Only Fools and Horses star reveals heartbreak as Thai wife banned from the UK

[mommysboy]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

 

 

Indeed, rasg.

 

Making a simple statement is not enough; evidence must be supplied to back that statement up.

 

It is worth mentioning at this point that as of 30th June 2017 around 5000 families have been separated, many since this requirement came into force just over 5 years ago, whilst this case slowly wended it's way through various appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. 

 

The Supreme Court ruling does not mean that family migrants in 'exceptional circumstances' will be exempt from the financial requirement; it means that in such circumstances other, credible sources of income, such as family support, will be considered. Credible to UKVI, that is.

 

But what are exceptional circumstances? Well the Home Office do not give a definitive answer, though they do give some examples (see below). Their attitude is that exceptional circumstances are just that; exceptional, and that each case will be looked at individually and considered on it's own merits.

UPDATED: Home Office makes changes to Appendix FM Minimum Income Rule following MM case is, as usual from them, an excellent summary of the situation. A few quotes follow.

 

I could go on, but think it's better that people read the whole article themselves.

I would also say that new guidelines/frameworks whilst appearing to provide rights often have the opposite effect.  I would cite NHS continuing care guidelines as an example, because I had the misfortune to have to research them.  The guidelines were in response to an appeals court's concen over patient rights, and seemed to include many of the mandatory changes, but did in fact make it even more difficult to obtain continuing care.  I'm not meaning to go off topic- it just serves as an illustration of what I mean, and pound to a penny applies to the framework so ably posted by 7by7.

[Kieran00001]

5 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Yes Kieran, but those figures are for “declared” earnings; I’m sure you’ve been around the block enough times to appreciate that most self employed taxi drivers are 'cavaliers of the alternative economy' ?????? 

 

What I don't get is why any self employed person would not just pretend they earned a little more to meet the threashold, it is not as if the tax is going to be that much more.

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is really only a dump where the poor peoole live, I guess you couldn't make it out of those areas.

 

He'd have something in common with millions of others then.

 

I would say this generation of young adults, perhaps the majority of middle aged too, are facing considerably lower life expectations than their parents have enjoyed.  Inability to get on the housing ladder, little or no inhereted wealth, lower wages, and fewer real career opportunities will all become worsening factors.  Typically even the well qualified leave uni with substantial debts already hampering progress.

 

Leaving the EU will hasten the erosion of workers' rights, already under severe pressure from poor market conditions, and the digital revolution.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by mommysboy

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

 

He'd have something in common with millions of others then.

 

I would say this generation of young adults, perhaps the majority of middle aged too, are facing considerably lower life expectations than their parents have enjoyed.  Inability to get on the housing ladder, little or no inhereted wealth, lower wages, and fewer real career opportunities will all worsen.  Typically even the well qualified leave uni with substantial debts already hampering progress.

 

Leaving the EU will hasten the erosion of worker's rights, already under severe pressure from poor market conditions, and the digital revolution.

 

 

 

Yes, he would have something in common with millions of Brits and disheartened immigrants too, but surely anyone can see why people want to live there, they do not dream of being on benefits and living on a council estate, they dream of being an affluent Brit with a good job and living in a quaint cottage in an idyllic village, of which there are actually just as many, Britain really is not just a dump, it is just a very unfair country, a mixture of dumps and paradises and little in between.

[rasg]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

What I don't get is why any self employed person would not just pretend they earned a little more to meet the threashold, it is not as if the tax is going to be that much more.

And how will you do that? You have to provide a full set of annual accounts, tax returns and bank statements to show that you have earned the money.

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

They imply that they will not break up a family if it is impossible for the family to live in the spouses country, also they consider those who are unable to work through disability.  As much as I disagree with the concept, really how hard is it to find a £9 an hour job?  I would have thought anyone could if they were willing to put themselves out a bit, labourers on building sites are getting more than that these days, agricultural labourers from Eastern Europe are finding higher wages, what actually went wrong for those 5000?

 They imply, for sure; but if you read the while article you will see that such an implication means nothing.

 

How hard is it to find a £9 an hour job? Depends on where you live, your age, qualifications and experience.

 

I used to be self employed and earning well above £18,600 p.a. until developing epilepsy about 10 years ago meant I was no longer able to continue in my profession. I am unable to do the job I am qualified for and have no other qualifications except 'O' levels and, of course, no experience outside my old profession. Since then I have only found work at minimum wage or just above. In my current job I do earn above £9 per hour, but only because I receive a London allowance on top of the hourly rate.

 

The average wage in the UK may be £505 p.w. (source; ONS), but that figure includes everyone; from Premier League footballers and City bankers to part time shelf fillers in Tesco. As stated much earlier in this topic, approx. 40% or UK workers earn less than £18,600 p.a.

 

Why should they be denied the right to live in the UK with their foreign spouse, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without any recourse to any public funds; which, of course, the rules require anyway and have done for at least the nearly 20 years I have taken an interest in UK immigration matters.

 

[rasg]

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I would cite NHS continuing care guidelines as an example, because I had the misfortune to have to research them.  The guidelines were in response to an appeals court's concen over patient rights, and seemed to include many of the mandatory changes, but did in fact make it even more difficult to obtain continuing care.  I'm not meaning to go off topic- it just serves as an illustration of what I mean, and pound to a penny applies to the framework so ably posted by 7by7.

Way off topic but my mother would probably not have received continuing care but one of my sisters knew a lot about it as part of her job with Social Services. She also knew the right people...

[mommysboy]

32 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

They imply that they will not break up a family if it is impossible for the family to live in the spouses country, also they consider those who are unable to work through disability.  As much as I disagree with the concept, really how hard is it to find a £9 an hour job?  I would have thought anyone could if they were willing to put themselves out a bit, labourers on building sites are getting more than that these days, agricultural labourers from Eastern Europe are finding higher wages, what actually went wrong for those 5000?

Well poor old Mickey dips out again perhaps.  While he can not hope to obtain permanent residence in Thailand it is possible to roll over a temporay stay based on family dependency.  Yet, I don't know if this based on potential or actuality, because it does require 440k in Thai bank account, or same amount in earnings, or a combination of both.  If he can't meet that maybe that would be his savings grace.

[mommysboy]

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 They imply, for sure; but if you read the while article you will see that such an implication means nothing.

 

How hard is it to find a £9 an hour job? Depends on where you live, your age, qualifications and experience.

 

I used to be self employed and earning well above £18,600 p.a. until developing epilepsy about 10 years ago meant I was no longer able to continue in my profession. I am unable to do the job I am qualified for and have no other qualifications except 'O' levels and, of course, no experience outside my old profession. Since then I have only found work at minimum wage or just above. In my current job I do earn above £9 per hour, but only because I receive a London allowance on top of the hourly rate.

 

The average wage in the UK may be £505 p.w. (source; ONS), but that figure includes everyone; from Premier League footballers and City bankers to part time shelf fillers in Tesco. As stated much earlier in this topic, approx. 40% or UK workers earn less than £18,600 p.a.

 

Why should they be denied the right to live in the UK with their foreign spouse, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without any recourse to any public funds; which, of course, the rules require anyway and have done for at least the nearly 20 years I have taken an interest in UK immigration matters.

 

My point, well Labour's and the Supreme Court's really, is that basic rights should not be subject to financial test anyway, but the 'I'm all right Jacks' on this forum see it very differently.

 

Hourly rate is only relevant if 36 hours per week are available too. 

[jeab1980]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

My point, well Labour's and the Supreme Court's really, is that basic rights should not be subject to financial test anyway, but the 'I'm all right Jacks' on this forum see it very differently.

 

Hourly rate is only relevant if 36 hours per week are available too. 

Putting the supreme court and the labour party in the same paragraph. LOL.

 Britian your doomed.

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

My point, well Labour's and the Supreme Court's really, is that basic rights should not be subject to financial test anyway, but the 'I'm all right Jacks' on this forum see it very differently.

 

Hourly rate is only relevant if 36 hours per week are available too. 

 

I have no objection to a financial requirement; just the one introduced in July 2012.

 

Neither does Labour, as they never changed the previous one, and in their 2017 manifesto pledged to return to it.

 

That requirement was known as 'Adequate Maintenance.' basically applicant and sponsor had to show that the applicant could be adequately accommodated and supported in the UK without reliance on public funds. It not only looked at income, or other available funds, but at outgoings as well; which this current one doesn't.

 

In my opinion, such a requirement is fair and just.

 

Although the requirement can still be met by Adequate maintenance if the sponsor is in receipt of one of the following:

• Carer’s Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance
• Severe Disablement Allowance
• Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
• Attendance Allowance
• Personal Independence Payment
• Armed Forces Independence Payment or Guaranteed Income Payment under the  Armed Forces Compensation Scheme
• Constant Attendance Allowance
• Mobility Supplement or War Disablement Pension under the War Pensions Scheme
• Police Injury Pension.

However, they still need to show that they can support the applicant without claiming or receiving any additional public funds.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

47 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 They imply, for sure; but if you read the while article you will see that such an implication means nothing.

 

How hard is it to find a £9 an hour job? Depends on where you live, your age, qualifications and experience.

 

I used to be self employed and earning well above £18,600 p.a. until developing epilepsy about 10 years ago meant I was no longer able to continue in my profession. I am unable to do the job I am qualified for and have no other qualifications except 'O' levels and, of course, no experience outside my old profession. Since then I have only found work at minimum wage or just above. In my current job I do earn above £9 per hour, but only because I receive a London allowance on top of the hourly rate.

 

The average wage in the UK may be £505 p.w. (source; ONS), but that figure includes everyone; from Premier League footballers and City bankers to part time shelf fillers in Tesco. As stated much earlier in this topic, approx. 40% or UK workers earn less than £18,600 p.a.

 

Why should they be denied the right to live in the UK with their foreign spouse, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without any recourse to any public funds; which, of course, the rules require anyway and have done for at least the nearly 20 years I have taken an interest in UK immigration matters.

 

 

I do not believe they should be denied, I believe it is a human right to be able to live in your country with your family.  But I do question just how difficult it is for most, I am sympathetic of your case, and perhaps they would be as well, but most of us do not have health problems that restrict our ability to work, yes there are less affluent areas but if you want to be with your family you could move, less qualified people could get themselves qualified, the rule is real, we have to deal with that and moaning will not help those who do not qualify, and I think for most there would be a way to get there if they simply applied themselves.

[Kieran00001]

54 minutes ago, rasg said:

And how will you do that? You have to provide a full set of annual accounts, tax returns and bank statements to show that you have earned the money.

 

Accounts and tax returns with some cash sales added, simple stuff.

[Kieran00001]

37 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Well poor old Mickey dips out again perhaps.  While he can not hope to obtain permanent residence in Thailand it is possible to roll over a temporay stay based on family dependency.  Yet, I don't know if this based on potential or actuality, because it does require 440k in Thai bank account, or same amount in earnings, or a combination of both.  If he can't meet that maybe that would be his savings grace.

 

A bag of speed every Saturday night and he should be able to meet the threshold, some taxi drivers drive to other cities to work the weekends, sleeping in their cab so they can work a bit more in a city where they can earn more, it really depends on Mickey, just about anyone can pull in 22K if they are willing to go the extra mile.

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

A bag of speed every Saturday night and he should be able to meet the threshold, some taxi drivers drive to other cities to work the weekends, sleeping in their cab so they can work a bit more in a city where they can earn more, it really depends on Mickey, just about anyone can pull in 22K if they are willing to go the extra mile.

Note: it is above the min. wage though, and increments are not so easily obtained these days.  His age makes it difficult to work long hours.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Note: it is above the min. wage though, and increments are not so easily obtained these days.  His age makes it difficult to work long hours.

 

Yeah, he's probably a bit old for speed as well.

[Alsyapal]

On 9/17/2017 at 8:09 AM, MickTurator said:

Only if they were married before the birth.

I fell foul of that law and it has plagued me and my daughter for the rest of our lives.

I know something about British nationality law, I studied certain sections of it in depth due to my own family being dual nationals. Assuming the child has his blood, he/she is automatically British if just one parents is British, regardless of the marital status of the parents. If one parent was REGISTERED as British (not the same as naturalised) any children they have will also be British automatically, but only for the first generation of child. Grandchildren of REGISTERED British are not automatically British.

Edited Sunday at 08:30 AM by NilSS

 

The law changed around fifteen years ago to include children of unmarried persons to qualify for Uk citizenship.  Previously the child had to have married parents one of which a UK citizen.   My daughter now 25 was born in wedlock unfortunately due to the loss of the marriage certificate.  I am British or English as I like to say.  The Mother has a UK passport because her parents are UK citizens.  Without proof of marriage I cannot get my legitimate daughter a UK passport......However she lives in South Africa and because of Brexit and the state of the nation she isnt really fussed.  

 

 

[sambum]

15 minutes ago, Alsyapal said:

I know something about British nationality law, I studied certain sections of it in depth due to my own family being dual nationals. Assuming the child has his blood, he/she is automatically British if just one parents is British, regardless of the marital status of the parents. If one parent was REGISTERED as British (not the same as naturalised) any children they have will also be British automatically, but only for the first generation of child. Grandchildren of REGISTERED British are not automatically British.

Edited Sunday at 08:30 AM by NilSS

 

The law changed around fifteen years ago to include children of unmarried persons to qualify for Uk citizenship.  Previously the child had to have married parents one of which a UK citizen.   My daughter now 25 was born in wedlock unfortunately due to the loss of the marriage certificate.  I am British or English as I like to say.  The Mother has a UK passport because her parents are UK citizens.  Without proof of marriage I cannot get my legitimate daughter a UK passport......However she lives in South Africa and because of Brexit and the state of the nation she isnt really fussed.  

 

 

"My daughter now 25 was born in wedlock unfortunately due to the loss of the marriage certificate."

 

Please explain - I am a trifle confused!

[HooHaa]

On 9/17/2017 at 3:53 PM, baansgr said:

I thought that initially but reading the article, as he is self employed he needs to show tax returns for a full year which he dosnt yet have

ah, reading the article before diving into the discussion -  what a novel idea.

[7by7]

57 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Accounts and tax returns with some cash sales added, simple stuff.

But those cash sales, if they exist, would have to be declared on the sponsor's SA return and appear in his SA statement to count towards the financial requirement.

 

The original post was about undeclared income; which, as said, cannot be used.

 

In addition, the sponsor's SA return and statement alone are not enough; see "9.6. Sole trader, partner or franchise – specified evidence" in the appendix.

 

Besides, how many, and what type of, cash sales does the average taxi driver make?

[Kieran00001]

Just now, 7by7 said:

But those cash sales, if they exist, would have to be declared on the sponsor's SA return and appear in his SA statement to count towards the financial requirement.

 

The original post was about undeclared income; which, as said, cannot be used.

 

In addition, the sponsor's SA return and statement alone are not enough; see "9.6. Sole trader, partner or franchise – specified evidence" in the appendix.

 

Besides, how many, and what type of, cash sales does the average taxi driver make?

 

Yes, also a falsely high SA declaration, it is only a number you enter by the way, and I don't imagine they will care if you make it higher, they are looking for the ones who make it lower, higher ones would just give them more tax.  And surely the vast majority of their sales are cash, it's a taxi, do you pay by card when you take a taxi?

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I do not believe they should be denied, I believe it is a human right to be able to live in your country with your family.  But I do question just how difficult it is for most, I am sympathetic of your case, and perhaps they would be as well, but most of us do not have health problems that restrict our ability to work, yes there are less affluent areas but if you want to be with your family you could move, less qualified people could get themselves qualified, the rule is real, we have to deal with that and moaning will not help those who do not qualify, and I think for most there would be a way to get there if they simply applied themselves.

 If only it were that simple.

 

When was the last time you looked for a job in the UK?

 

Relocating? What would you suggest? Find a job and then hope to find somewhere to live, or find somewhere to live and then hope to find a job? Yes, people do it; but it's not straightforward if doing so on your own without an employers help; I know, because I've tried.

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, also a falsely high SA declaration, it is only a number you enter by the way, and I don't imagine they will care if you make it higher, they are looking for the ones who make it lower, higher ones would just give them more tax.  And surely the vast majority of their sales are cash, it's a taxi, do you pay by card when you take a taxi?

So you are advising not only falsifying your tax return, plus all the other documents required which must cover a whole tax year; but also using deception in a UK visa application?

 

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 If only it were that simple.

 

When was the last time you looked for a job in the UK?

 

Relocating? What would you suggest? Find a job and then hope to find somewhere to live, or find somewhere to live and then hope to find a job? Yes, people do it; but it's not straightforward if doing so on your own without an employers help; I know, because I've tried.

 

Strange that millions of immigrants achieve it then, isn't it?  And I never said it was straightforward, I said that just about anyone could achieve it if they applied themselves, obviously there are those who can't apply themselves, you perhaps among them.

[7by7]

It is obvious from the posts in this topic that many (most?) British expats in Thailand, and doubtless elsewhere, are unaware of the UK's family migration rules and the requirements of those rules.

 

But, why should they be? I had no idea until I met, fell in love with married a Thai woman and we decided the best option for us was to live in the UK. 

 

However, some of those people are criticising Murray because they say he should have found out about the rules before falling for a Thai woman and starting a family with her!

 

Doubtless, like me when I married, he believed that while there would be hurdles to jump and requirements to be met that at least the rules would be fair. Which for me and my wife back in 2000 they were; but now in the case of the financial requirement they most certainly are not.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So you are advising not only falsifying your tax return, plus all the other documents required which must cover a whole tax year; but also using deception in a UK visa application?

 

 

Not advise, just surprised that those who are self employed and don't meet the threshold do not do it, it is not as if there is any way they could get caught, they do not ask you for every receipt even if you are subjected to a full audit as there is an exceptable allowance of cash transactions, or another way would be instead of inflating sales to not submit all of your expenditure, quite an easy thing for a taxi driver to not submit all of their fuel receipts or not claim their allowance for car depreciation, and it is not fraud to neglect to offset all that you are entitled to.

[7by7]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Strange that millions of immigrants achieve it then, isn't it?  And I never said it was straightforward, I said that just about anyone could achieve it if they applied themselves, obviously there are those who can't apply themselves, you perhaps among them.

 Millions? Really? 

 

You are obviously one of those I mention above who know very little about immigration to the UK in general and the UK's family migration rules in particular; maybe you should do some research? Start with the various links I have posted in several of my posts in this topic.

 

[7by7]

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

Not advise, just surprised that those who are self employed and don't meet the threshold do not do it, it is not as if there is any way they could get caught, they do not ask you for every receipt even if you are subjected to a full audit as there is an exceptable allowance of cash transactions, or another way would be instead of inflating sales to not submit all of your expenditure, quite an easy thing for a taxi driver to not submit all of their fuel receipts or not claim their allowance for car depreciation, and it is not fraud to neglect to offset all that you are entitled to.

 You obviously haven't read the link I provided earlier, so here is the evidence required from the self employed:-

 

"7. In respect of self-employment in the UK as a partner, as a sole trader or in a franchise, all of the following must be provided:
(a) Evidence of the amount of tax payable, paid and unpaid for the last full financial year. 
(b) The following documents for the last full financial year, or for the last two such years (where those documents show the necessary level of gross profit as an average of those two years):
(i) Annual self-assessment tax return to HMRC (a copy or print-out);

(ii) Statement of Account (SA300 or SA302).
(c) Proof of registration with HMRC as self-employed if available. 
(d) Each partner's Unique Tax Reference Number (UTR) and/or the UTR of the partnership or business. 
(e) Where the person holds or held a separate business bank account(s), bank statements for the same 12-month period as the tax return(s). 
(f) Personal bank statements for the same 12-month period as the tax return(s) showing that the income from self-employment has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly. 
(g) Evidence of ongoing self-employment through the provision of at least one of the following: a bank statement dated no more than three months earlier than the date of application showing transactions relating to ongoing trading, or evidence dated no more than three months earlier than the date of application of the renewal of a licence to trade or of ongoing payment of business rates, business-related insurance premiums, employer National Insurance contributions or franchise payments to the parent company.
(h) One of the following documents must also be submitted: 
(i) (aa) If the business is required to produce annual audited accounts, such accounts for the last full financial year; or
(bb) If the business is not required to produce annual audited accounts, unaudited accounts for the last full financial year and an accountant’s certificate of confirmation, from an accountant who is a member of a UK Recognised Supervisory Body (as defined in the Companies Act 2006) or who is a member of the Institute of Financial Accountants;
(ii) A certificate of VAT registration and the VAT return for the last full financial year (a copy or print-out) confirming the VAT registration number, if turnover is in excess of £79,000 or was in excess of the threshold which applied during the last full financial year;

(iii) Evidence to show appropriate planning permission or local planning authority consent is held to operate the type/class of business at the trading address (where this is a local authority requirement); or

(iv) A franchise agreement signed by both parties. 
(i) The document referred to in paragraph 7(h)(iv) must be provided if the organisation is a franchise. "

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

It is obvious from the posts in this topic that many (most?) British expats in Thailand, and doubtless elsewhere, are unaware of the UK's family migration rules and the requirements of those rules.

 

But, why should they be? I had no idea until I met, fell in love with married a Thai woman and we decided the best option for us was to live in the UK. 

 

However, some of those people are criticising Murray because they say he should have found out about the rules before falling for a Thai woman and starting a family with her!

 

Doubtless, like me when I married, he believed that while there would be hurdles to jump and requirements to be met that at least the rules would be fair. Which for me and my wife back in 2000 they were; but now in the case of the financial requirement they most certainly are not.

The other thing is we tend not go about marriage and kids in a fully conscious way- that's human nature.  I have a daughter but both myself and my wife were wrong ages for conception though it eventually happened.  Obviously, I wasn't going to research anything first, and in any case was set in Thailand, perhaps 'Mickey' had the same notion.  My sense of responsibility kicked in early, but that can happen at different times depending on the individual.

 

It just seems to me that some posters wanted to put the weight of the world on this guy's shoulders.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Millions? Really? 

 

You are obviously one of those I mention above who know very little about immigration to the UK in general and the UK's family migration rules in particular; maybe you should do some research? Start with the various links I have posted in several of my posts in this topic.

 

 

The average income for immigrants is close to the UK average, around £15 an hour, there are over 8 million immigrants in the UK, 45% of which are in managerial and professional roles, another 18% in skilled trades, more than half of them would easily meet this very low threashold, so yes it really is millions of them regardless of what it was you thought you knew about UK immigration, ?