Uk Settlement Visa

[7by7]

I know the lowest income which the government says a family of 5 should live on is 275 GBP per week after accommodation has been paid for. So if I had a part time job which earned say 100 GBP a week but made the 175 quid up from my savings and it was enough to last at least one year then would that be acceptable do you think? This means I would need around 9,100 GBP as the job would get me 52 x 100 = 5,200 which equals 52 x 275 GBP per week.

Remember that the income support levels referred to in the entry clearance guidance is guidance. It is not a set, mandatory minimum figure.

The guidance says "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." Note that it says "may be appropriate" not that an application must be refused.

For example, if your mother is willing to support you not just by offering accommodation, but food etc. as well then your wife's application would not fail on these grounds. Of course your mother would need to show that she could afford to do so.

That is how I read it; but I would be grateful for TVE and VP's input

[7by7]

Firstly, I am not sure about my mothers savings but I do not want to use her savings as any kind of guarantee anyway.

Why not? All you need to do is show the ECO that this money is available to you; you don't actually have to use it once you are in the UK.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The point everyone seems to have missed is the applicant is Not entitled to funds, but her husband is entitled to take a part time job and he is entitled to tax credits.

The children are free from immigration control(British Citizens) he will in my opinion get the visa as long has he meets all the other requirements.

[returntotheuk]

Hi ThaiVisaExpress,

Thanks for all the info.

I am going to see if I can find a part time job in the UK from here, so I have a job on arrival. If no luck then I will just wait until we can sell some of our assets off so we can show enough cash to support us for a 1 year.

It would nice to be in the UK for Christmas, although not sure about the cold weather!!!

BTW, pretty sure even as British citizens we would not be entitled to any tax credits for some time. I have not lived in the UK for 8 years.

Thanks for all the advice.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

I know the lowest income which the government says a family of 5 should live on is 275 GBP per week after accommodation has been paid for. So if I had a part time job which earned say 100 GBP a week but made the 175 quid up from my savings and it was enough to last at least one year then would that be acceptable do you think? This means I would need around 9,100 GBP as the job would get me 52 x 100 = 5,200 which equals 52 x 275 GBP per week.

Remember that the income support levels referred to in the entry clearance guidance is guidance. It is not a set, mandatory minimum figure.

The guidance says "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." Note that it says "may be appropriate" not that an application must be refused.

For example, if your mother is willing to support you not just by offering accommodation, but food etc. as well then your wife's application would not fail on these grounds. Of course your mother would need to show that she could afford to do so.

That is how I read it; but I would be grateful for TVE and VP's input

is that figure currently £116.00 per week ?

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Hi ThaiVisaExpress,

Thanks for all the info.

I am going to see if I can find a part time job in the UK from here, so I have a job on arrival. If no luck then I will just wait until we can sell some of our assets off so we can show enough cash to support us for a 1 year.

It would nice to be in the UK for Christmas, although not sure about the cold weather!!!

BTW, pretty sure even as British citizens we would not be entitled to any tax credits for some time. I have not lived in the UK for 8 years.

Thanks for all the advice.

You should check

[7by7]

How much you can get

The amount of Income Support you can get is made up of three different parts:

• personal allowances
• premiums
• payments to cover certain housing costs

The amount of the personal allowances are shown in the table below:

Type of person Weekly amount

Single person Aged 16 to 24 £53.45

Aged 25 or over £67.50

Lone parent Aged 16 to 17 £53.45

Aged 18 or over £67.50

Couple With both people under 18 £53.45

With one person under 18 and the other aged 18 to 24 £53.45

With one person under 18 and the other aged 25 or over £67.50

With both people aged 18 or over £105.95

To get a better idea of how much Income Support you may get, use the online benefits adviser.

Benefits adviser Opens new window

From Income Support - how to claim and how much you can get

Obviously, the above amounts are increased if the claimant has children.

[7by7]

The point everyone seems to have missed is the applicant is Not entitled to funds, but her husband is entitled to take a part time job and he is entitled to tax credits.

With respect, from post number 6

Remember that you can claim any and all benefits to which you may be entitled, and this includes tax credits and child benefit; it is your wife who is prohibited from claiming public funds until she has Indefinite Leave to Remain.

I did, though, go on to say

However, any application which relied upon public funds the sponsor could claim once in the UK to satisfy the maintenance requirement would, in my opinion, fail.

Any thoughts on this?

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The point everyone seems to have missed is the applicant is Not entitled to funds, but her husband is entitled to take a part time job and he is entitled to tax credits.

With respect, from post number 6

Remember that you can claim any and all benefits to which you may be entitled, and this includes tax credits and child benefit; it is your wife who is prohibited from claiming public funds until she has Indefinite Leave to Remain.

I did, though, go on to say

However, any application which relied upon public funds the sponsor could claim once in the UK to satisfy the maintenance requirement would, in my opinion, fail.

Any thoughts on this?

Missed that 7/7 apologies .

Too many san miguel light last night.

[7by7]

Know the feeling, though it's usually TEA if in the UK or Chang if in LOS!

Any thoughts on the likelihood of success if the sponsor is reliant on public funds he could claim once in the UK for his income? I am confident that if the sponsor were already in the UK and claiming then this would not be a problem, as long as he did not claim any extra due to his wife joining him. However, I am equally confident that an ECO would not look kindly on an application where the sponsor said he did not have any income, but would be claiming public funds as soon as he and his family arrive in the UK.

What do you think?

[Foggy Bottom]

The point everyone seems to have missed is the applicant is Not entitled to funds, but her husband is entitled to take a part time job and he is entitled to tax credits.

With respect, from post number 6

Remember that you can claim any and all benefits to which you may be entitled, and this includes tax credits and child benefit; it is your wife who is prohibited from claiming public funds until she has Indefinite Leave to Remain.

I did, though, go on to say

However, any application which relied upon public funds the sponsor could claim once in the UK to satisfy the maintenance requirement would, in my opinion, fail.

Any thoughts on this?

Yup - there's one point here that everyone has not mentioned, or may be unaware of (I was) - and that is the Habitual Residency Test

The Habitual Residency Test (HRT) applies to all Britons returning to the Common Travel Area (CTA) comprising England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man, plus Scottish Outer Islands, if they have been continually outside of both the CTA and the EU for two years or more.

(The best way to get full info on the HRT is to Google it and look for the link to the guidance document for MPs at the House of Commons online library - it contains all the links you'll ever need about the HRT).

The HRT is designed to stop Britons and non-Britons from receiving any form of state benefits (including health care) if they are not habitually resident in the UK and have not been so for the two years preceding application for benefits. It affects all forms of unemployment benefits, supplemental income benefits, housing and council tax benefits, carers allowances, disability benefits, and even council/social housing eligibility.

I have just been through a three-month battle with my local jobcentre, the regional JobCentre Plus, and regional Benefits Distribution Centre (BDC), the local Council Benefits section and their Housing Section over this. So everything in this post relates to very current information.

My position is that my Thai wife and myself had decided to repatriate and were working towards that. We have 2 dual nationality British Thai children, and have been together 5 years (the settlement requirements only require 4 years for various bits of the rules). Unfortunately, for various reasons, including financial plus my health, I had to repatriate ahead of the family.

The morning after arriving in the UK, I went to the local jobcentre and council to do all the applications and provide supporting documents etc for benefits and housing. That then started a severe slog to get approved. I have letters from the council and BDC stating that because I had been out of country and the EEA for almost 12 years (specifically - more than 2 years) I was to be treated as "a person from overseas" and was not entitled to any state benefits or assistance. They conceded I had the right to reside in the CTA and to take up employment / self-employment here, and to own property/land here, but no entitlement to state assistance.

I argued every which way - that I am British by descent with a recorded family history back to the Roman occupation (true), that I am an ex-serviceman injured several times on active service (also true) and pretty much every other relevant factor I could think of including that I had paid 25 years of tax and National Insurance before expatriating and believed I was now being defrauded of the intended benefits from those contributions - none of any of that held any sway with them - three resubmissions failed.

Finally, the one argument that did stand up and get accepted by them was throwing Thailand's Working of Aliens Act and Immigration Act at them.

When leaving Thailand, I wanted everything done properly according to the requirements on various Thai Government websites - I had submitted my work permit for cancellation, cleared all my taxes, and fought tooth and nail (with my wife's help) to get a Tax Clearance Certificate from the provincial tax office (they and immigration insisted it was only needed by short term workers such as entertainers and actors filming in the kingdom, I insisted no such exclusion existed on the website and that I didn't trust airport immigration to not demand it on a whim).

Because of the tax clearance and cancelled work permit, I was able to argue with the UK BDC and local council that a cancelled workpermit also cancelled the visa reason to remain ... and thus under the HRT reasons for exemption for testing, I was classified as -

- a Briton expelled from another country outside the EEA under other recourse of law

Remember that phrase when researching the HRT - if you repatriate after a long spell in SE Asia, it might be your only hope of getting benefits or housing. In my case I argued that no work permit = no visa = compulsory expulsion within the time limit set by Thai Immigration laws. It was the only reason I am now receiving benefits and health care while looking for work.

Throughout the three months I fought this, the local jobcentre and council staff all admitted they despised this HRT requirement, originally introduced in the 1990s under the Conservatives but with exemption for Britons - it was intended for testing non-Britons, but the EU Government forced changes to it as discriminatory in 2005 under Labour, who then had to make it compulsory for everyone, and a "no benefits" rule that lasted for 2 years after UK arrival. Since then, case law (court rulings in UK) and subtle amendments below the Brussels radar now mean Britons are excluded benefits for between 1 and 12 months at the discretion of the BDC examining officer. An appeals and reconsideration system is in place, and Britons who've done their homework can get benefits almost immediately.

Another thing all the local government officers are advising - especially the housing section - is to just get the family into the UK any way that's legal (e.g. long tourist visa) then the kids can be counted on the housing application for priority allocation into a suitable size (non-overcrowded) home. In our case, I'm currently in 1-bedroom accommodation, if wife and kids were here, the council says we'd have a 3-bedroom within the week due to overcrowding (we have one boy and one girl and law says they have to have their own bedrooms).

That last point is something the OP has to think about for their application - housing law for visa applicants states children of opposite sexes must have their own bedrooms, and not more than two of same sex per bedroom = he needs at least 3 bedrooms within his mother's home, in addition to his mother's bedroom, or the settlement visa application will be refused. For the same (and UK-side) requirements, the mother's house will also need a minimum of two bathrooms (one for each household) or the application will be refused, the kitchen can be shared, as can the lounge.

There is shedloads of info about the minimum housing requirements, which are not income or savings related, on the direct.gov.uk website and pages linked from it - it's essential anyone repatriating reads them and has their arguments prepared - one slip up on the application and it'll be rejected, whether at the visa stage or locally in the UK for benefits and housing.

Foggy

[7by7]

Another thing all the local government officers are advising - especially the housing section - is to just get the family into the UK any way that's legal (e.g. long tourist visa) then the kids can be counted on the housing application for priority allocation into a suitable size (non-overcrowded) home. In our case, I'm currently in 1-bedroom accommodation, if wife and kids were here, the council says we'd have a 3-bedroom within the week due to overcrowding (we have one boy and one girl and law says they have to have their own bedrooms).

With respect to local government housing officers; how much do they know about immigration law?

Firstly, although the OP and his children, being British citizens, can enter the UK when and for as long as they wish, his wife cannot. Whether she has a 6 month, 2, 5 or 10 year visit visa the longest she can stay in the UK as a visitor on any visit is 6 months and visitors can usually only spend a maximum of 6 months out of any 12 in the UK.

Also, to obtain a visit or settlement visa she would have to show that suitable accommodation was available; at the moment the only accommodation available is with the OP's mother.

Secondly, social housing, council or housing association, is allocated according to need. When we first came to the UK, myself, my wife and my step-daughter, we lived with my parents. It was five years before we obtained a flat from a housing association. As our housing officer said "You at least have somewhere to live, I've got families split up in bed and breakfast hotels that come ahead of you." The OP will be in the same position; though obviously I have no knowledge of the supply of and demand for social housing in the area where he will be living.

That last point is something the OP has to think about for their application - housing law for visa applicants states children of opposite sexes must have their own bedrooms, and not more than two of same sex per bedroom = he needs at least 3 bedrooms within his mother's home, in addition to his mother's bedroom, or the settlement visa application will be refused

Depends on the age of the children; if under 10 then opposite sexes can share. There is also nothing to say that there can be no more than 2 children per room.

For the same (and UK-side) requirements, the mother's house will also need a minimum of two bathrooms (one for each household) or the application will be refused, the kitchen can be shared, as can the lounge.

Bathrooms can be shared, too.

See MAA11 Assessing adequate accommodation onward.

Your points on the Habitual Residency Test are interesting, and I must admit not something I had considered.

[VisasPlus]

The HRT stuff is interesting. Did I miss whether Foggy Bottom's spouse actually got a settlement visa or not ?

Taking everything into consideration, I am still of the opinion that it will not be easy to fulfill the maintenance requirements, and not necessarily easy to get the visa.

[returntotheuk]

Hi ThaiVisaExpress,

Thanks for all the info.

I am going to see if I can find a part time job in the UK from here, so I have a job on arrival. If no luck then I will just wait until we can sell some of our assets off so we can show enough cash to support us for a 1 year.

It would nice to be in the UK for Christmas, although not sure about the cold weather!!!

BTW, pretty sure even as British citizens we would not be entitled to any tax credits for some time. I have not lived in the UK for 8 years.

Thanks for all the advice.

You should check

Hi Guys,

ThaiVisaExpress, the reason why I am pretty sure I would not be entitled for tax credits some time is because of the "Habitual Residency Test" which Foggy mentions. Although, the HRT can be passed after doing a bit research. On my understanding, you MUST show that you intend to settle in the UK long term. You need to ensure you open a bank account, register for voting, join clubs, join a library, get the kids enrolled into school and anything else that proves you intend to settle. The is also a case called the "Swaddling case" which about someone who was initially refused benefits due the HRT but eventually got it. I will see if I can dig the text out somewhere but it basically said he was "entitled to" benefits no matter how long he had been out of the of the country. However, in some cases people have more or less demanded that they are entitled to benefits by quoting this case although it sounds like your local MP needs to be involved.

I have done loads of research on each part of the application, and although Foggy mentions some very good points I think 7by7 is correct in mentioning about the bedrooms and bathroom part of the accommodation requirements.

7by7, I think although the guidance is a guidance, it would be safer to have the minimum amount that the government expects anyone to live on. I am sure people have getting a visa on less. Also, my Mam is nearly 80 years old and can hardly walk, so I am trying to give her as little hassle as possible. I really do not think she has the means to offer support in money anyway.

BTW, I have also been offered to live in my brothers flat which is VACANT for free in return for house sitting for him. He now lives in Singapore and will not be returning to the UK for a number of years. The flat would also pass the accommodation test, would this be easier then my Mam offering accommodation or is it pretty much the same?

I must agree with 7by7 that it would be not accepted well by the ECO if I mentioned on my wife's application that we were entitled to tax credits, child benefits etc. And, as mentioned we still would need to pass the HRT so it is not guaranteed anyway.

Anyway, thank you all for such great replies which has basically answered or confirmed my questions.

In summary, I think each case is individual and the ECO has to make the decision using the guidance. I think we only need to convince the ECO that we have enough to support ourselves in the near future with a combination of either/or savings, accommodation and salary.

I think YOU can definitely NOT mention to the ECO that you as the sponsor are going to be entitled to any kind of benefits because firstly it is going to give the ECO a bad impression and secondly it may not actually be true for some time if you do not pass the "Habitual Residence Test".

I think been prepared with as much information as possible and a good application should make it more easy to get a settlement visa. Now I just need prepare everything, my wife will be applying sometime in July/August as we do not plan to go to the UK until end of September. I am now confident I have all the info I require.

I think this has been a great thread so thanks again to all who have taken part.

[returntotheuk]

Hi Guys,

I have found an old archive on the DWP (Department of Works and Pensions) refferring to the "Swaddling case" about the HRT.

Here is the link for those interested:

Swaddling case

[7by7]

BTW, I have also been offered to live in my brothers flat which is VACANT for free in return for house sitting for him. He now lives in Singapore and will not be returning to the UK for a number of years. The flat would also pass the accommodation test, would this be easier then my Mam offering accommodation or is it pretty much the same?

Provided both have adequate room for you and your family then there would not be any difference.

If you do choose to use your brother's flat then he will need to provide the evidence that it is suitable etc.

[returntotheuk]

BTW, I have also been offered to live in my brothers flat which is VACANT for free in return for house sitting for him. He now lives in Singapore and will not be returning to the UK for a number of years. The flat would also pass the accommodation test, would this be easier then my Mam offering accommodation or is it pretty much the same?

Provided both have adequate room for you and your family then there would not be any difference.

If you do choose to use your brother's flat then he will need to provide the evidence that it is suitable etc.

Hi 7by7,

I think it maybe easier to take my brother's offer as I am in contact with him daily anyway. It maybe be better than giving my Mam any hassle. She says she does not mind us living there but after a few weeks with 3 young kids running around she may change her mind!

Yes, I think I might take my brother's offer up.

Thanks for all your help.

[Foggy Bottom]

7x7 - Just a quick(?) response re bedrooms etc ...

My researches, applications etc thus far has shown a conflict in the various applicable rules.

The Immigration rules regarding overcrowding are quite specific - children under age 10 of opposite sexes can share a bedroom with regard to assessing space needs.

The Social Housing allocation rules in use by local authorities, say they cannot but there is conflict in this area.

The Housing Benefits entitlement assessment agrees with the immigration case, but the allocation rules do not. The allocation rules in use by local authorities and housing associations award waiting list banding and points for size of property required, based on children of opposite sex must not share, regardless of age ... and it is this usage that the local authorities use when issuing non-overcrowding assessments on accommodation for use in supporting visa applications.

Example from my own case -

- Immigration says we need a 2 bedroom (son & daughter both under 10)

- Housing Benefits say we would only be entitled to LHA for a 2-bedroom

- Housing allocation say we must have 3 bedrooms

- Local Authority non-overcrowding assessment says we must have 3 bedrooms or assessment will be negative

What this means, is that benefits are structured to only pay for a 2 bedroom property while housing allocation would put us in the property band for the size with highest demand and least availability, therefore pushing us into private renting. In the Thames valley where I am, that's a monthly rental difference of £300 a month average (between 2 and 3 bedroom urban houses).

Without the 3 bedrooms, which Housing Benefits will not pay for until the family is here, and even then will only award LHA for a 2 bedroom, it is not possible to get the statutory non-overcrowding certificate (which costs £120 and takes a month from our council) to support the visa application.

This makes it a catch 22 - without the family here, no larger accommodation and benefits to pay for it, without the larger accommodation, no settlement/spousal visa to get the family here. This is why the local authority officers are saying to just get them here first on any type of visa possible, including long term visit.

The strictness and circular "gotcha" in these rules, I am told, is due to the invasion of eastern EU nationals who have flooded the country and are entitled to housing and benefits after one year of working in the UK/CTA. The local officers really do not like that accommodating Europeans due to Brussels overlord rules is disadvantaging Britons and their families, but their hands are tied on it.

To the OP - I'd recommend you go for your brothers place, for three main reasons -

1 - It gives you an ace up your sleeve that if your brother returns, your family will be facing street homelessness or statutory overcrowding, and you'll get top priority for social housing.

2 - By utilising your brother's property, proving a retained link to the UK, you may get an exemption to the Habitual Residency Test, or at the very least, some extra consideration towards exemption - but be sure to specify you're staying in a family member's property.

3 - You can use proximity to your elderly parent, as part of the HRT exemption justification and for other applications such as Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefits, without getting shunted onto the Carer's Allowance scheme, which would affect your mother's benefits and pensions.

Hope it helps

Foggy

[returntotheuk]

7x7 - Just a quick(?) response re bedrooms etc ...

My researches, applications etc thus far has shown a conflict in the various applicable rules.

The Immigration rules regarding overcrowding are quite specific - children under age 10 of opposite sexes can share a bedroom with regard to assessing space needs.

The Social Housing allocation rules in use by local authorities, say they cannot but there is conflict in this area.

The Housing Benefits entitlement assessment agrees with the immigration case, but the allocation rules do not. The allocation rules in use by local authorities and housing associations award waiting list banding and points for size of property required, based on children of opposite sex must not share, regardless of age ... and it is this usage that the local authorities use when issuing non-overcrowding assessments on accommodation for use in supporting visa applications.

Example from my own case -

- Immigration says we need a 2 bedroom (son & daughter both under 10)

- Housing Benefits say we would only be entitled to LHA for a 2-bedroom

- Housing allocation say we must have 3 bedrooms

- Local Authority non-overcrowding assessment says we must have 3 bedrooms or assessment will be negative

What this means, is that benefits are structured to only pay for a 2 bedroom property while housing allocation would put us in the property band for the size with highest demand and least availability, therefore pushing us into private renting. In the Thames valley where I am, that's a monthly rental difference of £300 a month average (between 2 and 3 bedroom urban houses).

Without the 3 bedrooms, which Housing Benefits will not pay for until the family is here, and even then will only award LHA for a 2 bedroom, it is not possible to get the statutory non-overcrowding certificate (which costs £120 and takes a month from our council) to support the visa application.

This makes it a catch 22 - without the family here, no larger accommodation and benefits to pay for it, without the larger accommodation, no settlement/spousal visa to get the family here. This is why the local authority officers are saying to just get them here first on any type of visa possible, including long term visit.

The strictness and circular "gotcha" in these rules, I am told, is due to the invasion of eastern EU nationals who have flooded the country and are entitled to housing and benefits after one year of working in the UK/CTA. The local officers really do not like that accommodating Europeans due to Brussels overlord rules is disadvantaging Britons and their families, but their hands are tied on it.

To the OP - I'd recommend you go for your brothers place, for three main reasons -

1 - It gives you an ace up your sleeve that if your brother returns, your family will be facing street homelessness or statutory overcrowding, and you'll get top priority for social housing.

2 - By utilising your brother's property, proving a retained link to the UK, you may get an exemption to the Habitual Residency Test, or at the very least, some extra consideration towards exemption - but be sure to specify you're staying in a family member's property.

3 - You can use proximity to your elderly parent, as part of the HRT exemption justification and for other applications such as Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefits, without getting shunted onto the Carer's Allowance scheme, which would affect your mother's benefits and pensions.

Hope it helps

Foggy

Hi Foggy,

That's interesting about the rules on the rooms been different with different authorities.

It sounds like you went to the UK first your wife, is with you yet? Did you take the kids with you first?

I think I have everything I need to apply for my wife's visa accept maybe not enough money in the bank.

If my wife's visa is refused then I will be going to the UK first with 2 of my kids and then re-apply for her visa at a later date so she hopefully can join us with our youngest son. I do not want to do it this way but if I am forced into it then I will. It will surely cost the government more in benefits if I went to the UK first WITHOUT my wife. If my wife was not with me then it would be very hard to work full time and if I do work then I would also need to claim for childcare. So, really it would not make sense for the ECO to refuse us because we only have 6,000 pounds in funds available. I am much less lightly to need "public funds" if my wife is with me rather than not with me.

[7by7]

All very interesting, Foggy.

But the ECOs make their decisions based on the immigration rules and the guidance issued to them. I have linked to that guidance earlier, which shows the criteria the ECOs use in assessing overcrowding.

That some local authorities may use different criteria is irrelevant.

Returntotheuk, I'm afraid that the ECOs aren't interested in whether your wife not being with you means that you may need to claim more public funds yourself than if she were; you are not subject to immigration control.

IMHO the time has come for you to make a decision. Either apply and see what happens, or wait until you have built up more in the way of savings or have a definite job offer in the UK.

[returntotheuk]

All very interesting, Foggy.

But the ECOs make their decisions based on the immigration rules and the guidance issued to them. I have linked to that guidance earlier, which shows the criteria the ECOs use in assessing overcrowding.

That some local authorities may use different criteria is irrelevant.

Returntotheuk, I'm afraid that the ECOs aren't interested in whether your wife not being with you means that you may need to claim more public funds yourself than if she were; you are not subject to immigration control.

IMHO the time has come for you to make a decision. Either apply and see what happens, or wait until you have built up more in the way of savings or have a definite job offer in the UK.

Hi 7by7,

Thanks for your reply, we have decided to apply for the visa first then if she does not get it then we will go for the second option.

I understand most ECO's will not be interested in the rest of the family not been subject to immigration control. I am sure a bit common sense is used when it comes to the rules. The rules of the immigration and benefit system give the UK so many problems in the first place.

Thanks