Flying to UK ?

[Tuvoc]

I've booked with Thai Airways to return next month. Only around £60 more expensive than the other airlines that have a stopover in Europe.  Don't need to worry about changing rules and regulations of a transmit country, and indeed the UK changing the status of any transit country. All I need to worry about is Thailand itself staying on the Amber list and not going red. Pretty confident it will stay Amber.

 

I'm going to try to get a refund or credit for my unused Qatar Airways return. I didn't think that was possible, but their flexible booking conditions seems to suggest that it is. How much it will be is the other question. Potentially in the 3 week review by the UK govt due at end of May Qatar could be taken off the redlist, but no guarantees and again if I did wait for that everything is very last minute and I don't like that.

 

In terms of Day 2 and 8 Covid test, I went for the £139 option:

https://certific.chhp.com/

 

The cheapest £99 option from another company that was listed here only take booking two weeks in advance, and I wanted to get it sorted and out of the way now rather than wait. No extra postage costs with this company either unless you want faster than a 24 hr post service. The lab results also seem to be promised to be faster.

 

Now to find out where to get a pre-flight covid test. My wife suggests getting it here in Chiang Rai before flying down to Bangkok, to reduce possible Covid exposure there. Hopefully a local Bangkok Hospital or Kasemrad will do it. Will have to make some phone calls.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Tuvoc

[Tuvoc]

Spoke to Qatar, refund of about £280 for the unused return leg to the UK, not bad at all. Takes 28 days.

[KhaoYai]

13 hours ago, treetops said:

As for airlines providing the information, they all make it clear that it's up to the passenger to present themself with the appropriate paperwork and anything they say on their website or wherever is for guidance only.  They do this because they all pay Timatic to do it for them to ensure a common approach and no unnecessary duplication of effort.

So why don't they simply say 'check what is required by both the airline and the destination country on the Titmatic website'.

 

By the way, I just googled 'what documents do I need to travel to the UK from Thailand' - Titmatic didn't come up on page 1 or page 2 of the results - that's as far as I went and probably 1 page more than most. You say the airlines make it clear that it's up to passengers to have the correct paperwork with them - given that most people don't appear to have heard of Titmatic, I'd suggest that anyone wishing to travel to the UK might expect that they'd fulfilled the airlines instructions by checking out the UK government's instructions on their website - which does not state that a receipt for booking testing is required.  I really don't think people check out travel forums for info - I'd rather get the official requirements, especially in times like this.

 

I normally fly with Etihad who are pretty good at letting passengers know what they and countries require and they've been updating that information regularly - even listing PCR testing sites in most countries. That's what I expect from an airline - not this rubbish the OP describes from Thai Airways.   I suspect that a lot of their passengers will get caught out and won't be as lucky as the subject in the OP - being able to get the receipt e-mailed.  That's going to translate to a lot of peed off customers - hardly surprising Thai Airways are bankrupt.

[KhaoYai]

13 hours ago, treetops said:

They do this because they all pay Timatic to do it for them to ensure a common approach and no unnecessary duplication of effort.

Would you happen to know if the Titmatic website is the culprit behind the false information that travellers to the UK on visitor's visas need a return ticket?

[Brierley]

15 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Would you happen to know if the Titmatic website is the culprit behind the false information that travellers to the UK on visitor's visas need a return ticket?

That's a visa related issue, most foreigners who visit the UK on tourist visa's do need an onward ticket or at least be able to prove they have the means to acquire one. There's also the issue of whether the airline will let you board a flight at departure, without one.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Brierley

[KhaoYai]

9 hours ago, Tuvoc said:

All I need to worry about is Thailand itself staying on the Amber list and not going red. Pretty confident it will stay Amber.

I hope you are correct but please be aware that one of the things that are considered when deciding a country's list colour is how their vaccine programme is progressing. Clearly at the moment the (relatively) low number of infections in Thailand is keeping their head above water but they will be getting a big minus on the vaccine so it might not take much of a rise in infections to tip the balance.  For that reason I won't be booking my wife's flight until very near to her intended travel date.

[KhaoYai]

4 minutes ago, Brierley said:

That's a visa related issue, most foreigners who visit the UK on tourist visa's do need an onward ticket or at least be able to prove they have the means to acquire one..

Please show me where, in the UK's requirements, it states that a return/onward flight is required.

 

Anyone arriving in the UK on a visit visa may well be questioned and if the I.O. is not satisfied with their answer, they may be refused entry.  Its therefore recommended but its not a requirement. See my earlier post on this subject - my ex arrived in the UK without a return.

[Brierley]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

Please show me where, in the UK's requirements, it states that a return/onward flight is required.

 

Anyone arriving in the UK on a visit visa may well be questioned and if the I.O. is not satisfied with their answer, they may be refused entry.  Its therefore recommended but its not a requirement. See my earlier post on this subject - my ex arrived in the UK without a return.

Read my post again, slowly.

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, Brierley said:

Read my post again, slowly.

I have.  I'm fully aware that some airlines will not let people board - been though all that.  I've heard of quite a few people being refused boarding but I've never heard of anyone being allowed to board by showing they have the means to pay for a return.

 

I had this issue with Finnair last year - they assured me they did not require a return ticket but their outsourced check-in agents went against that.

[Brierley]

44 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I have.  I'm fully aware that some airlines will not let people board - been though all that.  I've heard of quite a few people being refused boarding but I've never heard of anyone being allowed to board by showing they have the means to pay for a return.

 

I had this issue with Finnair last year - they assured me they did not require a return ticket but their outsourced check-in agents went against that.

I didn't suggest the airlines will ask you if you have the means to pay for a return ticket, the two sentences in my post deal with different aspects of the subject, that's why there are two sentences!!!

[Tuvoc]

4 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I hope you are correct but please be aware that one of the things that are considered when deciding a country's list colour is how their vaccine programme is progressing. Clearly at the moment the (relatively) low number of infections in Thailand is keeping their head above water but they will be getting a big minus on the vaccine so it might not take much of a rise in infections to tip the balance.  For that reason I won't be booking my wife's flight until very near to her intended travel date.

 

Yes I'm aware that the vaccination programme is also a factor.  Today's numbers just announced, a decrease to 1,630 new cases. I think it would take quite a big leap in cases for Thailand to be considered for the redlist, and they do seem to be able to control things very well. They've done badly on vaccinations  because they've wrongly in my view been simply waiting on their local AZ production. But they have an excellent record of keeping outbreaks under control.

[Tuvoc]

In hindsight though, I should probably have booked the flight for an earlier date to reduce that risk. Oh well.

[treetops]

10 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

So why don't they simply say 'check what is required by both the airline and the destination country on the Titmatic website'.

<snip>

 

Again I agree, it's a far from perfect system and I can't tell you how it ended up as it is.  However it is what it is and in the current situation regarding international travel it certainly makes sense to use all available tools to smooth the way and avoid incidents like the one described.

 

Although previously an Etihad Guest gold member I'm not up to speed with their practices as they pulled out of my local airport a few years ago.  Emirates however do have their own interface into Timatic for customer use.  Here's a screenshot with some of the details for an Irish national entering the UK (for some reason it wouldn't let me select a UK national entering the UK).  Perhaps it's a measure of the airline as there are others with Timatic links/interfaces for customer use.

 

 

https://www.emirates.com/english/before-you-fly/visa-passport-information/

 

[Tuvoc]

The other unspeakable risk factor.... Will Thai Airways still be flying on 20th June which is the date of my flight !

[KhaoYai]

10 hours ago, Tuvoc said:

But they have an excellent record of keeping outbreaks under control.

On paper perhaps.  Whether what they publish is the truth or not is another matter. We just have to hope the UK government believe it.

[KhaoYai]

15 hours ago, Brierley said:

That's a visa related issue, most foreigners who visit the UK on tourist visa's do need an onward ticket or at least be able to prove they have the means to acquire one.

OK, let's look at it in terms of the above sentence.  The issue may be related to a visa but there is no requirement by the UK authorities that I know of, that requires a return ticket.  A visa applicant simply has to show they or their sponsor can meet the full costs of the trip.  If say, only £500 was available, the visa application would almost certainly fail but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere on a visitor visa application does it state that the costs must cover a return or outward (UK) journey.

 

The issue is that some airlines or their agents state that a return ticket is required when its not.  In the case I mentioned with Finnair, the airline themselves know this and told me they do not require one - unfortunately they seem to have failed to relay that information to their agents in Bangkok.  I was trying to find out where the agents are getting this requirement from - if it isn't from the airline. I suspect that this Titmatic thing may be the culprit.

 

Airlines allowing passengers to travel without the correct documents can find themselves faced with the cost of repatriating that passenger - that's why they check.  However, I don't see how they could be made to pay if the rules don't state a return ticket is required.

 

Airlines/agents asking for such things can cause unnecessary problems for passengers - take the case of the situation last year.  I knew very well that my wife would not be allowed to travel back to Thailand on any flight I booked for her as she would have to apply to the Thai Embassy to join a repatriation flight.  I didn't trust what Finnair told me so I booked her fully refundable ticket on Etihad.  My suspicions were correct and the check-in agents asked to see her return ticket.  I was then out of pocket until I received a refund from Etihad.  Complete waste of time and effort.

 

Out of interest - I made Finnair aware that my wife had been asked for a return ticket and they told me they would get their manager in Bangkok to ask the check-in agents why they had requested it. They apologised and said they would get back to me - they didn't.????

Edited May 10, 2021 by KhaoYai

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, Tuvoc said:

The other unspeakable risk factor.... Will Thai Airways still be flying on 20th June which is the date of my flight !

I really can't see the Thai government allowing them to fail completely - too big a loss of face.

 

They might find some way of allowing them to get out of paying their debts but continuing though. Is that not what's already happened?  I've no idea really, I heard they'd gone under last year but I see they're still flying - I would never travel with them so I haven't followed the story.

[Brierley]

6 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

OK, let's look at it in terms of the above sentence.  The issue may be related to a visa but there is no requirement by the UK authorities that I know of, that requires a return ticket.  A visa applicant simply has to show they or their sponsor can meet the full costs of the trip.  If say, only £500 was available, the visa application would almost certainly fail but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere on a visitor visa application does it state that the costs must cover a return or outward (UK) journey.

 

The issue is that some airlines or their agents state that a return ticket is required when its not.  In the case I mentioned with Finnair, the airline themselves know this and told me they do not require one - unfortunately they seem to have failed to relay that information to their agents in Bangkok.  I was trying to find out where the agents are getting this requirement from - if it isn't from the airline. I suspect that this Titmatic thing may be the culprit.

 

Airlines allowing passengers to travel without the correct documents can find themselves faced with the cost of repatriating that passenger - that's why they check.  However, I don't see how they could be made to pay if the rules don't state a return ticket is required.

 

Airlines/agents asking for such things can cause unnecessary problems for passengers - take the case of the situation last year.  I knew very well that my wife would not be allowed to travel back to Thailand on any flight I booked for her as she would have to apply to the Thai Embassy to join a repatriation flight.  I didn't trust what Finnair told me so I booked her fully refundable ticket on Etihad.  My suspicions were correct and the check-in agents asked to see her return ticket.  I was then out of pocket until I received a refund from Etihad.  Complete waste of time and effort.

 

Out of interest - I made Finnair aware that my wife had been asked for a return ticket and they told me they would get their manager in Bangkok to ask the check-in agents why they had requested it. They apologised and said they would get back to me - they didn't.????

"The issue may be related to a visa but there is no requirement by the UK authorities that I know of, that requires a return ticket.  A visa applicant simply has to show they or their sponsor can meet the full costs of the trip.  If say, only £500 was available, the visa application would almost certainly fail but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere on a visitor visa application does it state that the costs must cover a return or outward (UK) journey".

 

You're just going to have to take it as fact that it does include the return trip, trust me on this.

 

The key part that you seem to be missing is that a visa is permission to travel to a country, it is not necessarily permission to enter that country. It's the Entry Clearance Officers (ECO) job to determine if the person may enter and for how long, regardless of the validity of their visa. ECO's needs to satisfy themselves that the reasons for the persons visit are lawful; that the persons circumstances have not changed from when the visa was issued; that the person intends to return at the end of their stay; that the person has the means to support themselves during their stay and this includes the ability to fund their return trip home; that the person will not work unless permitted, etc etc etc. If the ECO can't satisfy themselves on those points they have the right to say, sorry, you're going back on the next flight. In practice they usually ask one or two simply questions, unless something triggers more intense questioning. But to say there is no requirement for the visa holder to posses a return ticket or to prove the means to pay for one, is simply not true.

 

All countries are very similar in this respect, Thailand requires short visa holder passengers to have an onwards ticket and the airlines must prove this before passengers are allowed to depart. The UK is generally a little more relaxed about the application of this rule for longer duration visa holders, but just because they are, doesn't mean the rule doesn't still exist.

[theoldgit]

8 hours ago, Brierley said:

"The issue may be related to a visa but there is no requirement by the UK authorities that I know of, that requires a return ticket.  A visa applicant simply has to show they or their sponsor can meet the full costs of the trip.  If say, only £500 was available, the visa application would almost certainly fail but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere on a visitor visa application does it state that the costs must cover a return or outward (UK) journey".

 

You're just going to have to take it as fact that it does include the return trip, trust me on this.

 

The key part that you seem to be missing is that a visa is permission to travel to a country, it is not necessarily permission to enter that country. It's the Entry Clearance Officers (ECO) job to determine if the person may enter and for how long, regardless of the validity of their visa. ECO's needs to satisfy themselves that the reasons for the persons visit are lawful; that the persons circumstances have not changed from when the visa was issued; that the person intends to return at the end of their stay; that the person has the means to support themselves during their stay and this includes the ability to fund their return trip home; that the person will not work unless permitted, etc etc etc. If the ECO can't satisfy themselves on those points they have the right to say, sorry, you're going back on the next flight. In practice they usually ask one or two simply questions, unless something triggers more intense questioning. But to say there is no requirement for the visa holder to posses a return ticket or to prove the means to pay for one, is simply not true.

 

All countries are very similar in this respect, Thailand requires short visa holder passengers to have an onwards ticket and the airlines must prove this before passengers are allowed to depart. The UK is generally a little more relaxed about the application of this rule for longer duration visa holders, but just because they are, doesn't mean the rule doesn't still exist.

 

A couple of points of clarification here, when a person, be they a visa national or not, travels to the UK Border, before they are "landed", allowed to proceed through the UK Border, they must satisfy the Border Force Officer that they have sufficient funds for the duration of their trip, or access to sufficient funds, and the means to return home.

The means to return home could be a return ticket, that's why some airlines will ask for one before they will fly you to the UK Border, and some Border Force Officers will sometimes ask for sight of a return ticket, either way a Border Force Officer can, and do, refuse entry to passengers if they can't prove they have the means to leave the UK.
Whilst you're correct in saying that it's the Entry Clearance Officer who decides whether to grant "entry clearance" a visa, which allows the passenger to travel to the UK Border, that's where their responsibility ends, it's the Border Force Officer who decides if the passenger can enter the UK or not.
The Border Force Officer cannot refuse entry on a whim, if Entry Clearance has been granted, before they can refuse entry they must satisfy a senior manager that the visa was issued based on fraudulent information or that there has been a material change in circumastances since the application was made.

[Brierley]

3 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

 

A couple of points of clarification here, when a person, be they a visa national or not, travels to the UK Border, before they are "landed", allowed to proceed through the UK Border, they must satisfy the Border Force Officer that they have sufficient funds for the duration of their trip, or access to sufficient funds, and the means to return home.

The means to return home could be a return ticket, that's why some airlines will ask for one before they will fly you to the UK Border, and some Border Force Officers will sometimes ask for sight of a return ticket, either way a Border Force Officer can, and do, refuse entry to passengers if they can't prove they have the means to leave the UK.
Whilst you're correct in saying that it's the Entry Clearance Officer who decides whether to grant "entry clearance" a visa, which allows the passenger to travel to the UK Border, that's where their responsibility ends, it's the Border Force Officer who decides if the passenger can enter the UK or not.
The Border Force Officer cannot refuse entry on a whim, if Entry Clearance has been granted, before they can refuse entry they must satisfy a senior manager that the visa was issued based on fraudulent information or that there has been a material change in circumastances since the application was made.

I think that's the sequence and scenario I had intended to relay but I got the job titles confused, ECO vs Border Force Officer, it makes sense now of course that the Border Force would have the final say.

[KhaoYai]

14 hours ago, Brierley said:

The key part that you seem to be missing is that a visa is permission to travel to a country, it is not necessarily permission to enter that country. It's the Entry Clearance Officers (ECO) job to determine if the person may enter and for how long, regardless of the validity of their visa. ECO's needs to satisfy themselves that the reasons for the persons visit are lawful; that the persons circumstances have not changed from when the visa was issued; that the person intends to return at the end of their stay; that the person has the means to support themselves during their stay and this includes the ability to fund their return trip home; that the person will not work unless permitted, etc etc etc. If the ECO can't satisfy themselves on those points they have the right to say, sorry, you're going back on the next flight. In practice they usually ask one or two simply questions, unless something triggers more intense questioning. But to say there is no requirement for the visa holder to posses a return ticket or to prove the means to pay for one, is simply not true.

You don't need to explain all that to me, I've made quite a few visa applications over the years for both partners and friends - I'm not missing anything.  The only one that ever failed was that of a friend of a friend who lied about her visa history - to me and on her application and the lie was discovered.  I may be a bit rusty on the online application process as I've only done one application recently - for my wife but to the best of my knowledge, the basic rules and ECO guidance have not changed.

 

You state 'But to say there is no requirement for the visa holder to posses a return ticket or to prove the means to pay for one, is simply not true.' Then please explain how my ex travelled to the UK in 2009 on a VV without a return ticket or funds? As her sponsor I had submitted copies of my bank statements that showed ample funds but nowhere did we state anything about a return ticket.  On entry, she was indeed asked why she had a one way ticket and I received a phone call from the ECO at Heathrow.  I explained that we had stated she would stay the full 6 months on the application but we were not sure about that, she may need to go back earlier (which she did) so we intended to buy the return when we were sure. I was not asked to provide up to date proof of funds, my explanation was accepted and she was granted entry.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the actual guidance notes provided to ECO's state that they have to be satisfied that the applicant/entrant will leave the UK by the expiry of their visa.  As evidenced by my ex's entry, provided a satisfactory reason is given, the applicant will be granted entry without either a ticket or funds.- ECO's are fully aware that I may have been able to show sufficient funds at the time of application but I could have bought a new car since. They are also aware that tickets can be cancelled and of the existence of 'throw-aways'. As you probably aware, having the funds to cover the cost of a return trip is just a small part of what is commonly known as 'having sufficient reason to return'.

 

Rather than me missing anything, I think you are missing my point - keep in mind that we are discussing the behaviour of an airline, not an ECO considering a visa application. I'm fully aware of what's required for a successful VV application and having sufficient funds to cover the entire trip forms part of that. It is a matter considered by an ECO on application not by an airline at the point of departure.  My point is that having a return ticket, whilst carrying significant weight on granting entry, is not a rule for the UK. The airline therefore, cannot be penalised for accepting a passenger without a return ticket. If you are suggesting that an airline will let someone on board that shows funds to buy a ticket, I'd very much doubt that would happen.

 

Despite your claims that what I have stated is not true.  I repeat, there is no rule requiring people entering the UK on a VV to have either a return ticket OR evidence of funds to buy one AT the point of entry.  I am not saying, by the way, that an ECO cannot refuse entry for that reason, I am simply saying that such a rule does not exist. If you have any evidence that the UK Immigration rules do state that, I'd like to see it.

 

I would state however, that although I believe an airline is wrong to ask passengers to provide evidence of a return ticket, they are within their rights to impose whatever rules they wish - whether that is a rule of the destination country or not.  In the case of Finnair, the airline stated thay do not require such evidence - the problem was caused by their agent.

 

I have simply been trying to establish why Finnair's agent asked my wife to show a return ticket - where that information came from and I suspect Titmatic is the source.

Edited May 11, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Brierley]

30 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

You don't need to explain all that to me, I've made quite a few visa applications over the years for both partners and friends - I'm not missing anything.  The only one that ever failed was that of a friend of a friend who lied about her visa history - to me and on her application and the lie was discovered.  I may be a bit rusty on the online application process as I've only done one application recently - for my wife but to the best of my knowledge, the basic rules and ECO guidance have not changed.

 

You state 'But to say there is no requirement for the visa holder to posses a return ticket or to prove the means to pay for one, is simply not true.' Then please explain how my ex travelled to the UK in 2009 on a VV without a return ticket or funds? As her sponsor I had submitted copies of my bank statements that showed ample funds but nowhere did we state anything about a return ticket.  On entry, she was indeed asked why she had a one way ticket and I received a phone call from the ECO at Heathrow.  I explained that we had stated she would stay the full 6 months on the application but we were not sure about that, she may need to go back earlier (which she did) so we intended to buy the return when we were sure. I was not asked to provide up to date proof of funds, my explanation was accepted and she was granted entry.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the actual guidance notes provided to ECO's state that they have to be satisfied that the applicant/entrant will leave the UK by the expiry of their visa.  As evidenced by my ex's entry, provided a satisfactory reason is given, the applicant will be granted entry without either a ticket or funds.- ECO's are fully aware that I may have been able to show sufficient funds at the time of application but I could have bought a new car since. They are also aware that tickets can be cancelled and of the existence of 'throw-aways'. As you probably aware, having the funds to cover the cost of a return trip is just a small part of what is commonly known as 'having sufficient reason to return'.

 

Rather than me missing anything, I think you are missing my point - keep in mind that we are discussing the behaviour of an airline, not an ECO considering a visa application. I'm fully aware of what's required for a successful VV application and having sufficient funds to cover the entire trip forms part of that. It is a matter considered by an ECO on application not by an airline at the point of departure.  My point is that having a return ticket, whilst carrying significant weight on granting entry, is not a rule for the UK. The airline therefore, cannot be penalised for accepting a passenger without a return ticket. If you are suggesting that an airline will let someone on board that shows funds to buy a ticket, I'd very much doubt that would happen.

 

Despite your claims that what I have stated is not true.  I repeat, there is no rule requiring people entering the UK on a VV to have either a return ticket OR evidence of funds to buy one AT the point of entry.  I am not saying, by the way, that an ECO cannot refuse entry for that reason, I am simply saying that such a rule does not exist. If you have any evidence that the UK Immigration rules do state that, I'd like to see it.

 

I would state however, that although I believe an airline is wrong to ask passengers to provide evidence of a return ticket, they are within their rights to impose whatever rules they wish - whether that is a rule of the destination country or not.  In the case of Finnair, the airline stated thay do not require such evidence - the problem was caused by their agent.

 

I have simply been trying to establish why Finnair's agent asked my wife to show a return ticket - where that information came from and I suspect Titmatic is the source.

We're done, I explained it once, The Moderator confirmed it, if you don't get it that's for you to sort out. I'm out.

[Tony M]

I think maybe there is some confusion here. Airlines do not ask passengers about having return tickets because of any UK immigration requirement.  They are fully aware that, if a passenger is refused entry to the UK, and does not have a return or onward ticket, then the airline is responsible for the cost of the return flight. That is the law. So, if the passenger holds a return or onward ticket, then the airline doesn't have to worry about the flight costs.  Some airlines, if they are concerned that the passenger doesn't hold a return or onward ticket, will give the passenger the opportunity to sign an indemnity form, stating that the passenger (or sponsor/guarantor) will pay the cost of removal from the UK if necessary. I think all airlines have this option, but many don't offer it.

[KhaoYai]

8 hours ago, theoldgit said:

A couple of points of clarification here, when a person, be they a visa national or not, travels to the UK Border, before they are "landed", allowed to proceed through the UK Border, they must satisfy the Border Force Officer that they have sufficient funds for the duration of their trip, or access to sufficient funds, and the means to return home.

Explain please. Sufficient funds are decided on the visa application, I've never heard of anyone being asked to show evidence of their funds at the point of entry. 'Means to return home', yes, that may be checked upon entry but they do not have to have either a ticket or any funds - if they are questioned and a satisfactory explanation is given. Therefore, in my opinion, in that paragraph you are talking about 2 separate matters - consideration of the visa application as one and the actual entry being the other. Funds are checked on application and a ticket may be checked on entry.

 

As I have stated several times, my ex didn't have a return ticket in 2009, the funds were satisfied as part of the visa application process and my explanation as to why she didn't have a return ticket was accepted during a telephone call. There are one or two more execptions/explanations that may be given which negate the need to show a ticket home - for example the traveller may have onward travel plans. If they are checked and have both an onward ticket and a valid visa for that country, they will be granted entry to the UK.  Nit picking I concede - just illustrating that the ticket does not have to be a return.

 

I totally agree with the rest of your post.  The point I've been making all along is that there is no hard and fast rule that states that the traveller must be in possession of a return ticket - yet some airlines require sight of one.  For the sake of Mr. Brierley I will repeat again, it is the airlines themselves that impose such conditions - why I cannot understand as there is no written rule that could lead to them having to foot the bill for a passenger being denied entry because they did not have a return ticket.

 

That is not to say that the passenger will not be denied entry - just that the airline would not be held responsible.

Edited May 11, 2021 by KhaoYai

[KhaoYai]

11 minutes ago, Tony M said:

I think maybe there is some confusion here. Airlines do not ask passengers about having return tickets because of any UK immigration requirement.  They are fully aware that, if a passenger is refused entry to the UK, and does not have a return or onward ticket, then the airline is responsible for the cost of the return flight. That is the law. So, if the passenger holds a return or onward ticket, then the airline doesn't have to worry about the flight costs.  Some airlines, if they are concerned that the passenger doesn't hold a return or onward ticket, will give the passenger the opportunity to sign an indemnity form, stating that the passenger (or sponsor/guarantor) will pay the cost of removal from the UK if necessary. I think all airlines have this option, but many don't offer it.

Tony, I am aware of your history so I would bow to your greater knowledge but are you sure it is actually the law?  As I have written several times, I have practical experience of someone without a return ticket being granted entry following a satisfactory explanation as to why.

 

In no way am I suggesting you are being less than truthful and I'd swallow the pill if I'm wrong but do you have any link to such a law? To be specific, I am talking about a refusal of entry based on not having a return ticket.

 

Do I take it that the law you are meaning is a general travel law and not an immigration matter?

Edited May 11, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Tony M]

14 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Tony, I am aware of your history so I would bow to your greater knowledge but are you sure it is actually the law?  As I have written several times, I have practical experience of someone without a return ticket being granted entry following a satisfactory explanation as to why.

 

In no way am I suggesting you are being less than truthful and I'd swallow the pill if I'm wrong but do you have any link to such a law? To be specific, I am talking about a refusal of entry based on not having a return ticket.

 

There is no law that says that a passenger must hold a return ticket. The law is that the airline must remove the passenger from the UK whether that passenger holds a ticket or not. That is nothing to do with whether the passenger qualifies for entry or not, or holds ticket or not.  The airline wants the passenger to have a ticket so that they don't have to pay the costs or, as sometimes happens, offload a fare-paying passenger to take the passenger back to where he came from. The law is Schedule 2, Section 8(1) of the 1971 Immigration Act:

 

8(1)Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below—

 

(a)give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrives directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or

 

(b)give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or

 

(c)give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or territory so specified, being either—

 

(i)a country of which he is a national or citizen; or

(ii)a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or

(iii)a country or territory in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or

(iv)a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Tony M

[theoldgit]

4 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Explain please. Sufficient funds are decided on the visa application, I've never heard of anyone being asked to show evidence of their funds at the point of entry. 'Means to return home', yes, that may be checked upon entry but they do not have to have either a ticket or any funds - if they are questioned and a satisfactory explanation is given. Therefore, in my opinion, in that paragraph you are talking about 2 separate matters - consideration of the visa application as one and the actual entry being the other. Funds are checked on application and a ticket may be checked on entry.

 

As I have stated several times, my ex didn't have a return ticket in 2009, the funds were satisfied as part of the visa application process and my explanation as to why she didn't have a return ticket was accepted during a telephone call. There are one or two more execptions/explanations that may be given which negate the need to show a ticket home - for example the traveller may have onward travel plans. If they are checked and have both an onward ticket and a valid visa for that country, they will be granted entry to the UK.  Nit picking I concede - just illustrating that the ticket does not have to be a return.

 

I totally agree with the rest of your post.  The point I've been making all along is that there is no hard and fast rule that states that the traveller must be in possession of a return ticket - yet some airlines require sight of one.  For the sake of Mr. Brierley I will repeat again, it is the airlines themselves that impose such conditions - why I cannot understand as there is no written rule that could lead to them having to foot the bill for a passenger being denied entry because they did not have a return ticket.

 

That is no say that the passenger will not be denied entry - just that the airline would not be held responsible.

 

A quote from the Immigration Rules, whilst this requirement has to be met at the visa application stage, the Border Force Officer should be satisfied that the passenger still meets these requirements at the UK Border, a possession of a return ticket is the simplest way, and many officers will routinely ask for one, though it's fair to say that possession of a return ticket doesn't mean a passenger will return.

Some years ago, I think 2008 or 9, my then girlfriend, now my wife, were taking a side trip to Paris during a stay in the UK, on our return journey to London the IO was giving her a hard time, and I stepped forward to assist her. After I challenged him for the way he was talking to her, he started on me, he clearly wanted to refuse her entry because we had forgotten to take our return tickets with us, I'd also forgotten I had them on my phone. After reminding him that an actual return ticket wasn't required but mean to return were, he landed her and we were on our way.
 

1. V 4.2. The applicant must satisfy the decision maker that they are a genuine visitor, which means the applicant:
   1. (a) will leave the UK at the end of their visit; and
   2. (b) will not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits, or make the UK their main home; and
   3. (c) is genuinely seeking entry or stay for a purpose that is permitted under the visitor route as set out in Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities and at V 13.3; and
   4. (d) will not undertake any of the prohibited activities set out in V 4.4. to V 4.6; and
   5. (e) must have sufficient funds to cover all reasonable costs in relation to their visit without working or accessing public funds, including the cost of the return or onward journey, any costs relating to their dependants, and the cost of planned activities, such as private medical treatment (and the applicant must show that any funds they rely upon are held in a financial institution permitted under FIN 2.1. in Appendix Finance).

1. V 4.3. In assessing whether an applicant has sufficient funds under V 4.2.(e), the applicant’s travel, maintenance and accommodation may be provided by a third party only if that third party:
   1. (a) has a genuine professional or personal relationship with the applicant; and
   2. (b) is not, or will not be, in breach of immigration laws at the time of the decision or the applicant’s entry to the UK as a visitor; and
   3. (c) can and will provide support to the applicant for the intended duration of the applicant’s stay as a visitor.

 

[KhaoYai]

17 hours ago, theoldgit said:

Some years ago, I think 2008 or 9, my then girlfriend, now my wife, were taking a side trip to Paris during a stay in the UK, on our return journey to London the IO was giving her a hard time, and I stepped forward to assist her.

That brings back memories - I had a similar experience in 2001 or 2.  I was travelling from Bangkok to London with a girlfriend when, in my opinion, an I.O. was going too far with his questioning.  He seemed determined to refuse entry because we didn't have the supporting documentation that had accompanied the visa application with us.  I knew nothing of the law at the time but fortunately I had a friend who although not an immigration lawyer, was a lawyer with immigration experience - a quick phone call to him and we were on our way

 

I don't think there either was or is any regulation that says the applicant must have their documentation with them but since then I've made sure most is available.  My lawyer friend told the I.O. that although he was entitled to check that the applicant's situation had not changed, what he was doing was akin to reconsidering the entire application process - he was on thin ice and the matter may be taken futher.  He told my girlfriend to simply state that her situation had not changed since the application had been made and that the I.O. had access to that documentation if he wished to view it. That was enough.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by KhaoYai

[KhaoYai]

18 hours ago, Tony M said:

8(1)Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below—

 

(a)give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrives directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or

 

(b)give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or

 

(c)give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or territory so specified, being either—

 

(i)a country of which he is a national or citizen; or

(ii)a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or

(iii)a country or territory in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or

(iv)a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.

 

Thanks for that Tony.  It seems a little odd that an airline can be held responsible for the costs of removing an entrant simply because someone is refused entry.  Surely the reason for refusal of entry must have been clearly identifiable by the airline?

 

For example, if someone had lied on their visa application, been granted the visa but the lie was discovered on entry through questioning - are we saying that the airline would have to pay for the cost of removal in that case? Surely an airline cannot be held responsible for matters beyond their control and which they had no part in?

 

I note 8(1) is conditional.  I'm a little busy for the next few days but I'll do a little digging and see what those conditions say.