Accomodation Question

[chongam]

Ok here goes--I will be applying for a UK settlement visa for my wife in June--my problem? is that I live in a shared house, the house has 4 bedrooms, a lounge, a large kitchen/dining room room, bathroom etc, the house is occupied by 4 people including myself, is this adequate under the rules or will I have to think about renting a house?--BTW I can produce both a tennency agreement and a letter of permission from the owner--and. is the owner likely to be contacted by the Embassy?---she's just asking--not a problem to be contacted---many thanks.

[CharlieB]

As long as you have your own private room, i.e. your bedroom then you should be ok. I doubt they will contact the owner, but put as much info as possible down about the space in the house, number of rooms etc.

[chongam]

As long as you have your own private room, i.e. your bedroom then you should be ok. I doubt they will contact the owner, but put as much info as possible down about the space in the house, number of rooms etc.

Yes, I have my own room---thanks for the info

Edited March 29, 2010 by chongam

[7by7]

You should describe the accommodation available and who already lives there to show that there is at least one room available for the exclusive use of you and your wife.

The letter from your landlord should not only grant your wife permission to live there, but should also confirm that there is room for her.

As the house is in multiple occupancy, the ECO may write to your landlord; but it's unlikely.

See Maintenance and accommodation for more details.

[RAZZELL]

You should describe the accommodation available and who already lives there to show that there is at least one room available for the exclusive use of you and your wife.

The letter from your landlord should not only grant your wife permission to live there, but should also confirm that there is room for her.

As the house is in multiple occupancy, the ECO may write to your landlord; but it's unlikely.

See Maintenance and accommodation for more details.

Interesting link, thanks

A bit off-topic, but I read this:

"If it is more likely than not that the total amount that the applicant and sponsor will have to live on will be below what the income support level would be for a British family of that size, then it may be appropriate to refuse the application on maintenance and accommodation grounds.

Maintenance may be provided by either:

The applicant with their own funds or with funds available to them; or

The sponsor; or

A combination of applicant and sponsor funds."

Does that mean that if you had £64.30 (equivalent to the level of income support) per week "spare" that would be the legal minimum to fulfill the financial side of "sponsorship" for an applicant?

Is this a realistic amount per week to have "set aside"? Or more...or a lot more

RAZZ

Edited March 29, 2010 by RAZZELL

[ThaiVisaExpress]

I would advise you insert photographs of the property as it is shared accommodation.

[7by7]

Does that mean that if you had £64.30 (equivalent to the level of income support) per week "spare" that would be the legal minimum to fulfill the financial side of "sponsorship" for an applicant?

Not really, as there is no 'legal minimum.'

The amount of income required depends upon what the sponsor and applicant's circumstances will be in the UK, and each case is judged on it's own merits. As the guidance says, the UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has determined that it would be inappropriate for an immigrant family to live on less than the income support level for a British family of that size. However, this is a guidance figure, not set in stone, "it may be appropriate to refuse the application on maintenance and accommodation grounds."

"May be," not "will be." However, if a couple's disposable income is less than this amount, they may have trouble convincing the ECO that they satisfy the requirement and wont need public funds.

Obviously, the more disposable income an applicant and sponsor can show, the better.

Note, too, that the guidance has not been updated yet to reflect a recent Supreme Court ruling that third party financial support is also acceptable.