Uk Settlement Visa - No Recourse To Public Funds

[Mercury]

Looking at the no recourse to public funds requirements for a UK settlement visa, I searched through this forum and came across some threads which mention all manner of situations but no threads which actually detail what public funds means in any great detail. I wonder if anyone here has any information.

One might think income support or job seekers allowance would be the primary ones but when it comes to tax credits the situation becomes far more complex. For starters, tax credits are based on your income the previous year, unless your current year income is over £25k different, when they would be re-assessed using current year income. Tax credits can also be paid out to people whose incomes are around £60k per annum. Then there is housing benefit, which is payable depending upon where you live and how much you earn. Are these classed as public funds ?

I can think of an example of someone who was unemployed last year and received tax credits but was working this year and still receiving those tax credits. Would that fall under the public funds criterion ?

Then what about housing benefit ? Two people on the same salary could be in different position simply because of where they live, with one receiving housing benefit and the other not, purely because of the differing rents they pay. Is that a public funds issue ?

Then what about indirect benefits such as council housing. Surely that is subsidised by the public purse, so is that an issue ?

If it is just benefits purely derived from unemployment then that is easy to define but many benefits are available to people who are working and actually have very good salaries. Are they barred from sponsoring their partner for settlement in the UK simply because an overly generous government has dictated that they can receive tax credits at their salary level ?

Is there a specific resource to look at or does anyone know ? I am presuming that they check but what can they check and what is allowed and what is not ?

[Thongkorn]

It does what it says, no recourse to Public funds, Your wife/ Partner can be registered at your Doctors, and can get Hospital treatment for Emergency's. She can get an National insurance number to work , The only thing she can claim is Job seekers allowance, and you can claim on your tax for supporting your wife.Correct me if I am wrong .

[Mossfinn]

Info

More information about public funds can be found in the leaflet '"No recourse to public funds" - what does it mean?', which you can download from the right side of the page above.

[Mossfinn]

Mercury, I have just scanned your whole post, the 'no recourse to public funds', is in regard to the person obtaining the visa, not to the partner.

For example, the person with the visa with the above stamp can't apply for child benefit, but the partner if legible, can.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Mossfinn

[the scouser]

...but the partner if legible...

Moss, I think you've hit the nail on the head. So many problems in a relationship resolve to one party not being able to properly read the other.

Scouse.

[Mossfinn]

Yes I agree.

Whether posts are eligible, being in context, or rightfully chosen, or legible, capable of being understood, or totally illegible, incapable of being understood, are all worthy of the Grammar Police.

However, to the OP, after a bad day, followed ingloriously by a fine single malt, I did actually mean eligible, rather than legible, but then I know that you knew that I know that you knew that.

I really hope that I have my ligables from my legables

[7by7]

Topic closed, as this question is being dealt with in the OP's other topic.