UK Financial Requirement - appeal upheld ?

[ThaiVisaExpress]

This is interesting, and could be potentially important. The full determination is not available yet, but it looks like the First Tier Tribunal allowed an in-country appeal against the 18,600 GBP threshold because of the recent High Court Judgment. Even though that High Court judgment held that the introduced financial threshold was legal, the Judge said it was set too high. In this recent appeal, an ILR application, both the applicant and sponsor's incomes together didn't meet the threshold of 18,600.

The Home Office Presenting Officer asked for the appeal to be adjourned, on the grounds that the Home Office was considering the implications of the recent High Court judgment. The Immigration Judge declined to adjourn the hearing, and allowed the appeal. I think I have got the facts right, and I apologise if not. All I can find on the matter is this :

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2013/07/22/hope-for-families-divided-by-the-income-threshold/#more-9205

Edited July 22, 2013 by ThaiVisaExpress

[7by7]

Looks hopeful.

Let's hope that the government will see sense and now lower the threshold to a more reasonable level.

[diyer]

It's the outcome of the appeal that's important.

[7by7]

As TVE says in the OP; from the article linked to it appears it was allowed.

Following the adjournment application being considered and refused, the hearing proceeded and was allowed on the spot

[diyer]

Yes, the hearing was allowed on the spot but the judgement isn't made on the spot.

It takes 14 days for the judges ruling to be notified to the UKBA and the affiant.

[Basil B]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

[diyer]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

[Waterloo]

Isn't this just a consequence of the recent high court judgement and subsequent UKBA announcement on 5th July 2013

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsfragments/87-min-income-threshold

[7by7]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

Indeed,

From my submission to the parliamentary inquiry

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.

Out if interest, what did you say in your submission about the income level?

[diyer]

I can't remember it word for word. It's on the Office PC, not at home.

It was in the form of a petition signed by over 10,000 people in Manchester and handed to Sir Gerald Kaufman MP.

It took the form of complaining how the Minimum Earnings rule of £18,600 took no account of individual sponsors circumstances, and we based it on 2 scenarios:

A UK man with an income of £25,000 a £120,000 mortgage, car loan, credit card debts of £2,000 and his utility bills and expenses left him with a spending surplus of £1,500pa.

He would meet the required minimum earnings threshold.

Another man earning £17,500, home owner, no mortgage, no car loan, no credit debt, just utility bills and expenses could be left with a spending surplus of £8,000.

He wouldn't meet the required minimum earnings threshold.

That was the basis of it although we included much more factual and detailed information.

We actually used the financial circumstances of 2 work colleagues.

Edited July 22, 2013 by diyer

[7by7]

We seem to be of a similar mind; from my submission again

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.

Indeed, the inquiry's report said something very similar.

Which is not surprising, when you think about it.

Ignoring outgoings is totally illogical and, to be frank, stupid and ridiculous.

[Jay Sata]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

That sum is a joke. From my experience of Thai spouses married to UK partners they remit a minimum of around £5k a year to take care of family and offspring.

Plug that number in to 7by7's idea of around £13k being reasonable and you get back to £18k.

As for keeping a wife on £2k a year what planet are you on?

[diyer]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

That sum is a joke. From my experience of Thai spouses married to UK partners they remit a minimum of around £5k a year to take care of family and offspring.

Plug that number in to 7by7's idea of around £13k being reasonable and you get back to £18k.

As for keeping a wife on £2k a year what planet are you on?

Really! Work it out.

When my ex Chinese wife came to the UK, my utility bills increased by £10 a month, I lost my 25% rates discount, cost £25 a month, she spent £300 -£400 on clothes pa and she actually reduced my food bill in kind. I spent £40 a week on food, she pent £45 on two of us and cut out the junk food. Their very frugal with money.

We sent £200 to her father every three months.

That's about £1,800

[diyer]

We seem to be of a similar mind; from my submission again

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.

Indeed, the inquiry's report said something very similar.

Which is not surprising, when you think about it.

Ignoring outgoings is totally illogical and, to be frank, stupid and ridiculous.

All applications must include last 6 months pay slips and letter from employer confirming income.

All applications must include utility bills, rates, housing costs etc.

All applications must include 6 months Bank statements which confirm income and outgoings.

They already have the evidence 7by7, they just don't use it effectively.

I was once told by an ECM that the UKBA do calculate income and outcome for proof of disposable income available in order to support a spouse and the figure was £200 per month.

You won't find that in writing anywhere.

The point is, a calculation of disposable income would be a much fairer calculation to all and the evidence is already under their noses.

[MrZM]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

That sum is a joke. From my experience of Thai spouses married to UK partners they remit a minimum of around £5k a year to take care of family and offspring.

Plug that number in to 7by7's idea of around £13k being reasonable and you get back to £18k.

As for keeping a wife on £2k a year what planet are you on?

Really! Work it out.

When my ex Chinese wife came to the UK, my utility bills increased by £10 a month, I lost my 25% rates discount, cost £25 a month, she spent £300 -£400 on clothes pa and she actually reduced my food bill in kind. I spent £40 a week on food, she pent £45 on two of us and cut out the junk food. Their very frugal with money.

We sent £200 to her father every three months.

That's about £1,800

You are cheap.

[MrZM]

Lets put it this way.

I return to the UK in 3 weeks.

Our son starts schools which will cost £160 a month.

I give my wife a minimum £100 a month for needs.

My wife's thai shopping alone costs £100 a month.

My families general shopping, cereals drinks etc etc is average £200 a month

That's already £560 for my family which is £6700 per year.

That's excluding any bills. Which I don't have now. This also excludes any clothes, shoes, family trips etc.

I exceed the financial requirement.

But I am also able to save £500+ a month.

So you drop the financial requirement to £13,000 means your net will be around £10,500, which is very low income.

If I earnt this wage I wouldn't have a penny left, I don't have to pay for a house, I don't have utility bills, only to support my family.

An average Weekly grocery shop in England is £77 based on a couple. An average weekly shop based on a family of four is £155.

[markie53]

Lets put it this way.

I return to the UK in 3 weeks.

Our son starts schools which will cost £160 a month.

I give my wife a minimum £100 a month for needs.

My wife's thai shopping alone costs £100 a month.

My families general shopping, cereals drinks etc etc is average £200 a month

That's already £560 for my family which is £6700 per year.

That's excluding any bills. Which I don't have now. This also excludes any clothes, shoes, family trips etc.

I exceed the financial requirement.

But I am also able to save £500+ a month.

So you drop the financial requirement to £13,000 means your net will be around £10,500, which is very low income.

If I earnt this wage I wouldn't have a penny left, I don't have to pay for a house, I don't have utility bills, only to support my family.

An average Weekly grocery shop in England is £77 based on a couple. An average weekly shop based on a family of four is £155.

I'm confused about the last paragraph. How can groceries for a family of four cost more than double what it would for a couple? Surely it would be better to shop for two couples and save the £1 every week!

[MaprangHolmes]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

That sum is a joke. From my experience of Thai spouses married to UK partners they remit a minimum of around £5k a year to take care of family and offspring.

Plug that number in to 7by7's idea of around £13k being reasonable and you get back to £18k.

As for keeping a wife on £2k a year what planet are you on?

Here we go again 7by7 bashing this is going to turn into another pointless argument with no foundation on truth. Could you show me any official figures that show your out goings would increase by £5000 pa due to having a Thai wife.

[markie53]

I just can not see reason of setting a fixed level as ones financial needs will differ depending on where they live and it does not factor in if one is paying rent, paying of a mortgage, or owns their own house out right which probably would make a very big difference to ones financial needs.

Absolutely spot on Basil.

That's one reason why I have campaigned for a fairer system.

Whether you can support another person(s) should be based on your income and outgoings and use the surplus amount of income to create an income threshold.

How much does it actually cost to keep another person.............probably no more than £2,000 pa.

That sum is a joke. From my experience of Thai spouses married to UK partners they remit a minimum of around £5k a year to take care of family and offspring.

Plug that number in to 7by7's idea of around £13k being reasonable and you get back to £18k.

As for keeping a wife on £2k a year what planet are you on?

Here we go again 7by7 bashing this is going to turn into another pointless argument with no foundation on truth. Could you show me any official figures that show your out goings would increase by £5000 pa due to having a Thai wife.

My wife has been in the UK for close on 2 years and our baby is just coming up to 10 months, I would estimate my outgoings have risen by no more than £300 a month since their arrivals

[7by7]

I was once told by an ECM that the UKBA do calculate income and outcome for proof of disposable income available in order to support a spouse and the figure was £200 per month.

You won't find that in writing anywhere.

The point is, a calculation of disposable income would be a much fairer calculation to all and the evidence is already under their noses.

Under the old system, that is more or less what ECOs did do; calculate income and outgoings to see if the family had enough to live on.

Now they have no discretion in this at all. Outgoings are ignored completely and if the arbitrary income and/or savings line is crossed, visa issued; if it isn't, even if you're just 1 penny under, visa refused.

Statements by some members that they need more than £18,600 pa to live on are completely irrelevant.

We don't all spend £160 per month on school fees; my step daughter went to a state school and whilst we had to buy her uniform and some other equipment, nothing like that figure.

We don't all send £5000 per year back to our partner's families.

It is possible to live on the income support level plus housing costs; not a great life, but possible. After all, thousands of British couples do it!

[theoldgit]

This topic is about a recent appeal not the price of groceries, if you feel you have something constructive to say feel free to do so, if not please refrain from posting.

[diyer]

If the judges ruling upholds their appeal then it sends a clear message to the Government.

I hope you can keep us advised of the outcome.

[Basil B]

This is not about a spouse being able to support their partner because I would assume in some cases £18.600 could be too little, but in many it is excessive and the old system may have had it's faults but it only needed tweaking.

This is clearly the Home Secretary seeking out soft targets to reduce immigration and save the PM's face.

[2yearvisitvisa]

My wife has been in the UK for close on 2 years and our baby is just coming up to 10 months, I would estimate my outgoings have risen by no more than £300 a month since their arrivals

No much of a lifestyle then. However, that's probably as for most of the time your better half was pregnant and then you were caring for a baby. Wait and see how it rises!

[Kevin1908]

Another point is of course the spouse has no rights to public funds until they have ILR.

Once that is granted they have access to the raft of social support up to the £18,600 level.

So although they can't claim in the early stages they can later on.

Is that a problem. By the time my wife gets an ILR, assuming she can get one, I will have made 51 years worth of contributions, she will have made 5 making a total of 56 years worth of contributions.

[Jay Sata]

Why bother to accuse those with an opinion you don't like of being a troll.

I read nothing in 2yearvisitvisa's opinion to suggest his comments are not genuine.

[theoldgit]

Numerous off topic and bickering posts removed.

[diyer]

Another point is of course the spouse has no rights to public funds until they have ILR.

Once that is granted they have access to the raft of social support up to the £18,600 level.

So although they can't claim in the early stages they can later on.

Is that a problem. By the time my wife gets an ILR, assuming she can get one, I will have made 51 years worth of contributions, she will have made 5 making a total of 56 years worth of contributions.

Not entirely correct Jay.

ILR may give them the right to claim public funds, but they still have no entitlement to them.

You must have worked and paid 2 years NI contributions before you can claim Jobseekers for example.

Even after ILR the spouse could still be financially dependant on their partner.

I'm in favour of a minimum threshold, but I believe the current method is unfair and takes no account of different lifestyles and financial commitments.