As I expected, this question is not answered in the Guidance Notes. If applying for ILR under category A,  I know the incomes of both people can be taken into account, but can the £18,600 rule be met by either the applicant or sponsor alone having 2 jobs if both have been for at least 6 months with proof from payslips and bank statements? Comments elsewhere suggest it can, but the Guidance Notes don't talk about scenarios involving 2 jobs. There is nothing anywhere saying incomes from 2 jobs of applicant or sponsor cannot be used to meet the requirement.

 

Thanks for any help.

Any and all income from salaried or non-salaried employment by the applicant, sponsor or both can be used to meet category A for ILR provided all the requirements are met and required evidence is produced for each employment.

 

True, neither the guidance nor the rules say that more than one source can be used, but they don't say only one source can be; which they would if that were the case. 

Thanks for that. I've got no idea why the guidance notes/rules can't just simply state that the income can come from more than 1 source?  Something that is possibly of great importance to many applicants is 'conveniently' just not mentioned.

I looked into this a few years ago and was told it was OK to meet the requirements through two jobs. 

Just a quick question, even though we aren't actually planning on doing this right now. 

 

Does that salary have to be earned in the UK?

 

We live in Bangkok and I earn annually way above the 18,600 / year.

 

Can that be used as the salary proof or not? 

1 hour ago, BobbyL said:

Does that salary have to be earned in the UK?

Provided you, the sponsor, have worked for your employer outside the UK for at least 6 months prior to your partner applying for UK settlement and you have a confirmed job offer, from the same or a new employer, in the UK paying at least £18,600 p.a. starting within three months of your move to the UK then you meet the financial requirement.

 

For the full details see 5.2. Category A: With current employer for 6 months or more – overseas sponsor returning to the UK of the financial requiremnnt appendix.

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Provided you, the sponsor, have worked for your employer outside the UK for at least 6 months prior to your partner applying for UK settlement and you have a confirmed job offer, from the same or a new employer, in the UK paying at least £18,600 p.a. starting within three months of your move to the UK then you meet the financial requirement.

 

For the full details see 5.2. Category A: With current employer for 6 months or more – overseas sponsor returning to the UK of the financial requiremnnt appendix.

Thanks a lot. Good to know. 

I should add that you don't necessarily have had to work for same employer for the 6months prior, see 5.4. Category B: Less than 6 months with current employer or variable income – overseas sponsor returning to the UK

Thanks for the advice guys. The 2 jobs option looks the easiest way to meet the £18,600. I'm currently self employed, but the criteria to be met for that looks far more complicated.

 

Having had a thorough look at the rules for every category for the first time in 2 years, they still look like a game of snakes and ladders. Every time you follow a good path, there's a snake at the end to send you back down again. The employment/cash savings part is just so clearly designed to be obstructive it would be laughable if it was a matter you could laugh at. Someone can earn £15,000 per annum and be £3600 short of the minimum required, but to meet the £18,600 requirement they need cash savings of around £20,000. How exactly can they justify that? If you are £3600 short then surely cash savings of £3600 should be enough. If you earn £15,000 a year you will be ineligible for housing benefit, council tax benefit, Universal Credit, mortgage assistance and any other income based benefit, so if you can't claim any benefits what is their justifiable reason for requiring cash savings above £3600 at all? 

 

This £18,600 rule with no account taken of Income and Expenditure is just a total farce. Somebody could be earning £18700 but could have a £600 a month mortgage and £500 of debt a month and a disposable monthly income of nil, but someone earning £18,500 could have their mortgage paid off, no debt and a disposable income of over £1000 a month. The person earning £18700 with nil disposable income meets the requirements, but the person earning £18500 with over £1000 disposable income doesn't. Farcical.

This £18,600 rule with no account taken of Income and Expenditure is just a total farce. Somebody could be earning £18700 but could have a £600 a month mortgage and £500 of debt a month and a disposable monthly income of nil, but someone earning £18,500 could have their mortgage paid off, no debt and a disposable income of over £1000 a month. The person earning £18700 with nil disposable income meets the requirements, but the person earning £18500 with over £1000 disposable income doesn't. Farcical.

An argument that been put by other forum members many times over the years, and one I personally agree with, there are of course others who have benefited by just proving gross income and not actual affordability, which makes a mockery of the whole system.

I think the system was introduced to show the Great British Public that HMG was actually ensuring that applicants had sufficient funds to live in the UK by demonstrating a partners actual income, the fact it didn’t prove affordability was neither here nor there, and HMG were confident that the Great British Public wouldn’t actually interrogate that facts, or actually care.

And of course there is the fact that it makes the decision process a tick box exercise, with decision makers just ticking the income/savings boxes without deciding on affordability.

Let’s not even start talking about when the Brit is a stay at home mother with no income and the applicant is likely to earn a decent salary which can’t be taken into consideration.