New UK Immigration Fees Proposed

[7by7]

New UK Immigration Fees Proposed.

The proposals increase most fees by 4 percent, including the short-term visit visa. Other targeted increases are being proposed so that we can limit wider general increases.

Of those of most interest to members here, a 6 month visit visa will be increased from £80 to £83*, a settlement visa from £851 to £885*, postal FLR from £578 to £601 and postal ILR from £1051 to £1093. Note the massive 38.7% increase in the fee for including a dependent, i.e. child, in an ILR application from £788 to £1093, now the same as the main, adult applicant!

The premium for making a FLR or ILR application in person has risen from £375 to £400.

Parliament approve, which it almost certainly will, the changes will be effective for all applications made on or after 6th April 2014.

See also Table of proposed new fees.

They are also going to offer more optional premium services, including a 'priority settlement application service for a fee of £300.' Whether this will be available everywhere, and how much the extra £300 will speed up processing they have yet to say.

*Addendum.

If UKVI continue with their current policy of charging in USD using an exchange rate advantageous to them, applicants will actually be paying more than this.

Edited February 4, 2014 by 7by7

[Waterloo]

Just looked up citizenship as that is the next step for the wife and it says it will jump from £794 to £906 for an increase of 4%.

Now correct me if I am wrong but I make that an increase in the region of 12% & what is the column for unit cost?

[7by7]

The unit cost is the how much the government, or UKVI, reckon it costs to process one application; taking into account wages, overheads etc..

I make the increase for naturalisation, single applicant, from £794 to £906 to be 14%, not the published 4%; typo?

But the unit cost, they say, is only £144, giving them a profit of £762; 529%!

Another example, settlement visas; unit cost £378, new fee £885. Profit to UKVI; £507 or 134%!

When Labour first introduced such vast profits for visa and leave to remain fees both the Conservatives and LibDems complained vociferously. But since taking power the coalition has continued with this profiteering. The old political trick; say one thing in opposition, do the opposite in government!.

Edited February 4, 2014 by 7by7

[Cuchulainn]

Greedy greedy bastards.

[Waterloo]

The unit cost is the how much the government, or UKVI, reckon it costs to process one application; taking into account wages, overheads etc..

I make the increase for naturalisation, single applicant, from £794 to £906 to be 14%, not the published 4%; typo?

But the unit cost, they say, is only £144, giving them a profit of £762; 529%!

Another example, settlement visas; unit cost £378, new fee £885. Profit to UKVI; £507 or 134%!

When Labour first introduced such vast profits for visa and leave to remain fees both the Conservatives and LibDems complained vociferously. But since taking power the coalition has continued with this profiteering. The old political trick; say one thing in opposition, do the opposite in government!.

Cheers 7by7 I thought that might be the answer.

As to the fees, I seem to remember Gordon Brown describing the extra cost as a contribution to UK plc for a product received which he says has great value to the recipient, rather than profit.

As statements go difficult to argue with, it is extremely valuable to me to have my wife in the country and eventually have the freedom of travel a UK passport affords.

As to whether the fees are fair I'm sure opinions are split on that one.

Still over the last 7 years it has added up to quit a substantial amount, just one more large bill to find!

[Waterloo]

yes my mistake clearly 14%

[goatfarmer]

"They are also going to offer more optional premium services, including a 'priority settlement application service for a fee of £300.'"

Of questionable legality. I have challenged the Home Office on the legality of charging priority fees for visas and they could not come up with any legal basis.

[mikebell]

I wrote to embassy this week about the requirement to submit ANNUALLY great sheaves of paper to get my wife a tourist visa so I could visit my grand-children. My circumstances have not changed: same wife;address etc. I asked if it was possible to have a database of applicants like me who need repeat visas. I pointed out the travel warnings the UK Embassies are issuing about coming to BKK where the grenades are flying. I asked if they could see the irony of forcing frail old men to run this risk by insisting on personal visits to the rat-pit of Regents House with the expense of a hotel visit + travel costs. I await their reply.

We might get a result if Thai Visa members ALL wrote to the embassy.

[theoldgit]

I wrote to embassy this week about the requirement to submit ANNUALLY great sheaves of paper to get my wife a tourist visa so I could visit my grand-children. My circumstances have not changed: same wife;address etc. I asked if it was possible to have a database of applicants like me who need repeat visas. I pointed out the travel warnings the UK Embassies are issuing about coming to BKK where the grenades are flying. I asked if they could see the irony of forcing frail old men to run this risk by insisting on personal visits to the rat-pit of Regents House with the expense of a hotel visit + travel costs. I await their reply.

We might get a result if Thai Visa members ALL wrote to the embassy.

The trouble is that applications are decided on merit and the circumstances at the time of application. Evidence that is current and relevant now might not be so in 12 months time, circumstances do change.

That said, if you and your wife are regular visitors you could consider a longer term visa, two, five or even ten years. The longer term visas are more expensive and there is always a chance the visa could be issued for a shorter time without refund, but it would save the regular trek.

[Jonmarleesco]

Quote: 'the increases will allow us to improve our customer service.' Well, they could hardly worsen it.

Edited February 5, 2014 by theoldgit
Font changed to standard size.

[Jonmarleesco]

I wrote to embassy this week about the requirement to submit ANNUALLY great sheaves of paper to get my wife a tourist visa so I could visit my grand-children. My circumstances have not changed: same wife;address etc. I asked if it was possible to have a database of applicants like me who need repeat visas. I pointed out the travel warnings the UK Embassies are issuing about coming to BKK where the grenades are flying. I asked if they could see the irony of forcing frail old men to run this risk by insisting on personal visits to the rat-pit of Regents House with the expense of a hotel visit + travel costs. I await their reply.

We might get a result if Thai Visa members ALL wrote to the embassy.

As did I, a few years ago, following the consulate's poncing around with my regularly visiting 'wife's' visa, which they issued 4 hours after the flight - her seat cancelled as we were heading to a fixed event, and we couldn't change her to another flight - had taken off. I couldn't speak to an officer, when trying to speed it up, being obstructed by the Thai receptionist - remember, we are technically on UK ground - and was compelled to write a letter, pointing out that the trip was imminent. Did she pass it along? Who knows, but I have my doubts. So I wrote a very strong letter (emailed) to the ambassador of the time, in which I suggested a different process for regular visitors would be logical. His answer to that was typical BS, and he was less than happy with much of the rest of my comments. But when we next applied for a visa, an online check some days later had me amazed that they had processed and issued the visa within two days of our submitting it. They can do it when they try.

Edited February 5, 2014 by theoldgit
Font changed to standard size.

[Jonmarleesco]

"They are also going to offer more optional premium services, including a 'priority settlement application service for a fee of £300.'"

Of questionable legality. I have challenged the Home Office on the legality of charging priority fees for visas and they could not come up with any legal basis.

They charge priority fees for passport issue, the cost dictated by whether you can wait a week, or want to wait while they issue there and then. No doubt they will continue charging 'priority' fees, plus courier charge, when receiving passport applications from overseas, despite the fact that applications are now sent direct to the UK. And they charge premium call rates should you phone them to check on the status of your application, whether in the UK, or out. Government profiteering, pure and simple. Though government schemes are never pure, and rarely simple.

Edited February 5, 2014 by theoldgit
Font changed to standard size.

[Jonmarleesco]

'*Addendum. If UKVI continue with their current policy of charging in USD using an exchange rate advantageous to them, applicants will actually be paying more than this.'

Interestingly, when we submitted my son's citizenship application, the embassy used two FX rates, one for local charges, one for the HO. I queried the difference but the girl didn't quite get it and as the FX rate applied to the larger amount favoured us, I, needless to say, didn't pursue it. But the use of different currencies seems to be a function of Thai logic. When paying a GBP cheque into my THB account, a few years ago, I couldn't, for the life of me, get a sensible answer as to why the fees for depositing a GBP cheque into a THB account, were charged in USD.

Edited February 5, 2014 by theoldgit
Font changed to standard size.

[mistephenso]

They have already started charging the new fees if my maths is correct...!?

We sent off my wife's settlement visa application online on Monday and were charged 1447 USD - using the current USD/GBP exchange rate (1GBP = 1.63149 USD, according to xe.com), means that we paid £886.9p.

I did wonder why they were charging in USD for a UK visa?! Now I see why....

[Basil B]

I think more importantly what will these be in the inflated USD charges for applications from Thailand.

And the the UK government is trying to pat itself on the back for bringing down inflation to 2%

[7by7]

"They are also going to offer more optional premium services, including a 'priority settlement application service for a fee of £300.'"

Of questionable legality. I have challenged the Home Office on the legality of charging priority fees for visas and they could not come up with any legal basis.

Surely the legal basis is the statutory instrument from Parliament?

They have already started charging the new fees if my maths is correct...!?

We sent off my wife's settlement visa application online on Monday and were charged 1447 USD - using the current USD/GBP exchange rate (1GBP = 1.63149 USD, according to xe.com), means that we paid £886.9p.

I did wonder why they were charging in USD for a UK visa?! Now I see why....

See this topic for discussion of this.

[goatfarmer]

"They are also going to offer more optional premium services, including a 'priority settlement application service for a fee of £300.'"

Of questionable legality. I have challenged the Home Office on the legality of charging priority fees for visas and they could not come up with any legal basis.

Surely the legal basis is the statutory instrument from Parliament?

Assuming there is a statutory instrument authorizing the charging of premium fees or authorizing a subordinate body to offer such a service. When I asked the Home Office for such legislation, pursuant to a freedom of information request last year, they could not provide any relevant legislation. They provided me with a redacted version of the contract between the Home Office and VFC (after much arm twisting and appealing their initial refusal). But they could not comply with my second request: the legislative basis for charging a priority fee. That would mean either of two things:

i. There is no authorization; or

ii. There is a vague power to do "any other thing necessary" for the implementation of the legislation which escaped the attention of the freedom of information personnel at the Home Office.

My argument against the priority fee is that the fees charged should be sufficient to ensure that the job of considering the application be done expeditiously. Charging an additional fee to do what they have already contracted to do encourages inefficiency. It also compromises those who haven't paid the fee, by allowing those more financially able to jump the queue for additional consideration. People who have an urgent need should be accommodated without charging extra.

[7by7]

My understanding is that the announcement, linked to in the OP, by Mark Harper is a summarising of proposals laid before Parliament for it's approval.

If Parliament approves the proposals, including the levying of premium fees, then they are legal.

Unless the courts decide otherwise.

This is the procedure followed for all changes to the fees in the past.

I totally agree with your arguments against premium fees. I believe that, except in emergencies, applications should be dealt with on a strict 'first come, first served' basis.

I also believe that fees should be set to cover costs, not make vast profits for UKVI and the Home Office.

[theoldgit]

Off topic post and response removed, this thread is regarding the increase in visa application fees, nothing more.

[goatfarmer]

My understanding is that the announcement, linked to in the OP, by Mark Harper is a summarising of proposals laid before Parliament for it's approval.

If Parliament approves the proposals, including the levying of premium fees, then they are legal.

Unless the courts decide otherwise.

This is the procedure followed for all changes to the fees in the past.

I totally agree with your arguments against premium fees. I believe that, except in emergencies, applications should be dealt with on a strict 'first come, first served' basis.

I also believe that fees should be set to cover costs, not make vast profits for UKVI and the Home Office.

Agreed. I can't see anyone challenging the legislation. We are all too far away to pursue such a claim.

[goatfarmer]

the rat-pit of Regents House

That was the subject of my complaint, which I sent at least six months ago, alleging breach of contract and to which I have had no reply. It's too long to post here in full. If anyone would like to see it, pm me.

[Jay Sata]

The unit cost is the how much the government, or UKVI, reckon it costs to process one application; taking into account wages, overheads etc..

I make the increase for naturalisation, single applicant, from £794 to £906 to be 14%, not the published 4%; typo?

But the unit cost, they say, is only £144, giving them a profit of £762; 529%!

Another example, settlement visas; unit cost £378, new fee £885. Profit to UKVI; £507 or 134%!

When Labour first introduced such vast profits for visa and leave to remain fees both the Conservatives and LibDems complained vociferously. But since taking power the coalition has continued with this profiteering. The old political trick; say one thing in opposition, do the opposite in government!.

It's not simply a case of an applicant paying the baseline cost.You have to look at Mark Harpers statement to Parliament to understand the thinking behind the level of fees.

For certain application categories, we will continue to set fees higher than the administrative cost to reflect their value to successful applicants. This helps to provide resources to run the UK immigration system and enables the Home Office to set lower fees elsewhere in support of wider government objectives to attract those businesses, workers, students and visitors who most benefit the UK. This includes the short term visit visa which remains significantly below cost. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/immigration-and-nationality-services-change-in-fees-for-2014-to-2015

Like everything in life there are winners and losers. The minister says the visitor visa's are below cost and are certainly reasonable compared to other countries including Thailand.

[7by7]

I have read the statement, thank you; fairly obvious., I'd have thought, as I started this topic and linked to it!.

You obviously agree with Harper and his predecessors going back to Blair's government who first decided to make a profit from family migrants.

I don't. I believe in a fair fee to cover the costs of the service provided.

Yes, some fees are set below cost, I have never tried to hide that. But how can anyone justify, for example, the 529% profit made on each and every naturalisation application.

Any other public service making such profits would, rightly, be pilloried in the media and hauled up before a select committee to explain themselves!

[Jay Sata]

I'd challenge anyone to suggest £874 is not a bargain for UK citizenship given the benefits if confers. A UK passport holder is free to travel the world. I'd happily pay that for similar rights in Thailand. No one is forced to be naturalized in order to remain in the British Isles.

As for other public departments I take it you've never had any dealings with your local planning department who charge extortionate fees for planning permission. Some councils now insist on section 106 clauses which can cost tens of thousands of pounds.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Jay Sata

[theoldgit]

"Winners and Losers", this isn't a game you know.

Let's just look at the figures, we have to take the Ministers word for the Unit Costs, as they are not published.

Bare in mind that most applications overseas are considered by Locally Engaged Staff, earning significantly less than main stream Civil Servants.

The Unit Cost for a Visit Visa, of whatever length, is claimed to be £115, and they produce no figures to support that. The are claiming a loss of 28% on every short term visa, but a profit of 155%, 375% and 550% on 2, 5 and 10 year visa respectively, these are only my back of the fag packet calculations.

I don't see how that can be justified.

[7by7]

Mr Sata,

I am not saying, and never have said, that UK visas should be free. I have always said that the applicant should pay a reasonable fee to cover the costs of dealing with their application.

But they are charged way above that.

Total cost, according to UKVI, of processing a settlement visa, FLR and then ILR: £901.

Total new fees to be paid for same: £2579.

Profit: £1678, or 186%.

You may consider that reasonable; I, and I suspect many others, don't.

But I am not going to be drawn into yet another pointless argument with you.

You believe that settling in the UK with one's foreign family is a privilege which should only be allowed to the wealthy, I believe it is a right which, provided certain reasonable conditions are met, such as not being a financial burden upon the state, should be available to all.

Let's leave it at that.

Edited February 6, 2014 by 7by7

[PeeJay1959]

Yes 7x7 I totally agree with you.

[7by7]

Let's just look at the figures, we have to take the Ministers word for the Unit Costs, as they are not published.

How Mark Harper and his predecessors, or rather their officials, have calculated these unit costs is, and always has been, something of a mystery.

Let's compare visit and settlement visas.

According to the table, the unit cost of a visit visa is £115; that of a settlement visa is £378. Difference: £263.

Now these applications are processed in the same office by members of staff all being paid roughly the same; so the overheads are, if not the same, at least very similar.

Now, I appreciate that the average settlement application may take a bit more work than the average visit one; but £263 worth of extra work?

I don't see how!

[Jay Sata]

You are missing the thinking behind the fee structure as outlined by the immigration minister.

For certain application categories, we will continue to set fees higher than the administrative cost to reflect their value to successful applicants. This helps to provide resources to run the UK immigration system and enables the Home Office to set lower fees elsewhere.

Therefore the actual cost does not enter the argument. Unfair for some on a limited budget but that applies elsewhere in society such as the price of petrol which far exceeds its true value.

[PeeJay1959]

Resources for the immigration service, surely it is in the public interest to have a good immigration, service and therefor it should be funded from the public purse and only the actual cost of the visa should be born by the applicant. I'd be interested to know how much "profit" they make from visas, but I reckon it is a drop in the ocean easily re-cooped but a few pence on a pack of fags for example.