Appalling Bank Statements For Uk Settlement Visa

[karen960]

hi

i need some advise again please. myself and my thai husband are in England, he is currently on a visit visa. My aim is to work 6 months and get perfect wage slips for the financial side of the things. I am on track for this, but since i have been back i,ve had nothing but hassle from other partys. i rent 1 property and they havent been giving me rent, this has led me to using my overdraft of 250 pound. one time the bank took there interest payment and made me go past my overdraft, also i couldn,t pay my mortgage for 2 months so the bankstatements show no mortgage coming out of my account as i cancelled the direct debit. I went to the local council and stopped the tenants rent, as from friday it will be paid into my account and hopefully i,ll be able to clear this dept up. Everything required for the settlement visa is good except for my bad bankstatements do you think this will be a problem.. thanks

[bobrussell]

The UKBA/Home Office have no interest in your financial ability to cope. The income requirement under the new rules is just that. If you have wage slips to show you are earning at least £18,600 then that what needs to be presented!

The ability to pay or not pay your mortgage is of little interest under the new rules (but I would not emphasise the shortcoming!). This is one of the biggest crazy elements to the new rules. Affordability is not really questioned!

[Tony M]

The UKBA/Home Office have no interest in your financial ability to cope. The income requirement under the new rules is just that. If you have wage slips to show you are earning at least £18,600 then that what needs to be presented!

The ability to pay or not pay your mortgage is of little interest under the new rules (but I would not emphasise the shortcoming!). This is one of the biggest crazy elements to the new rules. Affordability is not really questioned!

You are right, but beware any possible changes next week. The results of the review on Family Migration will be released next week, and I suspect that there will be some changes, even if all of our hopes aren't realised ( that the 18,600 threshold is removed). It may be that the threshold will be lowered, and a return to the old "support and accommodate" introduced. So, a combination of both - you might be able to meet the threshold, but you would have to show that you have adequate funds to support your spouse, etc from your income. That would make some sense, but wouldn't help this OP at all.

These are my thoughts only !

[karen960]

The UKBA/Home Office have no interest in your financial ability to cope. The income requirement under the new rules is just that. If you have wage slips to show you are earning at least £18,600 then that what needs to be presented!

The ability to pay or not pay your mortgage is of little interest under the new rules (but I would not emphasise the shortcoming!). This is one of the biggest crazy elements to the new rules. Affordability is not really questioned!

You are right, but beware any possible changes next week. The results of the review on Family Migration will be released next week, and I suspect that there will be some changes, even if all of our hopes aren't realised ( that the 18,600 threshold is removed). It may be that the threshold will be lowered, and a return to the old "support and accommodate" introduced. So, a combination of both - you might be able to meet the threshold, but you would have to show that you have adequate funds to support your spouse, etc from your income. That would make some sense, but wouldn't help this OP at all.

These are my thoughts only !

thanks for your replys. i will be checking for updates and any changes.

[MrZM]

The UKBA/Home Office have no interest in your financial ability to cope. The income requirement under the new rules is just that. If you have wage slips to show you are earning at least £18,600 then that what needs to be presented!

The ability to pay or not pay your mortgage is of little interest under the new rules (but I would not emphasise the shortcoming!). This is one of the biggest crazy elements to the new rules. Affordability is not really questioned!

You are right, but beware any possible changes next week. The results of the review on Family Migration will be released next week, and I suspect that there will be some changes, even if all of our hopes aren't realised ( that the 18,600 threshold is removed). It may be that the threshold will be lowered, and a return to the old "support and accommodate" introduced. So, a combination of both - you might be able to meet the threshold, but you would have to show that you have adequate funds to support your spouse, etc from your income. That would make some sense, but wouldn't help this OP at all.

These are my thoughts only !

Personally I think the rules are correct.

Most if not all countries in Europe have a financial requirement, so I have been told.

Yes it's wrong to separate families if you look at it that way and I do, I was in the position last year, but in all fairness £18,600 is a fair amount.

Judging from the speed the applications are being processed, you can see it has worked in slowing down immigration, which is a massive problem in the UK.

[7by7]

There was a financial requirement before the changes last July.

Whether or not immigration is a massive problem in the UK is a matter for debate; but not in this topic.

But this financial requirement applies only to family migrants; who make up a small percentage of all migrants into the UK.

Whether the minimum income figure is too high, too low or about right is a matter of opinion; personally I think it's too high.

But what is ridiculous is that absolutely no account is taken of outgoings; so someone with an income of £18,600 will meet the requirement; even if most of that income goes on debt repayments; but someone with an income of £18599 will be refused, even if they have no mortgage, no rent, no debts.

We will have to see whether or not the all party review changes this.

Processing times have historically shortened around this time of year; before they start to rise again when the student applications for the new academic year start to come in and clog up the system.

Edited June 4, 2013 by 7by7

[theoldgit]

Be careful what you wish for, as Tony M has pointed out, the review could recommend doing away with the limit but they could also recommend a "means tested" criteria based on disposable income, not everyone would benefit, even if it made more sense.

It's also worth pointing out that the committee only recommends, the Government aren't obliged to accept and implement their recommendations.

[bobrussell]

I would rather there is a sensible means tested safety net! It makes much more sense to ensure people have the means to provide for their families before moving to the UK. I am pretty sure there may be more losers than winners doing it this way. As long as someone can show they are self-supporting why should they be prevented from living in the UK?

Sadly if unable to afford it, why should the taxpayer subsidise them?

[MrZM]

There was a financial requirement before the changes last July.

Whether or not immigration is a massive problem in the UK is a matter for debate; but not in this topic.

But this financial requirement applies only to family migrants; who make up a small percentage of all migrants into the UK.

Whether the minimum income figure is too high, too low or about right is a matter of opinion; personally I think it's too high.

But what is ridiculous is that absolutely no account is taken of outgoings; so someone with an income of £18,600 will meet the requirement; even if most of that income goes on debt repayments; but someone with an income of £18599 will be refused, even if they have no mortgage, no rent, no debts.

We will have to see whether or not the all party review changes this.

Processing times have historically shortened around this time of year; before they start to rise again when the student applications for the new academic year start to come in and clog up the system.

I find it quite strange and not much logic has been put into the rule! But it is normal that most couples and families have bills to pay, it's unavoidable! (Unless your a millionaire)

Before though people were granted settlement visas with incomes as low as £300.

How can that be seen as suffice regardless of what outgoings they have.

And I'm quite confident if someone in the UK was earning £18,599, just below the threshold that if they asked there boss for a pay rise of £1 I doubt it would be refused.

In all fairness if you have a wife and a child and are earning lets say £10,000 a year before tax, you do not have enough money to live in England without recourse to public funds!

[MaprangHolmes]

There was a financial requirement before the changes last July.

Whether or not immigration is a massive problem in the UK is a matter for debate; but not in this topic.

But this financial requirement applies only to family migrants; who make up a small percentage of all migrants into the UK.

Whether the minimum income figure is too high, too low or about right is a matter of opinion; personally I think it's too high.

But what is ridiculous is that absolutely no account is taken of outgoings; so someone with an income of £18,600 will meet the requirement; even if most of that income goes on debt repayments; but someone with an income of £18599 will be refused, even if they have no mortgage, no rent, no debts.

We will have to see whether or not the all party review changes this.

Processing times have historically shortened around this time of year; before they start to rise again when the student applications for the new academic year start to come in and clog up the system.

I find it quite strange and not much logic has been put into the rule! But it is normal that most couples and families have bills to pay, it's unavoidable! (Unless your a millionaire)

Before though people were granted settlement visas with incomes as low as £300.

How can that be seen as suffice regardless of what outgoings they have.

And I'm quite confident if someone in the UK was earning £18,599, just below the threshold that if they asked there boss for a pay rise of £1 I doubt it would be refused.

In all fairness if you have a wife and a child and are earning lets say £10,000 a year before tax, you do not have enough money to live in England without recourse to public funds!

On your assumption of say £10,000 pa the person would be entitled to both working and child tax credits as well as some other benefits, which would raise the persons annual income. As long as the person does not claim any extra for the person on a settlement visa then what is wrong with the native person calming what they are entitled too? Also if the person did claim tax credits, the form asks if you are under the control of immigration so again the person would only get money for them-self and their child.

[MrZM]

There was a financial requirement before the changes last July.

Whether or not immigration is a massive problem in the UK is a matter for debate; but not in this topic.

But this financial requirement applies only to family migrants; who make up a small percentage of all migrants into the UK.

Whether the minimum income figure is too high, too low or about right is a matter of opinion; personally I think it's too high.

But what is ridiculous is that absolutely no account is taken of outgoings; so someone with an income of £18,600 will meet the requirement; even if most of that income goes on debt repayments; but someone with an income of £18599 will be refused, even if they have no mortgage, no rent, no debts.

We will have to see whether or not the all party review changes this.

Processing times have historically shortened around this time of year; before they start to rise again when the student applications for the new academic year start to come in and clog up the system.

I find it quite strange and not much logic has been put into the rule! But it is normal that most couples and families have bills to pay, it's unavoidable! (Unless your a millionaire)

Before though people were granted settlement visas with incomes as low as £300.

How can that be seen as suffice regardless of what outgoings they have.

And I'm quite confident if someone in the UK was earning £18,599, just below the threshold that if they asked there boss for a pay rise of £1 I doubt it would be refused.

In all fairness if you have a wife and a child and are earning lets say £10,000 a year before tax, you do not have enough money to live in England without recourse to public funds!

On your assumption of say £10,000 pa the person would be entitled to both working and child tax credits as well as some other benefits, which would raise the persons annual income. As long as the person does not claim any extra for the person on a settlement visa then what is wrong with the native person calming what they are entitled too? Also if the person did claim tax credits, the form asks if you are under the control of immigration so again the person would only get money for them-self and their child.

Those types of benefits are not acceptable to be used to increase your income if applying for a spouse visa.

Only certain benefits ie carers allowance, dla are accepted whilst applying for a spouse visa.

[Kevin1908]

"In all fairness if you have a wife and a child and are earning lets say £10,000 a year before tax, you do not have enough money to live in England without recourse to public funds!"

I find that response slightly hypocritical.

[7by7]

Mr ZM,

I have never heard of anyone being granted a settlement visa when the couple had an income of just £300 p.a.; indeed, I believe it could not have been possible unless they had third party support, which was allowed under the old rules.

Did you mean £300 per week?

Under the old rules, the requirement was that the couple, plus any children, should be able to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

In practice, this meant that they should have an income of at least the Income Support level for a British family of the same size (UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), 2006)

At 2012 rates for a couple both over 18 this was £111.45 p.w. (£5795.40 p.a.) plus £64.99 p.w. (£3379.48 p.a.) per child.

On top of that they would have needed to be able to meet their housing costs, i.e. rent or mortgage; which if living with family would be minimal, or even zero.

The ECO would also have taken into account outgoings such as debt payments when assessing if the requirement was met; which is why they wanted to see bank statements.

I believe this to be a fairer method than setting a fixed limit regardless of outgoings.

Theoldgit warns of the possibility of means testing. My response is; Why not?

Edited to add links.

Edited June 5, 2013 by 7by7

[MrZM]

"In all fairness if you have a wife and a child and are earning lets say £10,000 a year before tax, you do not have enough money to live in England without recourse to public funds!"

I find that response slightly hypocritical.

Elaborate

[MrZM]

Mr ZM,

I have never heard of anyone being granted a settlement visa when the couple had an income of just £300 p.a.; indeed, I believe it could not have been possible unless they had third party support, which was allowed under the old rules.

Did you mean £300 per week?

Under the old rules, the requirement was that the couple, plus any children, should be able to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

In practice, this meant that they should have an income of at least the Income Support level for a British family of the same size (UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), 2006)

At 2012 rates for a couple both over 18 this was £111.45 p.w. (£5795.40 p.a.) plus £64.99 p.w. (£3379.48 p.a.) per child.

On top of that they would have needed to be able to meet their housing costs, i.e. rent or mortgage; which if living with family would be minimal, or even zero.

The ECO would also have taken into account outgoings such as debt payments when assessing if the requirement was met; which is why they wanted to see bank statements.

I believe this to be a fairer method than setting a fixed limit regardless of outgoings.

Theoldgit warns of the possibility of means testing. My response is; Why not?

Edited to add links.

Sorry £300 a month.

And yes I saw it with my own eyes. Obviously of whom showed it me cannot be revealed.

The rules were very lenient before, if you had a minimal income, some money in the bank, and a subsisting relationship a small percent were refused.

Now the new rules allow you to be normal, you can have debts, you can show a bank account which has an overdrawn overdraft, but you have to show you meet a financial requirement, showing you have a secure income which personally I think is better.

Yes as we've said if you earn £18,599 and have no outgoings you wouldn't receive a visa but if you had an income of £18,600 and majority was going out on debts, bla bla... I agree totally but still think the rules are actually fairer.

[MrZM]

Ook

Edited June 5, 2013 by MrZM

[MrZM]

But then it comes down to another question?

Hypothetically speaking

Say they changed the rule and looked at debts and outgoings etc

Would it be fair for someone who earns £100,000 a year and has majority of his income going out to pay for a mortgage, credit card, overdraft etc and then could well be refused a visa based on his outgoings.

But then someone who earns £10,000 a year and has no outgoings house paid for etc and would receive a visa.

They could both have the same disposable income, but an obvious difference.

Considering the average annual income in the UK is £26,000, £18,600 that is required is well below average.

People will always complain either way...

Changing the subject slightly, when I first wanted my wife to settle in the UK on a spouse visa, I was unable to as the minimum age requirement was 21 of which was then changed to 18 typically months before my wife was turning 21 (I'm 25 by the way)! Yes it was annoying but as they say "patience is a virtue"!

My wife now has been issued a spouse visa under the new rules and we are all very happy.

Just to add my wife was refused under the old rules a spouse visa, which was due to outgoings, and having an overdraft!

But now I still have outgoings and an overdraft and meet the financial requirements.

Again I say the new rules are fairer it allows you to be normal.

[TCA]

Say they changed the rule and looked at debts and outgoings etc

Would it be fair for someone who earns £100,000 a year and has majority of his income going out to pay for a mortgage, credit card, overdraft etc and then could well be refused a visa based on his outgoings.

But then someone who earns £10,000 a year and has no outgoings house paid for etc and would receive a visa.

They could both have the same disposable income, but an obvious difference.

Yes, that's exactly the criticism we're making of the current rules. If your £100k guy spends all his salary but your £10k guy spends nothing, then the £10k guy is surely better prepared to take care of his spouse? Under the new rules Mrs Richie Rich gets the visa just because her husband has a big salary yet he might not have the proverbial pot to piss in. Potentially not so with Mr Small Salary but the regulations don't care anymore.

[MrZM]

Say they changed the rule and looked at debts and outgoings etc

Would it be fair for someone who earns £100,000 a year and has majority of his income going out to pay for a mortgage, credit card, overdraft etc and then could well be refused a visa based on his outgoings.

But then someone who earns £10,000 a year and has no outgoings house paid for etc and would receive a visa.

They could both have the same disposable income, but an obvious difference.

Yes, that's exactly the criticism we're making of the current rules. If your £100k guy spends all his salary but your £10k guy spends nothing, then the £10k guy is surely better prepared to take care of his spouse? Under the new rules Mrs Richie Rich gets the visa just because her husband has a big salary yet he might not have the proverbial pot to piss in. Potentially not so with Mr Small Salary but the regulations don't care anymore.

The guy on 10k may live at home with his parents and brings his wife back to stay there, 6 months down the line, they may decide to buy a house, or more likely ask for housing benefits.

So technically the man with the higher income, who consequently pays more taxes on his income, who already has a house and a secure income, is in a much better position.

I really think people should start thinking more logically.

[MrZM]

The guy on 100k is more likely to have more of a disposable income than the guy on 10k.

[TCA]

It's nothing to do with "being more likely" to have more disposable income. If means tested it's a matter of fact what that disposable income is.

And you can't guess what's going to happen in the future. Anything could happen to anyone.

[MrZM]

It's nothing to do with "being more likely" to have more disposable income. If means tested it's a matter of fact what that disposable income is.

And you can't guess what's going to happen in the future. Anything could happen to anyone.

I don't see anything wrong with the rules.

Most if not all European countries have a minimum income requirement for spouse visas. The UK were correct in changing the rule. In order to cut immigration down.

But one thing I don't believe in regardless of what the rules are, is separation of families. Who I believe should be exempt, a mother and child should not be separated from a farther and husband and vice versa.

That in my eyes is unjustified.

[7by7]

The guy on 10k may live at home with his parents and brings his wife back to stay there, 6 months down the line, they may decide to buy a house, or more likely ask for housing benefits.

If he can afford a mortgage; good for him.

If he applied for housing benefits; he wouldn't get them as they are on the list of proscribed public funds.

As is social housing, so he wouldn't even get onto the council waiting list until his wife had ILR.

But one thing I don't believe in regardless of what the rules are, is separation of families. Who I believe should be exempt, a mother and child should not be separated from a farther and husband and vice versa.

That in my eyes is unjustified.

As this financial requirement only applies to family migrants, that statement doesn't make sense!

I see you've started a new topic on this, so I'll post any further comments there.

[MaprangHolmes]

The guy on 10k may live at home with his parents and brings his wife back to stay there, 6 months down the line, they may decide to buy a house, or more likely ask for housing benefits.

If he can afford a mortgage; good for him.

If he applied for housing benefits; he wouldn't get them as they are on the list of proscribed public funds.

As is social housing, so he wouldn't even get onto the council waiting list until his wife had ILR.

>But one thing I don't believe in regardless of what the rules are, is separation of families. Who I believe should be exempt, a mother and child should not be separated from a farther and husband and vice versa.

That in my eyes is unjustified.

As this financial requirement only applies to family migrants, that statement doesn't make sense!

I see you've started a new topic on this, so I'll post any further comments there.

If he applied for housing benefits; he wouldn't get them as they are on the list of proscribed public funds. If the person claiming housing benefit was from the UK then he or she would be entitled to housing benefit.

[bobrussell]

There is nothing wrong with specifying £18,600 as a minimum income for a sponsor. At this level no benefits are payable (except Child Benefit) so the taxpayer is not going to be asked to 'subsidise' a sponsor/applicant with tax credits etc. Straight forward and down to the couple to keep to a budget that allows them to live.

There is another important group including many retired people that have no mortgage, little or no debt so can live perfectly adequately on less than £18,600. These individuals are discriminated against unfairly IMO.

As far as I am concerned the £18,600 is fine as a rule but there must be a way for those unable to show this income to demonstrate sufficient disposable income to live in the UK without requiring a government 'top-up'.

For the majority of applicants little will change but for a minority it would make all the difference!

[MrZM]

There is nothing wrong with specifying £18,600 as a minimum income for a sponsor. At this level no benefits are payable (except Child Benefit) so the taxpayer is not going to be asked to 'subsidise' a sponsor/applicant with tax credits etc. Straight forward and down to the couple to keep to a budget that allows them to live.

There is another important group including many retired people that have no mortgage, little or no debt so can live perfectly adequately on less than £18,600. These individuals are discriminated against unfairly IMO.

As far as I am concerned the £18,600 is fine as a rule but there must be a way for those unable to show this income to demonstrate sufficient disposable income to live in the UK without requiring a government 'top-up'.

For the majority of applicants little will change but for a minority it would make all the difference!

I totally agree.

There is also the thought that the ones without income, could become burdens on the benefit list. Which could be why they want to return to the UK.

[MrZM]

People still miss the point that the £18,600 is gross income, so the actual disposable income is around £15,300.

Someone who has no actual income other than a pension ie a retiree in Thailand etc regardless wether they have no mortgage etc I don't believe living in the UK is suffice ok minimum income, water and electric alone would cost a majority of the income. But they would be entitled on return to certain benefits.

The whole point of the figure is what the UK see as an income of which benefits would not be able to be obtained. With the acceptation of child benefit.

The rules also offer sponsors who are on DLA or carers benefits to be exempt from the rules. Which is fair, as they would be unable to earn the required income.

Someone retired overseas still has the opportunity to return/look for a job, but obviously this would mean separation of their family.

It's a difficult one.