such resident;

(c)he is both such a resident and a statutory [F1, secure or introductory tenant]of the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(d)he is such a resident and has a contractual licence to occupy the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(e)he is such a resident; or

(f)he is the owner of the dwelling."

My council stated initially that I should lose the single occupancy discount when my wife was here. When I made it clear she was on a visit visa they took further advice and reinstated it. A visitor being, by definition, a temporary occupant rather than a resident.

I was quite surprised to find others had councils that considered a visitor to be a resident but it clearly is open for interpretation.

I did not have much of an issue either way as she was using some of the facilities provided by the council. That is why I contacted them in the first place.

If the persons main residence is elsewhere then there should not be a tax liability.

Assuming that we are talking about a visit visa then you could pay full rate for the time there are two occupants but then claim the discount when only one is living there.

Someone going back and forth for a few weeks at a time would normally be ignored for Council Tax.

All clear as mud so ask you council.

Clearly if your wife is here on a non-visit visa then she is resident!

If she is resident in the UK (any settlement visa) then it is quite clear cut that Council Tax needs to be paid.

If someone is here on a visit visa then by definition they are only visitors therefore in theory should not affect the Council Tax. Some councils appear to disagree with this therefore I would discuss this with the Council Tax department.

The 30 days should start from the date you put on the application as the entry date. Make sure this is right when it arrives!

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

"Why? He's a British citizen and resident. What bearing does his entitlement, or otherwise, to NHS treatment have on his girlfriend's visa application?"

Why not? If the visa is to be based on the medical needs of the applicants UK based partner then it would seem logical to provide evidence that this is genuine. Indeed TonyM's link shows a need to provide a specialist letter to confirm this as a reason to visit.

To show he is entitled to NHS treatment he just has to show he is a UK resident so again I say "why not?"

All the more important should there be consideration through compassionate and compelling reasons outside the normal visit visa rules.

Time and time again we suggest applicants make sure all boxes are ticked to minimise the possibility of an ECO refusing a visa on sometimes spurious grounds.

Of course his entitlement to care is relevant and fortunately very easy to demonstrate  for a British citizen resident in the UK.

I suspect an ECO will want more information as someone coming over as a carer would not be a simple visitor. They might even decide this is unpaid work in which case the visa will be refused.

My thoughts would be that you want her to come with you for moral and emotional support rather than as a carer.

Documentation to show the operation and your entitlement to the treatment if it is under the NHS!

To have a no-fly list it would presume there is a list being kept!

The airlines have lists of passengers and it has to be assumed that these are available to the authorities.

It clearly does not mean that UKVI will automatically check everything each time but they could. The penalties for being found telling lies can be a lengthy ban!

Then you clearly presented an adequate application and honesty turned out to be the best policy as it almost always does!

Visa applications should not really need to be nerve wracking but they are of course!

Good News!

If you are a full time Thai 'resident' then I am surprised your wife is struggling to get a visa approved.

The requirements are straight forward but reliably achieving this on paper can be more challenging.

Reason for visa - visit.

Affordability - bank statements, yours and hers if applicable.

Reasons to return - you both live in Thailand! Show your eligibility to live there, evidence of housing (ownership documents/rental agreement etc) together with a full description of your circumstances. Permission for absence from work if applicable.

If you are having issues then of course use a good agent. If you don't want to then post a refusal letter (removing identification) and let us get our teeth into that!

Getting fed up is rarely useful but it is frustrating however a husband and wife living in Thailand should have a fairly easy trip through the visa system. 

All visa applications are eligible for appeal on human rights grounds. It has a place where it is unlikely that a further visa application would lead to a 'change of mind'.

Clearly this does not cover cases where someone believes a simple mistake has been made and is largely restricted to situations where family contact is a key factor.

Telling the truth is the only thing to do. Being caught out with lies or incomplete truths may cause far more trouble.

Assuming your son is a British citizen then it is appropriate for you to decide where he is brought up. 

The main concern is whether your wife is likely to try to bypass the immigration rules by overstaying. You have made it quite clear that you are aware of the rules and are taking steps to ensure compliance.

Not sure you have much choice here. Being denied a visit visa would not impact on any settlement application as the rules are completely different. 

Stick to the truth but accept there is a chance that lack of reasons to return may lead to rejection. If the whole thing was fully dealt with in the application then hopefully the ECO will accept the situation and allow the visa.

A child either is a British citizen or it is not. This is a matter of biology and law.

What may complicate matters is whether there are reasons why the application may be doubted.

If you have proof through a DNA test carried out by an approved laboratory then the delay is probably administrative.

Not sure about the case of the serviceman as not heard about it but again the child is either a British citizen or is not. A few situations are discretionary.

There is no requirement for a DNA test as he will actually find out. 

They can be used in support of an application or to appeal a decision where the Passport Office does not believe an application. 

It is true that the British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 has introduced the word 'natural' before the word father therefore a DNA test may be required at an approved testing centre.

A birth certificate can be used to help establish paternity.

Quite a nasty bit of legislation really and only applies after 10th September 2015.

Probably introduced to stop blatant abuse of the system but do they refuse settlement for a child member of a family when other siblings are automatically exempt on grounds of parentage?

DNA test not required.