Uk Settlement- Financial Evidence

[antonb]

Hi,

I would like a bit of advice about the wife's Settlement application.

I earn £24,000 a year and she/we have no dependants so no problem there but for the past 6 months I've been going overdrawn regularly.

Moving house, buying a car, supporting the wife for her 6 month UK tourist visit and general living expenses in England mean I don't have a lot of money in my account.

For the past 2 months I've not been overdrawn at all but at the same time only had £50-£100 pound left in my account.

Would this effect the visa app? Can they argue that I won't have enough money to support my wife even though I earn more than the £18,600 limit.

Cheers

Anton.

[magicroundabout]

Hi,

No - I recently got a visa for my wife and was in a similiar situation. It didnt seem to cause any problems at all.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

magicroundabout is correct. Bizarrely ( in my opinion), you only have to meet the financial requirement. This is an extract from an email from the UKBA in Bangkok to me :

"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."

Please feel free to use the quote, if you want.

Tony M

[antonb]

Cheers

[TCA]

It does seem crazy that you could be in debt up to your eyeballs but as long as you have a certain level of income, it's acceptable.

Only slightly related to this point, if you had an offset mortgage in the UK, with its connected offset savings account, I presume the latter could be used as savings to fulfil the financial requirement if you maintained for the previous 6 month period? It is instant access after all.

Edited April 28, 2013 by TCA

[Kevin1908]

magicroundabout is correct. Bizarrely ( in my opinion), you only have to meet the financial requirement. This is an extract from an email from the UKBA in Bangkok to me :

Please feel free to use the quote, if you want.

Tony M

Why bizzarely. If the UK Government said you must earn £x then as long as you earn £x so be it. Heaven forbid that they say that you must earn £x and have a minimum savings balance as well. The law change discriminates against a whole tranch of people who have good but not enough income but very low expenditure, like well off pensioners.

I find it bizarre that despite meeting the income requirement you still have to send bank statements.

[7by7]

It is bizarre because a sponsor can earn £18,600 pa and have £18,600 pa of debt repayments to make yet still meet the financial requirement, even though s/he and his partner would effectively have no income upon which to live (yes, i know it's an extreme example).

Yet a sponsor with an income of £18,599 pa with no debts would not meet the requirement and so be unable to bring their partner to live with them in the UK.

Under the old system the ECO looked at all the sponsor's income and all their regular outgoings; including debt repayments. Not only fairer, in my opinion, but much more sensible, too.

That is why under the old system they wanted bank statements as well as proof of income. Why they need them under the new is a mystery to me; as is much of the reasoning behind this farcical, unfair new financial requirement.

[bobrussell]

It all seems to be based around the fact that anyone with an income over this figure cannot draw income related benefits. Cost of living therefore becomes the problem of the applicant and family and not the state!

They made it very clear when the new rules were drawn up that they were not interested in individual family budgets!

There is a degree of method to this madness!

Clearly anyone in the situation without adequate income to live will be unlikely to meet the FLR criteria at the next application. Are the Home Office going to send families back? I wonder!

[7by7]

My point being that someone who cannot support his family will be allowed to have them live with him in the UK if he meets the set income level, but someone who can support his family wont be because his income falls below this level.

Which is why I use the word farcical.

I posted the following in the relevant topic the time, but I think it's worth doing so again. From my submission to the Parliamentary inquiry (whatever happened to that?)

1) I have no objection to setting a minimum financial requirement, whether that is income, savings or a combination of both. My objection is that the figure is too high and takes no account of outgoings.

Instead of setting the figure at the level at which a British couple would no longer be eligible for income support and/or other income related benefits the figure should be the amount that a British couple claiming income support would receive; currently £111.45* per week for a couple where both are aged over 18. That is £5795.40 pa. plus housing costs in the form of housing benefit etc.

So I feel that the minimum income should be this figure. That is a couple should show that they can and will be adequately accommodated and once their housing costs, rent or mortgage, have been deducted they have an income left of at least £5795.40 pa. Of course, if they are living with friends or relatives then their housing costs will be minimal.

This figure would need to be increased if the couple have dependent children. The current income support rate is £64.99 per week per child, £3799.48. Which is actually higher than the current extra income required for children; but the total income required will still be less than at present.

2) Savings. Currently the first £16,000 of savings is disregarded at the initial visa stage and at the FLR stage after 30 months, but is used at the ILR stage. Why? If a couple have savings which they can use to support themselves until one or both of them are working, why can they not use all of those savings, as they can in an ILR application?

3) The current rules set a minimum figure which takes no account of outgoings. This means that someone earning just below the minimum, say £18,500, with minimal outgoings, rent or mortgage plus the usual living expenses, wont qualify whilst someone earning above the figure but with debt repayments to service which takes their actual disposable income below £18600 does qualify.

I can see no reason why sponsor's should not submit evidence of all their income and outgoings, e.g. pay slips and bank statements, so the ECO can then calculate whether or not their disposable income is at or above the minimum required.

4) Third party support. Many ex pats return to the UK and, naturally, want to bring their foreign spouse or partner with them. They may have no choice in returning, e.g. because their contract has finished.

People in this position may not have been able to secure a job prior to their return, or if they have that job may not pay the required minimum.

They often have family who are not only willing to provide accommodation for the couple, but also willing and able to financially support them until one or both of them have secured work.

This represents absolutely no drain upon the public purse and I can see no logical reason why it is no longer allowed.

5) The Government have said that they will increase the minimum income each year, but not said by how much. Inflation? Average earnings? Benefit levels?

Like, I think, most people over the last few years my salary has increased by less than the cost of living, no matter how you calculate that.

What will happen to a couple who meet the income level at the initial visa stage but due to this level being increased at a higher rate than their income fail to meet it at the FLR or ILR stage?

What would happen if, through no fault of their own, one partner lost their job, taking their combined income below the minimum level?

With third party support being abolished, I see no alternative other than the foreign spouse being refuse at their next LTR application and having to leave the UK.

6) These new rules, especially the financial requirements, are ill thought out, break up families, encourage visa fraud and whilst devastating to families will have virtually no effect on the government's aim of significantly reducing immigration.

Most immigrants are economic ones, i.e. coming to the UK to work under the PBS or coming from other EEA countries to live and work in the UK.

These new financial requirements don't apply to them; at most they simply have to show that they can support and accommodate themselves and their families without recourse to public funds!

How is that fair?

*This and other figures were correct at the time; they may have changed since.

Edited April 30, 2013 by 7by7

[Waterloo]

Hi Anton

The Wife received her ILR in February & for the same reasons as you have stated, I side stepped the whole issue by not supplying bank statements at all.

[Waterloo]

It is bizarre because a sponsor can earn £18,600 pa and have £18,600 pa of debt repayments to make yet still meet the financial requirement, even though s/he and his partner would effectively have no income upon which to live (yes, i know it's an extreme example).

Yet a sponsor with an income of £18,599 pa with no debts would not meet the requirement and so be unable to bring their partner to live with them in the UK.

Under the old system the ECO looked at all the sponsor's income and all their regular outgoings; including debt repayments. Not only fairer, in my opinion, but much more sensible, too.

That is why under the old system they wanted bank statements as well as proof of income. Why they need them under the new is a mystery to me; as is much of the reasoning behind this farcical, unfair new financial requirement.

7by7 I never made an application for settlement, we simpley applied for FLR after Marrying & then ILR, Citizenship next.

So I stand to be corrected, but does the OP need to submit bank statements at all.

Looking on the UKBA website under Appendix FM-SE the op would clearley need to submit bank statements if he was applying under section 1 but would he need to as he is applying under section 2

[7by7]

To be honest, I haven't looked that closely at what evidence is required under the new rules for all circumstances, but it does vary depending on how you are meeting the requirement.

When we talk of settlement on the forum we usually mean the initial entry visa, be it as a spouse, partner or fiancé, use FLR for, err, FLR and ILR for what the UKBA refer to as settlement, though they do say on their website that settlement is often called ILR.

Edited April 30, 2013 by 7by7

[Waterloo]

To be honest, I haven't looked that closely at what evidence is required under the new rules for all circumstances, but it does vary depending on how you are meeting the requirement.

When we talk of settlement on the forum we usually mean the initial entry visa, be it as a spouse, partner or fiancé, use FLR for, err, FLR and ILR for what the UKBA refer to as settlement, though they do say on their website that settlement is often called ILR.

Yes I understand all of the above and I think as the OP is applying for his Initial settlement under meeting the financial requirements due to employment, he has to meet the requirements of appendix 2 ie Payslips excetera.

If this is so then I don't think he needs to include Bank Statements, which is his concern because of the story it tells.

I know this is not a problem, but I also understand his concern at the time we applied I had been consistantly overdrawn despite being comfortably over the threshold.

If he does not need to submit his bank statements then that is one less thing for him to worry about.

[7by7]

True.

Under the old rules, which I am assuming applied to you, debts and overdrafts didn't matter as long as they were being properly serviced leaving applicant(s) and sponsor enough to live on.

Under the new rules, as long as the sponsor is earning the minimum gross income or above they don't matter at all, they're not even considered.

Even if the sponsor is not servicing them and getting deeper and deeper into debt and/or not being left enough out of his/her income after making their regular repayments to adequately support the applicant(s)!

That, in my honest opinion, is ridiculous.

[Waterloo]

True.

Under the old rules, which I am assuming applied to you, debts and overdrafts didn't matter as long as they were being properly serviced leaving applicant(s) and sponsor enough to live on.

Under the new rules, as long as the sponsor is earning the minimum gross income or above they don't matter at all, they're not even considered.

Even if the sponsor is not servicing them and getting deeper and deeper into debt and/or not being left enough out of his/her income after making their regular repayments to adequately support the applicant(s)!

That, in my honest opinion, is ridiculous.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, I also forgot to state yesterday & I am sure I am not alone in this, as a matter of privacey I was not overly keen to hand my bank statements over to a complete stranger.

Now if an applicant is applying as an employee & it is not necesscary to submit bank statements under this catagory I suspect there are others who would rather not as well.

Can anyone else confirm or correct me, don't want to potentially screw up someones application.

[7by7]

Details of what evidence is required, depending on how the financial requirement is being met, can be found in Annex FM Section FM 1.7

Whilst I, too, would not want to hand over my bank statements, or any other financial details such as pay slips, P60 etc., to a complete stranger it must be remembered that we are talking about a government department here. All the information and evidence provided in a UK visa application is treated in the strictest confidence.

Would you have the same reservations if dealing with HMRC or DWP or your local authority etc.?

[bobrussell]

I think the financial rules make some degree of sense as the government is particularly concerned about being seen to subsidise non-EU citizens on arrival (by giving benefits etc). This is a purely political decision.

What is not fair IMO is that there is no mechanism for those unable to meet this requirement to use other means to show the ability to maintain their families adequately.

There are plenty of people that choose to or do live low overhead, low income lifestyles who will never be able to meet the requirements but claim nothing. Many retirees fall into this category!

It is the inflexibility that is wrong, not the principle. I am sure there will be plenty of legal challenges to come!

Edited May 1, 2013 by bobrussell

[Waterloo]

Details of what evidence is required, depending on how the financial requirement is being met, can be found in Annex FM Section FM 1.7

Whilst I, too, would not want to hand over my bank statements, or any other financial details such as pay slips, P60 etc., to a complete stranger it must be remembered that we are talking about a government department here. All the information and evidence provided in a UK visa application is treated in the strictest confidence.

Would you have the same reservations if dealing with HMRC or DWP or your local authority etc.?

Cheers for the link, a careful read & it clearley states bank statements are required, it looks to me that they want show a link between payslips & the sponsor actually receiving payment.

From the notes I kept at the time this is a change from the document I downloaded dated Sept 2012

Call it an emotional response but I would rather not hand my bank statements to anyone (with the one exception of the wife), I appreciate that they are obliged to not divulge any confidential information & I trust them meet this obligation, but I still don't like doing it when necesscary.

[7by7]

.......... the government is particularly concerned about being seen to subsidise non-EU citizens on arrival (by giving benefits etc). This is a purely political decision.

A political decision; most definitely.

But ill thought out and a mere camouflage attempt to be seen to be 'doing something about immigration.'

You and I know that family migrants are banned from receiving most public funds until they have ILR. Instead of penalising family migrants in this way the government should have made this clear to the anti immigration lobby and press; and continue doing so whenever necessary.

We also know that family migrants make up a small percentage of all migration into the UK. Again, instead of penalising family migrants in this way the government should have made this clear to the anti immigration lobby and press; and continue doing so whenever necessary.

Would you agree that when the general populace complain about immigrants they generally mean immigrants from the EU/EEA?

The UK's treaty obligations mean that the government cannot do anything about that issue, so have made it harder for family migrants so that, as I said above, they can be seen to be 'doing something.'

BTW, before anyone brings them up; check out UKIP's policy on immigration. They don't just want to stop immigration from the EU by leaving it (they'd have to leave the EEA as well!); they want to stop all immigration for at least 5 years.

[Kevin1908]

It is bizarre because a sponsor can earn £18,600 pa and have £18,600 pa of debt repayments to make yet still meet the financial requirement, even though s/he and his partner would effectively have no income upon which to live (yes, i know it's an extreme example).

Yet a sponsor with an income of £18,599 pa with no debts would not meet the requirement and so be unable to bring their partner to live with them in the UK.

Under the old system the ECO looked at all the sponsor's income and all their regular outgoings; including debt repayments. Not only fairer, in my opinion, but much more sensible, too.

That is why under the old system they wanted bank statements as well as proof of income. Why they need them under the new is a mystery to me; as is much of the reasoning behind this farcical, unfair new financial requirement.

Exactly so why didn't they stick with what they had before. Now a very comfortabley off pensioner, house paid for no debt but pension of £16k can't sponsor a spouse but up to their eyeballs in debt person earning £19k and starting a family in the future can sponsor a spouse.

We now have the system the Government wanted so it must be right. They never get it wrong do they.

[Kevin1908]

Details of what evidence is required, depending on how the financial requirement is being met, can be found in Annex FM Section FM 1.7

Whilst I, too, would not want to hand over my bank statements, or any other financial details such as pay slips, P60 etc., to a complete stranger it must be remembered that we are talking about a government department here. All the information and evidence provided in a UK visa application is treated in the strictest confidence.

Would you have the same reservations if dealing with HMRC or DWP or your local authority etc.?

Yes the UK Government is the worst offender when it comes to losing confidential data. They seeing nothing wrong with copying everybodies details onto cd then putting it in the post to get lost.

A few years back I had to send all my bank statements, building society bank book etc to HMRC in connection with a tax investigation, I got none of it back. Somewhere HMRC have my building society pass book. They simply don't care.

[Kevin1908]

But ill thought out and a mere camouflage attempt to be seen to be 'doing something about immigration.'

Like the Iraqi convicted drug pusher who got to stay now his is on his third partner and can't be booted out because of HIS right to a family life. That and the fact that he would be pesecuted in Iraq because of his tattoos.

Well a bit of laser treatment will sort that out.

[bobrussell]

I completely agree with the comments regarding the sense behind the financial rules.

The figures chosen allow the government to claim the tax payer is not supporting 'immigrants' families. The general public don't care one bit about the immigration rules but there are 'too many immigrants' taking 'our jobs'.

There is little that can be done under EU rules to prevent workers coming to the UK so the government can look tough without really doing much! A minority of UK citizens will have their lives turned upside down because they cannot move back to the UK with their families but the numbers are going to be minimal in the grand scheme of things.

The general public seem to lump all immigrants together!

Sadly it is those of us that have used this site that are the ones affected but outside the 'select' band of Thaivisa members very few give a monkeys about the stress and suffering that affects this tiny minority.

I am not so sure it was ill thought out at all. It was quite clever politics that panders to the masses. Very short sighted legislation though!

In the long term I suspect it will be completely unworkable because those that cannot meet the income rules mid-way are very unlikely to leave the country without mounting a legal challenge. The courts are almost bound to find the UK citizens involved are having their human rights 'violated'. How can a British citizen partner and British citizen children be made to leave the UK if the family unit is to stay together?

[Kevin1908]

How can a British citizen partner and British citizen children be made to leave the UK if the family unit is to stay together?

Well I wouldn't put it past them to do exactly that whilst at the same time allow drug dealers, murderers and terrorists to stay using the right to family life rule. They are the ones that the human rights lawyers bend over backwards to defend, not British husbands looking to stay with their non EU wives.

[7by7]

Kevin,

You are beginning to sound like a cracked record with your ill founded rants such as the above.

You have made some valid points; but this sort of ignorant rant makes people dismiss everything else you have to say as well.

[Waterloo]

I completely agree with the comments regarding the sense behind the financial rules.

The figures chosen allow the government to claim the tax payer is not supporting 'immigrants' families. The general public don't care one bit about the immigration rules but there are 'too many immigrants' taking 'our jobs'.

There is little that can be done under EU rules to prevent workers coming to the UK so the government can look tough without really doing much! A minority of UK citizens will have their lives turned upside down because they cannot move back to the UK with their families but the numbers are going to be minimal in the grand scheme of things.

The general public seem to lump all immigrants together!

Sadly it is those of us that have used this site that are the ones affected but outside the 'select' band of Thaivisa members very few give a monkeys about the stress and suffering that affects this tiny minority.

I am not so sure it was ill thought out at all. It was quite clever politics that panders to the masses. Very short sighted legislation though!

In the long term I suspect it will be completely unworkable because those that cannot meet the income rules mid-way are very unlikely to leave the country without mounting a legal challenge. The courts are almost bound to find the UK citizens involved are having their human rights 'violated'. How can a British citizen partner and British citizen children be made to leave the UK if the family unit is to stay together?

Kevin I agree with a lot of what you say, but I beleive Bobs view will prove to be the more accurate given time.

Currently their are no votes in discussing this matter intelligently with the public, but in the long term I still have faith that if the goverment started deporting settled familys on mass there would be a public outcry.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Waterloo

[checkoutcomplete]

As much as the rule is a bit silly.

Every other country in the world has a minimum Income requirement for settlement visas.

So anyone who has received visas in the past should count themselves lucky.

The rule as said is a bit stupid, 7x7 clarified it you can earn £18,600 income and have £18,600 expenditure within the year but you would meet the requirement! Then you could have £18,599 income and spend not even a quarter but you won't hit the required income.

UK isn't cheap, the new rule is set up to avoid people signing on and claiming benefits. It's a belief that the minimum is suffice for applicants.

I do not understand why, there is an extra income needed per child that is Thai. Ie income needed is £20,400 for 1 child etc

Where as if the applicant has 3 children who all hold British passports the requirement is only £18,600.

[7by7]

I agree that there is a strong case for setting a minimum income; but, as I have said previously, this should be based upon the amount a British couple would actually receive if they were living on income support rather than the income level at which they would no longer be entitled to anything.

That is £5795.40 pa plus housing costs (as at April 2013).

Indeed, under the old system this was the unofficial calculation the ECGs told ECOs to use; based upon UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan)(2006) which strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the income support level for a British family of the same size (sorry, I can't link to the judgement, but easy to find if you Google it).

The reason why extra income is not needed for children that are British is that they do not need a visa; the income requirement only applies to the sponsor's family members s/he is sponsoring for a visa.

Which is, again, ridiculous as it takes no account of the extra income needed to support those British children!

Under the old system this extra income requirement would have been taken into account; so there are some winners here; though most are losers.

Edited May 2, 2013 by 7by7

[Somtamme]

Yes, the formula for settlement does not take into account savings and seems completely wrong to me too.

I have mentioned this before, that the new formula used to calculate approval for initial settlement, appears completely disproportionate to the problem the Government appear to be trying to fix when they introduced this formula (risk on UK economy of immigrants claiming benefits (Home, Office, Statement on Intent, 2012)).

Whether or not this risk was real is another question, but from our perspective and help off-set public concerns, all that was needed was a clause to be placed on the permit - that it is granted on the basis without recourse to public funds until sufficient N.I. contributions are made. If sufficient means 5-years, this would be similar to the current probationary period.

From my perspective, after a successful ILR application, if your wife does not work you'd need considerable savings to off-set costs. Given, the example in this instance, a salary of £18,600 will not prevent the need for benefits after ILR based on UK cost of living and is further evidence to me that the formula is wrong.

[7by7]

It is financial support from a third party which is no longer allowed; savings still are.

Savings above £16,000 can be used to reduce the required income for both the initial visa and the FLR after 2.5 years.

All savings can be used to reduce the required income for ILR.

But these savings must be immediately available, i.e. cash, and have been in the applicant and/or sponsor's possession and complete control for at least the 6 months prior to the application.

See part 7 of Annex FM Section FM 1.7

As you say, under the old rules family migrants were banned from obtaining most non contribution based public funds until they had ILR anyway.

Whilst very critical of the new financial requirements, I should add that I do agree with increasing the probationary period for ILR from 2 to 5 years. Doing so reduces the abuse of the system by those entering into sham marriages whilst, apart from the FLR fee after 2.5 years, is no real burden to genuine couples.

Sensibly and fairly the government have retained the ability of those whose British partner dies during the probationary period or who are subject to domestic violence and leave their abusive partner to still obtain ILR.