New UK Immigration Bill is published

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The new Immigration Bill was published yesterday. It is likely to become law next year. Some of the highlights ( not my own work ) :

‘Highlights’ include:

• Clause 1 replaces section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 with a power to remove a person who requires but does not have leave to enter or remain and a power to remove members of such a person’s family. It is intended to provide a single, compendious power to remove in place of the current range of powers to remove those refused leave to enter, illegal entrants, overstayers and so on.
• Clause 2 and Schedule 1 give further powers to immigration and police officers to search individuals and premises.
• Clause 3 requires the tribunal to refuse bail applications made within 28 days of an unsuccessful application for bail, absent a change of circumstances.
• Clauses 4 – 10 enlarge the state’s powers to record, use and retain biometrics.
• Clause 11 replaces section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 with a new s. 82. The result will be that there is no longer a right of appeal against 17 or so immigration decisions such as refusal of leave to enter or remain, a decision to deport or a decision to remove. They are to be replaced by new rights of appeal against refusal of a ‘protection claim’ (i.e. a claim for refugee status or humanitarian protection), refusal of a human rights claim or a decision to revoke a person’s protection status. The array of grounds of appeal that were provided by s. 84 (e.g. that a decision is not in accordance with immigration rules or with the law) are replaced by 3 grounds: that removal would breach the UK’s refugee convention obligations; its obligations to a person eligible for humanitarian protection or the person’s ECHR rights. Section 85 is amended so the tribunal may only consider matters arising after the decision being appealed against if the Secretary of State consents to it doing so.
• By clause 12, an appeal must be brought from within the UK unless the Secretary of State certifies the protection or human rights claim as clearly unfounded. In the case of a ‘foreign criminal’ who has made a human rights claim, the appeal must be brought from outside the UK if the Secretary of State certifies that the person’s removal, pending the outcome of the appeal, would not breach human rights.
• Whilst clause 11 does away with the right of appeal against deportation decisions, clause 13 provides for a right of appeal to SIAC against deportation decisions taken on national security grounds. However, it is intended that the appeal should be on judicial review principles rather than a full merits review.
• Clause 14 dictates to the courts and tribunal what they must consider when assessing proportionality in an article 8 case. So, for example, they must regard English speakers and the financially independent as being less of a burden on tax-payers than non-English speakers and the less wealthy. Private life and relationships established whilst the person’s status was unlawful or precarious are to be given ‘little weight’.
• Clauses 15-32 set up a regime making it unlawful to rent accommodation to a person who requires but does not have leave to enter or remain or a person who has leave subject to a condition preventing him or her from renting. A landlord who rents property to such a person is liable to a penalty of up to £3,000.
• Clause 33 confers a virtually unconstrained power on the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing for a charge to be imposed on a person applying for leave to enter or remain or entry clearance. The only constraint is that the Secretary of State must have regard to the range of health services likely to be available free of charge to a person given leave to enter or remain.
• Clause 35-40 make provisions to stop persons who require but do not have leave to enter or remain opening bank or building society accounts.
• Clauses 41 introduces an immigration status requirements for the issue of a driving licence and clause 42 allows the Secretary of State to revoke a driving licence if it appears that the holder is not lawfully resident.
• Clauses 43-56 deal with the investigation marriages and civil partnerships.
• Clause 57 and Schedule 6 make provision about the registration of immigration service providers.
• Clause 58 and Schedule 7 provide for ‘designated persons’ as well as immigration officers to examine persons embarking from the UK.
• Clauses 59-60 extend the powers of the Secretary of State to charge fees for the carrying out of ‘functions in connection with immigration or nationality’.

The Bill can be found here : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0110/14110.pdf

Tony M

Edited October 11, 2013 by ThaiVisaExpress

[samran]

bugger, there goes my UK DL then....

[Richard W]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

[Kevin1908]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

[bobrussell]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

Two in the village where I have a business (not me!). Two in the village where I live. It cost them all a lot of money and plenty of bad publicity!

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

Edited October 11, 2013 by bobrussell

[Richard W]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

I don't have numbers, but civil penalties for employing illegal immigrants are being imposed, and the bill contains clauses to streamline the process. My wife suffers ineptly administered checks on immigration status at work, so the impact of the law against employing illegal immigrants is felt quite widely.

If I have read this law properly, a major impact will be on the demonstration of adequate housing for partners. It is (or was?) not so unusual for people to upgrade from a single bedsit to a 2-person bedsit to accommodate an incoming overseas partner. I have written letters supporting settlement visa applications by confirming the existence of such accommodation.

I strongly suspect that when illegal immigrants are caught, their landlords will be fined. It's easy money for the government. Admittedly, a major group of illegal employers, restauranteurs, will probably avoid an additional fine on the ground that they were providing tied accommodation. If I were still a landlord, I'd be strongly inclined to discriminate on the basis of immigration status. Notifying the secretary of state at an appropriate date is a hassle. I hope that applying for FLR or ILR will trigger permission to rent accommodation as part of an acknowledgement.

[Richard W]

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

The problem is that it is not just the tenant who must be qualified to rent. Section 17(3) also applies to any adult who obtains the right to occupy the accommodation, whether named or not. Once an immigrating partner has got their settlement visa, it will be straightforward, as you say. Obtaining accommodation in advance of the visa being granted seems to be another kettle of fish. Edited October 11, 2013 by Richard W

[MAJIC]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

Two in the village where I have a business (not me!). Two in the village where I live. It cost them all a lot of money and plenty of bad publicity!

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

Most Landlords in the UK have Estate Agents who would normally include this ID check in the vetting procedure and character references,as you say simple, but the one's that escape the net,are those that don't employ Estate Agents to handle their client lease,and don't declare for Tax purposes,any Rent received,and the under cover "lodgers" are not given any receipts for anything.

[7by7]

This is not a problem.

There is no law on how large a property an individual may rent, and this bill wont change that. So RichardW's fears about sponsors 'upgrading' their rental property before their spouse or partner applies for their settlement visa are groundless.

Of course, once that settlement visa is granted and the foreign spouse or partner is legally in the UK then there will not be a problem either.

Local authorities and housing associations already have (or should have) systems in place to check that any potential tenants are entitled to social housing; including checking the persons immigration status. It will be a simple matter for letting agents in the private sector to introduce similar.

This part of the Bill is a non issue.

My main concerns about this Bill are the proposals to erode even further the right of appeal and the proposal to levy charges on those subject to immigration control. Charges for what and how much?

Edited October 11, 2013 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

It just means landlords that do not bother checking their tenants out are taking one more risk. I for one would not rent a property out without knowing who was going to live there!

I would expect the tenants to sign a proper lease as well which generally would include a clause preventing sub-letting.

As with employers as long as reasonable steps have been taken then there will be no fine anyway.

I generally support the changes. If someone appeals successfully after being returned to their country of origin does that mean we pick up the tab for the flight back into the UK? As with a lot of legislation it creates quite a lot of questions as well as answers.

[lormakmak]

• clamp down on
  people who try to gain an immigration advantage by entering into a sham
  marriage or civil partnership

He talks about revoking driving licences but not about revoking visas or passports. I have written to him asking him why the Bill doesn't look at deception in marriage and retrospectively revoking such visas and passports?

I will update if I get a response

[7by7]

lormakmak, existing legislation already provides for the revocation of any visa or leave to remain obtained by deception and the deportation and a lifetime ban from the UK of any person who obtains a visa or leave to remain through deception.

As well as possible imprisonment for their sponsor if they knowingly played a part in the deception.

Obviously the British government cannot revoke a passport issued by a foreign government; but they can ban the holder from entering the UK.

[lormakmak]

lormakmak, existing legislation already provides for the revocation of any visa or leave to remain obtained by deception and the deportation and a lifetime ban from the UK of any person who obtains a visa or leave to remain through deception.

As well as possible imprisonment for their sponsor if they knowingly played a part in the deception.

Obviously the British government cannot revoke a passport issued by a foreign government; but they can ban the holder from entering the UK.

It is no surprise you pop up as you are indeed well read when it comes to the small print etc.

however real life as I have found out through an immigration barrister when reporting my wife and covering my arse has revealed that although legislation is there, it is rarely implemented.

now don't get me wrong I am not going to waste all my time and energy with regards to the soon to be ex but.....

the fact the only reason she is allowed to stay in this country was because of my assets and social status, well that doesn't sit right with me so I will at least have a go...

as said I will report back with any updates

[7by7]

That the barrister you talked to is unaware of any cases of a person using deception to obtain a visa or leave to remain in the UK being removed does not mean it doesn't happen. Though I do admit that a (albeit brief) search for relevant statistics has been unsuccessful.

However, this does not alter the fact that the law does already provide for the removal of persons who have used deception in their application(s). So you have asked 'him' (whoever he might be) the wrong question. There is no need for such a provision in this Bill because the appropriate law is already there.

Maybe you should be asking 'him' how often reports of such deception result in the revocation of a persons leave to remain and their removal from the UK?

the fact the only reason she is allowed to stay in this country was because of my assets and social status,

Don't understand this bit.

Obviously as your wife came under the old rules you and she did need to show that she would be adequately maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds at each application stage; so your (and her) assets and/or income would have been relevant. But social status? What has that got to do with it?

There is nothing in the immigration rules to say that only people of a certain social status are allowed to marry a foreigner and have them live in the UK with them. Though I know of at least one member of this forum who would have it so!

[lormakmak]

That the barrister you talked to is unaware of any cases of a person using deception to obtain a visa or leave to remain in the UK being removed does not mean it doesn't happen. Though I do admit that a (albeit brief) search for relevant statistics has been unsuccessful.

However, this does not alter the fact that the law does already provide for the removal of persons who have used deception in their application(s). So you have asked 'him' (whoever he might be) the wrong question. There is no need for such a provision in this Bill because the appropriate law is already there.

Maybe you should be asking 'him' how often reports of such deception result in the revocation of a persons leave to remain and their removal from the UK?

the fact the only reason she is allowed to stay in this country was because of my assets and social status,

Don't understand this bit.

Obviously as your wife came under the old rules you and she did need to show that she would be adequately maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds at each application stage; so your (and her) assets and/or income would have been relevant. But social status? What has that got to do with it?

There is nothing in the immigration rules to say that only people of a certain social status are allowed to marry a foreigner and have them live in the UK with them. Though I know of at least one member of this forum who would have it so!

perhaps I used the wrong term when I said social status....but apart from nit picking I think you get my drift!

she gave up her job and was I am led to believe working cash in hand in a Thai restaurant....

but the last contact I had from her was asking if there was a check from her company(the same company she walked out on the very next day after leaving me) and that she needed money.

she has had the divorce papers served to her via a friends address now...originally she wanted to pay half towards the cost, now no money!

there is obviously no claim against me that I physically or mentally abused her, so what is her reason that now she decides she wants no part of the marriage only days after receiving her residence permit?

you say she isn't entitled to anything as per the thread before with regards to social housing or even benefits, do note the fact that she left of her own doing the job and the job centre and social will hold that against her and she certainly won't be due any job seekers allowance, not for a while anyway....

and even if she is, do we really want another one on the dole over here? is that what you Guardian readers believe in?

end of the day she is here because of me and has been openly underhanded in gaining her residence, the facts are laid out before us and I do think the UKBA should be interviewing her as to what her plans are in the future as the letters from the bank say she has no money to pay her standing orders etc.

by the way 'him' is a 'her' with regards to my barrister.

bit long winded but you asked for it

[7by7]

If you want to discuss the specifics of your situation, then I think that the place for that is back in your original thread on the subject; not here.

Going back to what is relevant to this topic: I referred to 'him' because you said

He talks about revoking driving licences but not about revoking visas or passports. I have written to him asking him why the Bill doesn't look at deception in marriage and retrospectively revoking such visas and passports?

Whoever 'he' is, I am sure that the reply you will get is this Bill does not look at revoking visas or leave to remain obtained by deception simply because, as already said, such legislation already exists.

BTW, as far as I can recall, I have never read the Grauniad in my entire life. Not that the papers I read have any relevance.

[Kevin1908]

It appears that this bill would usually make it illegal to obtain rented accommodation for oneself and a spouse from overseas prior to a visa being granted.

At first sight it would also appear that a landlord will have to evict tenants if an application for ILR or FLR is not granted promptly. Is this just a threat to ensure that the Home Office knows the real addresses of people who were due to apply but didn't?

The whole section on illegibility to rent feels fundamentally wrong. If it is meant as a requirement on landlords to report tenants who may be present illegally, it should be worded as such.

yawn. How many employers have actually been prosecuted for employing and illegal immigrant. Who thinks that any private landlords will actually face prosecution for failing to do these checks.

More waffle.

Two in the village where I have a business (not me!). Two in the village where I live. It cost them all a lot of money and plenty of bad publicity!

As an employer it is very simple to identify if someone has the right to work in the UK (copy of passport is generally enough). I cannot see any reason why a landlord would have problems doing the same. Most require pretty involved references already.

It isn't the issue of employers can't be bothered to check. There are close on a million illegal immigrants all doing a job somewhere and clearly the employer doesn't give a damn. Why should he, the risks are very low and the fines are not huge compared to the savings to be made in employing an illegal.

I would think that a landlord having an illegal as a tennent is the same. The are hardly likely to complain about substandard accomodation or if you evicted them.

[lormakmak]

If you want to discuss the specifics of your situation, then I think that the place for that is back in your original thread on the subject; not here.

Going back to what is relevant to this topic: I referred to 'him' because you said

He talks about revoking driving licences but not about revoking visas or passports. I have written to him asking him why the Bill doesn't look at deception in marriage and retrospectively revoking such visas and passports?

Whoever 'he' is, I am sure that the reply you will get is this Bill does not look at revoking visas or leave to remain obtained by deception simply because, as already said, such legislation already exists.

BTW, as far as I can recall, I have never read the Grauniad in my entire life. Not that the papers I read have any relevance.

Him as in Mark Harper, the person who drafted this new immigration bill

[7by7]

Thank you for clearing that up.

Let us know his reply; but I will be very surprised if it differs substantially from my expectation.

[Richard W]

There is no law on how large a property an individual may rent, and this bill wont change that. So RichardW's fears about sponsors 'upgrading' their rental property before their spouse or partner applies for their settlement visa are groundless.

My personal experience, from when I was a resident landlord, was of tenants obtaining a double room to accommodate them and an immigrating partner. The tenants believed they needed a letter confirming that their partner would be allowed to live there.

The bill reads:

17 Persons disqualified by immigration status not to be leased premises

(1) A landlord must not authorise an adult to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement if the adult is disqualified as a result of their immigration status.

(2) There is a contravention of this section in either of the following cases.

(3) The first case is where a residential tenancy agreement is entered into that, at

the time of entry, grants a right to occupy premises to—

(a) a tenant who is disqualified as a result of their immigration status,

(b ) another adult named in the agreement who is disqualified as a result of

their immigration status, or

(c ) another adult not named in the agreement who is disqualified as a

result of their immigration status (subject to subsection (5)).

(4) The second case is where—

(a) a residential tenancy agreement is

entered into that grants a right to

occupy premises on an adult with a limited right to rent,

(b ) the adult later becomes a person

disqualified as a result of their

immigration status, and

(c ) the adult continues to occupy the

premises after becoming disqualified.

(5) There is a contravention as a result of subsection

(3)(c ) only if—

(a) reasonable enquiries were not made of the tenant before entering into the agreement as to the relevant occupiers, or

(b ) reasonable enquiries were so made and it was, or should have been, apparent from the enquiries that the adult in question was likely to be a relevant occupier.

(6) Any term of a residential tenancy agreement that prohibits occupation of premises by a person disqualified by their immigration status is to be ignored for the purposes of determining whether

there has been a contravention of this section if—

(a) the landlord knew when entering into the agreement that the term would be breached, or

(b ) the prescribed requirements were not complied with before entering into the agreement.

If those tenancies had started with proposed law in effect, I would be caught under Section 17(3)(b ) or Section 17(3)(c ). Section 17(6)(b ) would prevent me from making the authorisation for the spouse to live in the room dependent on their having been granted a settlement visa. Further, the first case applies at the 'time of entry', which I read as meaning the entry into the agreement, not the taking up of residence. At the time of making the agreement and authorising the immigrant partner to reside, said partner would be a disqualified person.

I apologise for not winning the battle against the board's text corruption algorithms.

Of course, once that settlement visa is granted and the foreign spouse or partner is legally in the UK then there will not be a problem either.

Local authorities and housing associations already have (or should have) systems in place to check that any potential tenants are entitled to social housing; including checking the persons immigration status. It will be a simple matter for letting agents in the private sector to introduce similar.

We are presuming that there will be no penalties for honest mistakes. It looks as though, for example, a revoked British passport will legally be adequate evidence of British citizenship for a landlord to grant a tenancy. One won't have to check whether a citizenship has been withdrawn. However, the next nasty comes from Section 17(4), which requires the landlord to take action when the limited leave to enter or remain expires. (I haven't checked what happens when leave is revoked.)

I'm glad to know you'd have no problem if you let out a room in your home. I'm glad I don't have tenants any more.

My main concerns about this Bill are the proposals to erode even further the right of appeal and the proposal to levy charges on those subject to immigration control. Charges for what and how much?

This should have the makings of a major thread - there seems to be a lot wrong with this bill.

[Richard W]

bugger, there goes my UK DL then....

Maybe expats' UK driving licences should not be renewed. It seems rather crazy that someone who is not resident is not not legally resident.

The one consolation is that you won't necessarily need to retake your test to get it back.

[7by7]

RichardW, if the sponsor is renting, then a letter from their landlord confirming that the applicant can live in the property with them is always, I believe, a good idea.

But I still don't see a problem.

You wrote letters for your tenants to the effect that once their spouse/partner obtained their visa and moved to the UK then they would be able to live in your property. You weren't offering tenancies to people who were in the UK illegally; were you?

In other words, they would be able to live in your property when they were legally in the UK.

Obviously any tenancy agreement which included the immigrant spouse or partner (or whatever) should not be signed and taken up until said immigrant had received their visa; or even arrived in the UK.

Certainly were I sponsoring a family member to settle in the UK and needed to move to a bigger property I would not commit myself to the extra rent until I was sure that they would be coming!

Even if an agreement was signed, any responsible landlord would make the required checks once the immigrant had arrived and if it turned out that they were not in the UK legally then this would, I'm sure, be acceptable grounds for cancelling any agreement.

[Richard W]

RichardW, if the sponsor is renting, then a letter from their landlord confirming that the applicant can live in the property with them is always, I believe, a good idea.

I thought evidence of permission was required. Home owners have to (had to?) get letters of permission from mortgage lenders.

You wrote letters for your tenants to the effect that once their spouse/partner obtained their visa and moved to the UK then they would be able to live in your property. You weren't offering tenancies to people who were in the UK illegally; were you?

The resident partner (who happened to be an EU national in both cases) was the tenant, so no problem under 17(3)(a ). The immigrant fiancé or fiancée was probably (it was a long time ago) named in the written part of the agreement, so falling foul of 17(3)(b ); if not named in the written part of the agreement, they would have been named in the verbal part and the authorisation evidenced in the letter for the ECO. (Tenancy agreements do not need to be written.)

In other words, they would be able to live in your property when they were legally in the UK.

Such a condition appears to be irrelevant by virtue of Section 17(6)(b ), unless I have misunderstood 'prescribed requirements'. As I understand it, the prescribed requirements would not be satisfied because the landlord was consenting to occupation by the immigrant partner, who had not yet received a visa. Section 17(7) (quoted below) also defeats any such condition as a defence.

Obviously any tenancy agreement which included the immigrant spouse or partner (or whatever) should not be signed and taken up until said immigrant had received their visa; or even arrived in the UK.

Certainly were I sponsoring a family member to settle in the UK and needed to move to a bigger property I would not commit myself to the extra rent until I was sure that they would be coming!

My understanding was that the effective rule is 'no accommodation, no visa'. The tenancy agreement therefore needs to be in place for a visa to be granted. The agreement is therefore caught by Section 17(7), which reads:

"(7) It does not matter for the purposes of this section whether or not

"(a) a right of occupation is exercisable on entering into an agreement or from a later date;

"(b ) a right of occupation is granted unconditionally or on satisfaction of a condition."

[Basil B]

I have thought for a long time that action is needed to tackle those harbouring illegals, clauses 15-32 do not go far enough, even though it covers subletting I think it would be hard for authorities to prove that a lodger was actually paying rent, or even if a person was allowing a family member or friend to stay rent free this should also be outlawed by this bill.

I think it is time that in the UK the head of the household should be legally required to register all persons living at their abode, say for more 28 days not just for the purpose of immigration but to expose other criminals.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Basil B

[Richard W]

I have thought for a long time that action is needed to tackle those harbouring illegals, clauses 15-32 do not go far enough, even though it covers subletting I think it would be hard for authorities to prove that a lodger was actually paying rent, or even if a person was allowing a family member or friend to stay rent free this should also be outlawed by this bill.

Even if my marriage were declared void and had no effect in law, I wouldn't turf my family out even though they'd then be in the UK with no leave to enter or remain.

I think it is time that in the UK the head of the household should be legally required to register all persons living at their abode, say for more 28 days not just for the purpose of immigration but to expose other criminals.

And how effective was that in the days of the community charge? Not very, I think.

Councils seem to have enough trouble compiling the register of electors, even though there's nothing worse than jury service to fear.

[Jay Sata]

One good section of the bill is the limitations on appeals which in 99% of all cases are funded by UK legal aid.

The legal gravy train has cost the UK a fortune for decades and needs to be stopped in it's tracks.

[Tony M]

bugger, there goes my UK DL then....

Maybe expats' UK driving licences should not be renewed. It seems rather crazy that someone who is not resident is not not legally resident.

The one consolation is that you won't necessarily need to retake your test to get it back.

Isn't that the case at the moment ? You have to be legally resident in the UK to renew your licence, and it has to be sent to your UK address. It cannot be sent to an overseas address by DVLC, I believe.

[MAJIC]

That the barrister you talked to is unaware of any cases of a person using deception to obtain a visa or leave to remain in the UK being removed does not mean it doesn't happen. Though I do admit that a (albeit brief) search for relevant statistics has been unsuccessful.

However, this does not alter the fact that the law does already provide for the removal of persons who have used deception in their application(s). So you have asked 'him' (whoever he might be) the wrong question. There is no need for such a provision in this Bill because the appropriate law is already there.

Maybe you should be asking 'him' how often reports of such deception result in the revocation of a persons leave to remain and their removal from the UK?

the fact the only reason she is allowed to stay in this country was because of my assets and social status,

Don't understand this bit.

Obviously as your wife came under the old rules you and she did need to show that she would be adequately maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds at each application stage; so your (and her) assets and/or income would have been relevant. But social status? What has that got to do with it?

There is nothing in the immigration rules to say that only people of a certain social status are allowed to marry a foreigner and have them live in the UK with them. Though I know of at least one member of this forum who would have it so!

"That the barrister you talked to is unaware of any cases of a person using deception to obtain a visa or leave to remain in the UK being removed does not mean it doesn't happen. Though I do admit that a (albeit brief) search for relevant statistics has been unsuccessful."

Here's one of several I found in 10 seconds!

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/uk-visa-applicant-arrested-for-fraud

[Baerboxer]

This is not a problem.

There is no law on how large a property an individual may rent, and this bill wont change that. So RichardW's fears about sponsors 'upgrading' their rental property before their spouse or partner applies for their settlement visa are groundless.

Of course, once that settlement visa is granted and the foreign spouse or partner is legally in the UK then there will not be a problem either.

Local authorities and housing associations already have (or should have) systems in place to check that any potential tenants are entitled to social housing; including checking the persons immigration status. It will be a simple matter for letting agents in the private sector to introduce similar.

This part of the Bill is a non issue.

My main concerns about this Bill are the proposals to erode even further the right of appeal and the proposal to levy charges on those subject to immigration control. Charges for what and how much?

I agree. I read this several times to make sure I wasn't misreading. The erosion of rights of appeal seems contrary to the principles and spirit of English Law.

Civil servants, regardless of department, are not infallible in applying the law and the right of appeal would seem a safe guard to disputed interpretations and rulings.

Several years ago a wealthy English friend wanted to bring his Thai brother in law over for a holiday. The visa was turned down, but on appeal a judge overturned this and the visa was issued. Now, from what I'm reading, this right of appeal is blocked and the officer's ruling will be final ?

[Baerboxer]

bugger, there goes my UK DL then....

Maybe expats' UK driving licences should not be renewed. It seems rather crazy that someone who is not resident is not not legally resident.

The one consolation is that you won't necessarily need to retake your test to get it back.

Isn't that the case at the moment ? You have to be legally resident in the UK to renew your licence, and it has to be sent to your UK address. It cannot be sent to an overseas address by DVLC, I believe.

Correct. License have to be renewed every so often, think its 10 years, so your photo is up to date. You can't do this if you live outside the UK, but must do so as quickly as reasonably possible on return. I had a letter from the DLVC forwarded a couple of years ago reminding me about this. I telephoned them and this is what they said.

You are not renewing the licence, by the way, because it has not expired. You are complying with a request to update details i.e. a more recent photo.