Help With Financial Side For A Spouse Visa To England

[KarenBlackwell]

I think it will be the net profit before tax, i.e. £300.

But even £800 per month is only £9600 p.a. so isn't enough.

I think that if you want you and your husband to live in the UK you will have to bite the bullet and come first and work for 6 months until you have met the financial requirement.

yes i agree but i did earn 15k last year, so if they take into account my yearly takings that 15,000 plus 9,600, what do you think

[DonW]

Have you done any reserch via the UKBA site? Its all there....

[VisasPlus]

I think it will be the net profit before tax, i.e. £300.

But even £800 per month is only £9600 p.a. so isn't enough.

I think that if you want you and your husband to live in the UK you will have to bite the bullet and come first and work for 6 months until you have met the financial requirement.

yes i agree but i did earn 15k last year, so if they take into account my yearly takings that 15,000 plus 9,600, what do you think

Firstly 7x7's comment - I don't see anywhere that it is the net figure that counts in rental income. Looking at it logically, that would have to apply to the 18,600 income requirement too, and only the gross figure is required to qualify.

Secondly, KarenBalckwell's comment about having earned 15,000 GBP last year - you have to show salaried employment with the same employer for at least the past 6 months, including providing pay slips for the whole 6 months and your bank statements showing that salary being credited. With respect, from the way you are talking, I suspect that you might not be able to do that ?

[7by7]

Firstly 7x7's comment - I don't see anywhere that it is the net figure that counts in rental income. Looking at it logically, that would have to apply to the 18,600 income requirement too, and only the gross figure is required to qualify.

Poor terminology on my part, I meant the profit made on the rental income, i.e. rent recieved minus the mortgage payments.

Although it doesn't say this in the IDIs, it would make sense. Income from self employment is based on taxable income, i.e. profit, and deductions and allowances which are not taxed are not counted; so income from property should be treated the same, should it not?.

A moot point anyway, Karen, as even if the whole rent is counted it is not enough, unless, as VisasPlus said before, your lowest monthly income during the 6 months prior to the application, earned, from this rent and from any other source, multiplied by 12 comes to at least £18600.

I agree that it this new requirement is poorly thought out and unfair to people in your position; but I don't make the rules; Parliament does.

[maprao]

Have you actually read the Immigration Directorate Instructions document I linked to earlier; which explains the financial requirement in full?

Excellent link 7 by 7 it answered my question even though I am not in Thailand. The 3 years I have been working in another country is taken into account, if I can show documentation and provided I can show a contract to start work earning more than the prescribed 18,600. I only need to get her KET English test done now

I know it is off topic but thanks again!

[VisasPlus]

Firstly 7x7's comment - I don't see anywhere that it is the net figure that counts in rental income. Looking at it logically, that would have to apply to the 18,600 income requirement too, and only the gross figure is required to qualify.

Poor terminology on my part, I meant the profit made on the rental income, i.e. rent recieved minus the mortgage payments.

Although it doesn't say this in the IDIs, it would make sense. Income from self employment is based on taxable income, i.e. profit, and deductions and allowances which are not taxed are not counted; so income from property should be treated the same, should it not?.

A moot point anyway, Karen, as even if the whole rent is counted it is not enough, unless, as VisasPlus said before, your lowest monthly income during the 6 months prior to the application, earned, from this rent and from any other source, multiplied by 12 comes to at least £18600.

I agree that it this new requirement is poorly thought out and unfair to people in your position; but I don't make the rules; Parliament does.

I'm still not sure, 7x7, that it is net income ( the profit) that is counted. It doesn't say that anywhere. UKBA ask only for evidence that it is rental income, and that it is paid into the applicant's/sponsor's bank account. That must assume that it is is the gross rental income that is used towards meeting the threshold of 18,600. I agree that, in Karen's case, it is a moot point, but I suspect that it is something that will be changed at some time in the future.

[bobrussell]

I also read it as only income is taken into account. The rules are poorly thought out and expendature seems to be ignored. It seems you can have an income of £19K and expendature/liabilities of £25K and still meet the requirements whereas someone on £18K with outgoings of £5K will be refused.

They make it clear that there is no interest in drawing up any form of budget:

''79.

The Government is not looking to draw up a personal financial balance sheet for each sponsor (outgoings, credit card and other debts, mortgage, etc), but taking £18,600 as a benchmark for financial stability and independence on the part of the sponsor or the couple. We recognise that their circumstances may change over time, so they will be reassessed when the applicant applies for further leave to remain and for indefinite leave to remain (settlement).''

(from the Statement of Intent)

[VisasPlus]

Firstly 7x7's comment - I don't see anywhere that it is the net figure that counts in rental income. Looking at it logically, that would have to apply to the 18,600 income requirement too, and only the gross figure is required to qualify.

Poor terminology on my part, I meant the profit made on the rental income, i.e. rent recieved minus the mortgage payments.

Although it doesn't say this in the IDIs, it would make sense. Income from self employment is based on taxable income, i.e. profit, and deductions and allowances which are not taxed are not counted; so income from property should be treated the same, should it not?.

A moot point anyway, Karen, as even if the whole rent is counted it is not enough, unless, as VisasPlus said before, your lowest monthly income during the 6 months prior to the application, earned, from this rent and from any other source, multiplied by 12 comes to at least £18600.

I agree that it this new requirement is poorly thought out and unfair to people in your position; but I don't make the rules; Parliament does.

I'm still not sure, 7x7, that it is net income ( the profit) that is counted. It doesn't say that anywhere. UKBA ask only for evidence that it is rental income, and that it is paid into the applicant's/sponsor's bank account. That must assume that it is is the gross rental income that is used towards meeting the threshold of 18,600. I agree that, in Karen's case, it is a moot point, but I suspect that it is something that will be changed at some time in the future.

Well, I wrote to the Embassy this morning, and got a response this afternoon ! That's a pretty good response time. Anyway, the answer is as I thought. It is gross rental income that is taken into account. The response follows, with a little further explanation from the Embassy :

"Firstly, I can confirm that we take the gross income into consideration, not the net income. Therefore if an individual has a mortgage on a property for which they receive rent the mortgage will not be taken into consideration, we will only look at the income received. The £18,600 income threshold is the amount above which couple’s generally (although not in all cases) cease to be able to access income related benefits. How they choose to spend their income is up to them as they are responsible for supporting themselves without reliance on the state."

I also questioned the requirement that the rental income has to be shown to have been paid into the bank account of the sponsor, the applicant, or their joint account. The Embassy response is as follows :

"Secondly, a sponsor or the applicant will (need to) show that any property related income is paid into their bank account and will need statements to prove this. I would have to question that if this income is not being paid into their bank account, where is the income going, and is it being declared on a tax return? If your applicant is relying on property income to meet the financial requirement, we will insist on seeing banks statements in the applicant or sponsor’s name showing the rent being paid."

I have gone back to the Embassy on this. I am asking why the UKBA should be concerned with whether an applicant or sponsor is paying tax on their income from property rental. I fully understand what they are saying, but surely their job is to assess whether the sponsor's gross income meets the financial requirement, not whether he pays tax on his rental income or not. An applicant is asked only to meet the financial requirement under the Rules. I have asked how they will "question if the income is being declared on a tax return" if the income is maybe in another country, from overseas property, etc. To be honest, I can see their argument, but I can't say that I agree with it, and their response about questioning whether the income is declared or not for tax purposes would seem to be outside their remit. I suspect that they would have some difficulty arguing an appeal on the grounds that they had refused an application because they weren't satisfied that an applicant or sponsor had declared the rental income for tax purposes, as the law doesn't allow them to do that.

Edited October 24, 2012 by VisasPlus

[7by7]

Thanks again, Tony, for your sterling work in clarifying matters for us. Where would we be without you?

But the reply you have received shows just how stupid this new requirement is. Particularly "How they choose to spend their income is up to them as they are responsible for supporting themselves without reliance on the state."

Which just reinforces the point made by Bob above; namely a couple where the sponsor's income £18600 but who have debt repayments and other liabilities of possibly thousands of pounds each year will meet the requirement, but a couple where the sponsor earns £18599 but have no outgoings except their ordinary living expenses will be refused.

What will happen to the first couple when they can't afford their rent or food or fuel because of their debts? Will the government say to the foreign spouse "Too bad, go home!" I doubt it, especially if they have children.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

I would like to stress, though, that I lay no blame for this on the ECOs at the sharp end; they have no choice other than to follow these ridiculous new rules. The fault lies with the government and those at the top of the UKBA tree who advise them.

Edited October 24, 2012 by 7by7

[VisasPlus]

I think it will be the net profit before tax, i.e. £300.

But even £800 per month is only £9600 p.a. so isn't enough.

I think that if you want you and your husband to live in the UK you will have to bite the bullet and come first and work for 6 months until you have met the financial requirement.

yes i agree but i did earn 15k last year, so if they take into account my yearly takings that 15,000 plus 9,600, what do you think

Karen,

It is the gross income they want to know about. See my earlier post. BUT, you must have bank statements showing the rental income deposited

[KarenBlackwell]

I think it will be the net profit before tax, i.e. £300.

But even £800 per month is only £9600 p.a. so isn't enough.

I think that if you want you and your husband to live in the UK you will have to bite the bullet and come first and work for 6 months until you have met the financial requirement.

yes i agree but i did earn 15k last year, so if they take into account my yearly takings that 15,000 plus 9,600, what do you think

Karen,

It is the gross income they want to know about. See my earlier post. BUT, you must have bank statements showing the rental income deposited

thanks tony you must be one of the best visa advisers in pattaya, BUT lol i have bank statements showing rent in mortgages out there just not in my name...BUT if i submit my friends say 3 months bankstatements showing this along with a letter explaining why, also have 2 rental contracts in my name showing how much the rent is, im sure they wont dismiss it....

[KarenBlackwell]

I think it will be the net profit before tax, i.e. £300.

But even £800 per month is only £9600 p.a. so isn't enough.

I think that if you want you and your husband to live in the UK you will have to bite the bullet and come first and work for 6 months until you have met the financial requirement.

yes i agree but i did earn 15k last year, so if they take into account my yearly takings that 15,000 plus 9,600, what do you think

Karen,

It is the gross income they want to know about. See my earlier post. BUT, you must have bank statements showing the rental income deposited

thanks tony you must be one of the best visa advisers in pattaya, BUT lol i have bank statements showing rent in mortgages out there just not in my name...BUT if i submit my friends say 3 months bankstatements showing this along wit

h a letter explaining why, also have 2 rental contracts in my name showing how much the rent is, im sure they wont dismiss it....the deeds are in my name to, tony who do you email would it be possible for me to email them my queries

[VisasPlus]

Karen,

I think they will refuse the application if you submit only what you are suggesting. Their language in their reply to me is very direct, for instance - " a sponsor or the applicant will (need to) show that any property related income is paid into their bank account and will need statements to prove this."

They go on to say - "we will insist on seeing banks statements in the applicant or sponsor’s name showing the rent being paid."

I think it is pretty fair to say that, based on the above, they will not accept any explanations about why the rent goes into someone else's bank account. I have written to them again, to ask them why UKBA is interested in whether someone pays tax on rental income or not, and how they will justify this as a reason to refuse an application. Their response might be enlightening, or they may not even respond.

[KarenBlackwell]

Karen,

I think they will refuse the application if you submit only what you are suggesting. Their language in their reply to me is very direct, for instance - " a sponsor or the applicant will (need to) show that any property related income is paid into their bank account and will need statements to prove this."

They go on to say - "we will insist on seeing banks statements in the applicant or sponsor’s name showing the rent being paid."

I think it is pretty fair to say that, based on the above, they will not accept any explanations about why the rent goes into someone else's bank account. I have written to them again, to ask them why UKBA is interested in whether someone pays tax on rental income or not, and how they will justify this as a reason to refuse an application. Their response might be enlightening, or they may not even respond.

thanks again tony,,,and your 100 per cent sure my father cannot sponser his son-in-law even though my father has adequate amounts of money.

[VisasPlus]

Karen,

I think they will refuse the application if you submit only what you are suggesting. Their language in their reply to me is very direct, for instance - " a sponsor or the applicant will (need to) show that any property related income is paid into their bank account and will need statements to prove this."

They go on to say - "we will insist on seeing banks statements in the applicant or sponsor’s name showing the rent being paid."

I think it is pretty fair to say that, based on the above, they will not accept any explanations about why the rent goes into someone else's bank account. I have written to them again, to ask them why UKBA is interested in whether someone pays tax on rental income or not, and how they will justify this as a reason to refuse an application. Their response might be enlightening, or they may not even respond.

thanks again tony,,,and your 100 per cent sure my father cannot sponser his son-in-law even though my father has adequate amounts of money.

He can sponsor him for a visit, but not for settlement. I'm 110% sure of that. I guess he could sponsor him if he marries him, though................

[KarenBlackwell]

Karen,

I think they will refuse the application if you submit only what you are suggesting. Their language in their reply to me is very direct, for instance - " a sponsor or the applicant will (need to) show that any property related income is paid into their bank account and will need statements to prove this."

They go on to say - "we will insist on seeing banks statements in the applicant or sponsor’s name showing the rent being paid."

I think it is pretty fair to say that, based on the above, they will not accept any explanations about why the rent goes into someone else's bank account. I have written to them again, to ask them why UKBA is interested in whether someone pays tax on rental income or not, and how they will justify this as a reason to refuse an application. Their response might be enlightening, or they may not even respond.

thanks again tony,,,and your 100 per cent sure my father cannot sponser his son-in-law even though my father has adequate amounts of money.

He can sponsor him for a visit, but not for settlement. I'm 110% sure of that. I guess he could sponsor him if he marries him, though................

what about a europeon visa...am i taking the piss now lol

[VisasPlus]

What do you mean by "European visa " ?

[7by7]

Not as much as you may think.

If you were to find employment in another EEA state then your husband could, under the EEA freedom of movement regulations, join you there.

You could then relocate to the UK and he could use the same regulations to accompany you.

See EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases)

[KarenBlackwell]

Not as much as you may think.

If you were to find employment in another EEA state then your husband could, under the EEA freedom of movement regulations, join you there.

You could then relocate to the UK and he could use the same regulations to accompany you.

See EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases)

to much hassle, its gonna have to be another tourist visa (what a waste of more money) he got a 6 month tourist visa last time from 05/03/12 to the 05/09/12. he left bangkok on the 4th april and stayed in england until the 1st of sept...when can i apply for another tourist visa

[7by7]

Nothing stopping him from applying now; but he would need to convince the ECO that he has a valid reason for needing to visit the UK again so soon after a 5 month visit. As his reason is to be with you while you are working, I doubt this would be acceptable.

He was in the UK for 5 months and will presumably want to spend the full 6 months next time. So to avoid possibly falling foul of the 'no more than 6 months out of any 12' convention I'd suggest 6 months after he left the UK, i.e. 1st March 2013. He can submit his application up to 3 months before this and ask for the visa to start on 1st March.

Remember that if he does apply earlier than this and the ECO does grant him a visa, for example because he says he only wants to stay a month or less, that he could still be refused entry when he arrives in the UK if immigration feel that, on the balance of probabilities, he will be spending more than 6 months out of 12 in the UK as a visitor.

[maprao]

I looked at taking my wife to the UK headache especially as she does not want to go.

I met the financial requirements. She only had to do KET English Test.

Every time I read the immigration website I get more and more annoyed. I know they are trying to prevent misuse by people but it seems to get harder for genuine cases. It makes me very sad each time I look . We will stay in Thailand. I will continue to do contractt work.

I wish you luck and hope you are able to meet the requirements in the future so that your husband can join you there.

[VisasPlus]

Apparently, there is a Judicial Review hearing in the Upper Tribunal of the Appeal court next week. It is a challenge to the new requirements, along the lines of :

The legal challenge on 7 November 2012

The Court is asked to do the following

1 Declare that appendix FM and HC 194 of the immigration rules are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 ECHR.

2 Do not have the effect of primary legislation

3 Must be read down so as to defer to the case law on Article 8 by ECHR and the obligations of the tribunal under primary legislation.

In addition, the government has just had a setback in the IAT on the "scope and meaning" of Article 8 private and family life in the rules introduced in July. The relevant determination is MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria[2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC).

Hopefully the JR hearing next week will produce a similar result.

[KarenBlackwell]

Apparently, there is a Judicial Review hearing in the Upper Tribunal of the Appeal court next week. It is a challenge to the new requirements, along the lines of :

The legal challenge on 7 November 2012

The Court is asked to do the following

1 Declare that appendix FM and HC 194 of the immigration rules are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 ECHR.

2 Do not have the effect of primary legislation

3 Must be read down so as to defer to the case law on Article 8 by ECHR and the obligations of the tribunal under primary legislation.

In addition, the government has just had a setback in the IAT on the "scope and meaning" of Article 8 private and family life in the rules introduced in July. The relevant determination is MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria[2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC).

Hopefully the JR hearing next week will produce a similar result.

will be interesting, thanks tony

[KarenBlackwell]

I looked at taking my wife to the UK headache especially as she does not want to go.

I met the financial requirements. She only had to do KET English Test.

Every time I read the immigration website I get more and more annoyed. I know they are trying to prevent misuse by people but it seems to get harder for genuine cases. It makes me very sad each time I look . We will stay in Thailand. I will continue to do contractt work.

I wish you luck and hope you are able to meet the requirements in the future so that your husband can join you there.

thankyou,

[KarenBlackwell]

Apparently, there is a Judicial Review hearing in the Upper Tribunal of the Appeal court next week. It is a challenge to the new requirements, along the lines of :

The legal challenge on 7 November 2012

The Court is asked to do the following

1 Declare that appendix FM and HC 194 of the immigration rules are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 ECHR.

2 Do not have the effect of primary legislation

3 Must be read down so as to defer to the case law on Article 8 by ECHR and the obligations of the tribunal under primary legislation.

In addition, the government has just had a setback in the IAT on the "scope and meaning" of Article 8 private and family life in the rules introduced in July. The relevant determination is MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria[2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC).

Hopefully the JR hearing next week will produce a similar result.

will be interesting, thanks tony

Apparently, there is a Judicial Review hearing in the Upper Tribunal of the Appeal court next week. It is a challenge to the new requirements, along the lines of :

The legal challenge on 7 November 2012

The Court is asked to do the following

1 Declare that appendix FM and HC 194 of the immigration rules are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 ECHR.

2 Do not have the effect of primary legislation

3 Must be read down so as to defer to the case law on Article 8 by ECHR and the obligations of the tribunal under primary legislation.

In addition, the government has just had a setback in the IAT on the "scope and meaning" of Article 8 private and family life in the rules introduced in July. The relevant determination is MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria[2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC).

Hopefully the JR hearing next week will produce a similar result.

will be interesting, thanks tony

update on myself is im waiting in thailand until i,ve submitted another visitor visa, if the forums are correct i can apply on the 2nd dec to come to england on the 2nd march..he came back to thailand on the 2nd sept following 4 and half months in england that means my husband has been in thailand 3 months on the 2nd dec and i believe you can apply for visiting visa 3 months before you want to go...so i will then return to england jan meaning we,ll only be apart 2 months..does this sound good

[DannyDakota]

If you are applying 3 months before you go make sure they dont start the visa on the date you apply or you will lose 3 months.

[VisasPlus]

He doesn't have to have been outside of the UK for six months. The "guidance" says that he is not be expected, as a genuine visitor, to spend more than six months out of 12 in the UK. So, from 2/3/12 to 2/3/13 he would only have spent 4 and a half months in the UK, not 6. He could, in theory, apply about 6 weeks earlier for his next visa. That said, the "6 in 12" is only guidance, and if you have a valid reason for exceeding the 6 months, then the ECO might listen to it. It's coming up with that valid reason that causes some problems

[KarenBlackwell]

He doesn't have to have been outside of the UK for six months. The "guidance" says that he is not be expected, as a genuine visitor, to spend more than six months out of 12 in the UK. So, from 2/3/12 to 2/3/13 he would only have spent 4 and a half months in the UK, not 6. He could, in theory, apply about 6 weeks earlier for his next visa. That said, the "6 in 12" is only guidance, and if you have a valid reason for exceeding the 6 months, then the ECO might listen to it. It's coming up with that valid reason that causes some problems

my reasons are i messed up with the spouse visa, i,ve got courses i need to complete, i need to care of businesses there,,etc etc ,but there all about me...i suppose love will not not do lol

[KarenBlackwell]

If you are applying 3 months before you go make sure they dont start the visa on the date you apply or you will lose 3 months.

losing 3 months is not the problem,,getting to england and they refuse him at the border is the problem

[AngryParent]

Apparently, there is a Judicial Review hearing in the Upper Tribunal of the Appeal court next week. It is a challenge to the new requirements, along the lines of :

The legal challenge on 7 November 2012

The Court is asked to do the following

1 Declare that appendix FM and HC 194 of the immigration rules are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 ECHR.

2 Do not have the effect of primary legislation

3 Must be read down so as to defer to the case law on Article 8 by ECHR and the obligations of the tribunal under primary legislation.

In addition, the government has just had a setback in the IAT on the "scope and meaning" of Article 8 private and family life in the rules introduced in July. The relevant determination is MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria[2012] UKUT 00393 (IAC).

Hopefully the JR hearing next week will produce a similar result.

I have just seen this, but are you saying that if successful, the new regulations will become null and void soon.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean, that if declared null and void, the old rules come back and thus all should apply the day of the judgement? Should one book an appointment now?

If yes, FFFFFFF!!!! In hindsight, I wish I was ready before July - just wasn't. Will not want to miss another opportunity and will happily chuck 150K (thai) on a spouse visa (including all getting rush papers, appointments, tests, and rent deposit).

PM me the minute this impossible Berlin wall comes down.

Edited November 8, 2012 by AngryParent