UK Appeal Court dismiss £18,600 legal challenge

[7by7]

It, and the minimum savings level of £62,500, are the levels above which one would not be eligible for any form of income related benefits.

[theoldgit]

Off topic and nonsensical post removed.

[Somtamme]

Agreed there is scope for fine tuning but politics and public opinion on immigration play a role in this legislation.

Actually, the role politics has to make is, to have in first place and presented to it by civil servants, all the various costed examples, such as;

A: do nothing

B: bring in the income/savings criteria

C: scrap income criteria and fixed rate visa fees, with a conditional permit (settlement) that restricts access to benefits on time weighted basis and to introduce a new charging system for visa fees based on costs reasonably incurred in processing them.

D: Any others

Option C has the advantage that it makes both the applicant and border agency accountable.

The role public has to play, is to be consulted on these options plus scrutiny of the media.

Answer me this question, where was the consultation and what were the options? Surely, this was of relevance to the appeal?

[7by7]

There was consultation, both before the relevant legislation was introduced and afterward when the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration looked into the matter after the legislation came into force.

In the pre legislation consultation the government ignored all responses which did not agree with it's aims; instead basing it's legislation on a report from Migration Watch; a well known anti immigration think tank.

Since then the government has ignored all criticisms and suggestions from more balanced sources; including the APPGM's report.

With regard to your options; option C was essentially the situation prior to Blair and Brown deciding, in 2003 if memory serves, that the IND (then BIA, then UKBA and now UKVI) should make a profit from visa and LTR applications rather than just cover the cost of processing them and so increased the fees dramatically.

Despite vociferous opposition to this at the time from both the Conservatives and LibDems, the present government has continued with this policy.

With respect, access to benefits is a red herring. As previously said, access to public funds has always been severely limited until the person has ILR or the equivalent. Basically, with a few exceptions, to just any contribution based benefits the person may be entitled to. As, in my opinion, it should be. See Public Funds.

As far as I am aware, no one who feels the current income requirement to be unfair is suggesting that anyone should be able to enter the UK, in any category, and immediately be able to claim any and all benefits.

All we want is a fair and just system.

The government expects a British couple to be able to live on the income support level; just £5852.60 p.a. plus housing costs. Where is the justice in demanding a couple where one is an immigrant should have an income so much higher?

[TCA]

She won't need private healthcare, she will be entitled to NHS the moment she lands on UK soil. Why do they think £18,600 is the minimum when Tax credits stop at £15,600, there's no way a couple above that can claim benefits

Non-EU migrants are entitled to free NHS treatment, but not for long:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28291276

"Patients from outside the EU are to be charged 150% of the cost of treatment in the NHS in a fresh crackdown on so-called "health tourism. The move by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is designed to encourage NHS Trusts to recover the cost of operations from migrants. Mr Hunt believes the plans could save the the health service £500m a year. The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment. Those hospitals that fail to bill foreign patients could also face fines, the BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said. Many migrants currently get free NHS care immediately or soon after arrival in the UK.

The government is asking the NHS to clamp down by identifying these patients more effectively so costs can be recovered from them. Under the plans, non-EU patients receiving a £100 procedure could get a bill of up to £150. "We have no problem with international visitors using the NHS as long as they pay for it - just as British families do through their taxes," Mr Hunt said. "These plans will help recoup up to £500m a year, making sure the NHS is better resourced and more sustainable at a time when doctors and nurses on the front line are working very hard."

At present only a fraction of the costs of treating migrants is being recovered. The new measures are expected to come into force by next spring. The crackdown follows plans already unveiled to charge migrants a £200 "NHS" levy when they apply for a visa."

[bobrussell]

The thing that really annoys me about these new rules is that you are not allowed to have family help out.

My mum and dad would be more than wiling to help support me and my young family in their premises but this would not be taken into consideration.

Why not just make us sign something that says 'right ok you can come over but don't expect any benefits or free healthcare'. I'd be fine with that!

But this would bring discretion into the equation which Ms May was absolutely adamant would not happen. It was made very clear that no assessment of household budget was to take place as part of the application process.

No family help (or any other for that matter) would be acceptable as it returns to discretion once again.

The figure was chosen because it is high enough that no income related benefits could be claimed. This was the whole point!

No discretion, no flexibility, no variations.

There is already a condition that no recourse to public funds are allowed but plenty of families have relied on tax credits in the past even if the spouse is ignored for the calculations. Do you really think people settled in the UK could cope for 5 years+ paying for all their medical bills? Private medical insurance can cost thousands each year. Signing something to say you will not do something is not worth the paper it is written on IMO.

There should be a degree of flexibility in demonstrating that benefits are not required. I don't think that many would be able to show this but it should be there for the minority that can.

[7by7]

,snip>

There should be a degree of flexibility in demonstrating that benefits are not required. I don't think that many would be able to show this but it should be there for the minority that can.

Prior to 9/7/12 applicants had to show that they could be maintained and accommodated in the UK without recourse to public funds.

When my wife and step daughter applied back in 2000 I had to provide evidence of my income, savings and all regular outgoings to show that I was able to do so.

Search back before 9/7/12 in this or any similar forum and you will find examples of people who were refused because they couldn't.

I can see nothing wrong with that system; this set financial requirement is nothing more than the government attacking an easy target as a sop to the anti immigration brigade; to show them that they, the government, are 'doing something' about immigration.

Even though, as any one who knows anything about immigration to the UK will tell you, the effect on overall immigration figures is minimal.

Edited July 15, 2014 by 7by7

[Bernard Flint]

Its more if the three of you go back, 18k is for wfey, there is more for the kid.

That's not correct, the qualifying figure isn't increased in respect of a child holding a British Passport, only if the child hold a foreign passport.

Sorry, my mistake you are right if the son has a british passport,but the wife does also, now i am confused lol

[7by7]

Me, too!

Anyone who is a British citizen, whether by birth or naturalisation, has the right to live in the UK and doesn't need a visa to enter the UK for any purpose.

Therefore this financial requirement, and all the other requirements of the immigration rules, wont apply.

But if, for example, father and child are British but the mother isn't, then the mother will need a visa and only the financial requirement for a spouse will apply.

Odd that the government thinks a family where the children are British needs less to live on than a family where the children aren't!

Edited July 15, 2014 by 7by7

[Bernard Flint]

She won't need private healthcare, she will be entitled to NHS the moment she lands on UK soil. Why do they think £18,600 is the minimum when Tax credits stop at £15,600, there's no way a couple above that can claim benefits

Non-EU migrants are entitled to free NHS treatment, but not for long:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28291276

"Patients from outside the EU are to be charged 150% of the cost of treatment in the NHS in a fresh crackdown on so-called "health tourism. The move by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is designed to encourage NHS Trusts to recover the cost of operations from migrants. Mr Hunt believes the plans could save the the health service £500m a year. The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment. Those hospitals that fail to bill foreign patients could also face fines, the BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said. Many migrants currently get free NHS care immediately or soon after arrival in the UK.

The government is asking the NHS to clamp down by identifying these patients more effectively so costs can be recovered from them. Under the plans, non-EU patients receiving a £100 procedure could get a bill of up to £150. "We have no problem with international visitors using the NHS as long as they pay for it - just as British families do through their taxes," Mr Hunt said. "These plans will help recoup up to £500m a year, making sure the NHS is better resourced and more sustainable at a time when doctors and nurses on the front line are working very hard."

At present only a fraction of the costs of treating migrants is being recovered. The new measures are expected to come into force by next spring. The crackdown follows plans already unveiled to charge migrants a £200 "NHS" levy when they apply for a visa."

So i WAS right

[Bernard Flint]

Me, too!

Anyone who is a British citizen, whether by birth or naturalisation, has the right to live in the UK and doesn't need a visa to enter the UK for any purpose.

Therefore this financial requirement, and all the other requirements of the immigration rules, wont apply.

How many adult thais fall into this category????/

[7by7]

Sorry, I was confused by you saying

Sorry, my mistake you are right if the son has a british passport,but the wife does also, now i am confused lol

BTW, I've edited my previous, hope it's now clearer.

[7by7]

She won't need private healthcare, she will be entitled to NHS the moment she lands on UK soil. Why do they think £18,600 is the minimum when Tax credits stop at £15,600, there's no way a couple above that can claim benefits

Non-EU migrants are entitled to free NHS treatment, but not for long:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28291276

"Patients from outside the EU are to be charged 150% of the cost of treatment in the NHS in a fresh crackdown on so-called "health tourism. The move by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is designed to encourage NHS Trusts to recover the cost of operations from migrants. Mr Hunt believes the plans could save the the health service £500m a year. The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment. Those hospitals that fail to bill foreign patients could also face fines, the BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said. Many migrants currently get free NHS care immediately or soon after arrival in the UK.

The government is asking the NHS to clamp down by identifying these patients more effectively so costs can be recovered from them. Under the plans, non-EU patients receiving a £100 procedure could get a bill of up to £150. "We have no problem with international visitors using the NHS as long as they pay for it - just as British families do through their taxes," Mr Hunt said. "These plans will help recoup up to £500m a year, making sure the NHS is better resourced and more sustainable at a time when doctors and nurses on the front line are working very hard."

At present only a fraction of the costs of treating migrants is being recovered. The new measures are expected to come into force by next spring. The crackdown follows plans already unveiled to charge migrants a £200 "NHS" levy when they apply for a visa."

So i WAS right

The report linked to is, I believe, badly worded.

Unless things have changed significantly since this was first put forward by the government, the measure will only apply to temporary migrants; e.g. tourists, students etc.

Those entering the UK to take up residence, e.g. spouses with a settlement visa, will still be entitled to the full range of NHS treatment as at present.

And why not? Even if they are not working and paying tax; their British spouse/partner almost certainly is.

[bobrussell]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

[Tony M]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

[bobrussell]

I suspect this will be the case! I wonder if failure to demonstrate meeting the requirement at first FLR application, will mean the ILR route is closed and the holder will need to continue to apply for FLR.

If not then there would be no need to show £18600 at the FLR application, only at ILR.

[loppylugs1]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

[durhamboy]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

Wow - full of compassion aren't you?

Don't forget to put your jackboots on when you frogmarch them to the airport.

[durhamboy]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

That's interesting. Any idea how that would work in practice? What if they went back to Thailand (or anywhere) say for a holiday? Would they be allowed back in? Would they have to keep applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years, paying the £600 visa fee but not getting it?

Also after 10 years can they get ILR without passing KOLL?

Sorry to ask so many questions but have the government really thought this through?

[loppylugs1]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

Wow - full of compassion aren't you?

Don't forget to put your jackboots on when you frogmarch them to the airport.

.What has compassion to do with anything?

If you yourself are in the position of attempting to get wife/kids into the UK and there is any doubt that you could not permanently support them ,then you should not consider taking them

[MaprangHolmes]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

That's interesting. Any idea how that would work in practice? What if they went back to Thailand (or anywhere) say for a holiday? Would they be allowed back in? Would they have to keep applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years, paying the £600 visa fee but not getting it?

Also after 10 years can they get ILR without passing KOLL?

Sorry to ask so many questions but have the government really thought this through?

I wonder more importantly where would they stand under the human rights act? say that they have children and say they can not meet the financial requirements are they going to try and say that the mother/father can not stay in the UK considering that a person could not be deported due to having a cat I would think that a child is more important than a cat.

[loppylugs1]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

That's interesting. Any idea how that would work in practice? What if they went back to Thailand (or anywhere) say for a holiday? Would they be allowed back in? Would they have to keep applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years, paying the £600 visa fee but not getting it?

Also after 10 years can they get ILR without passing KOLL?

Sorry to ask so many questions but have the government really thought this through?

I wonder more importantly where would they stand under the human rights act? say that they have children and say they can not meet the financial requirements are they going to try and say that the mother/father can not stay in the UK considering that a person could not be deported due to having a cat I would think that a child is more important than a cat.

I am sure the UK govt. have thought many things through. It is up to any potential sponger off the benefits system who has not thought it through. The slice of the welfare cake in the UK is not exactly getting reduced ,it is staying exactly the same,it is the claimants on that slice of cake that increases,less and less for everybody taking a bite.

Better if the other half gets a job in the UK that pays above the min threshold the govt requires then easy peasy. The min figure the UK govt. requires will increase significently as time progresses,so better earlier than later

[Tony M]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

That's interesting. Any idea how that would work in practice? What if they went back to Thailand (or anywhere) say for a holiday? Would they be allowed back in? Would they have to keep applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years, paying the £600 visa fee but not getting it?

Also after 10 years can they get ILR without passing KOLL?

Sorry to ask so many questions but have the government really thought this through?

This might answer some of your questions :

2. Eligibility

You must have permission to stay (‘leave to remain’). This can be in any immigration category, or a combination of different immigration categories.

You must also have:

· been in the UK legally for 10 years (known as your ‘continuous residence’)

· kept to the terms of your UK visa

If you’re aged 18 to 65 years old, you must:

· pass the Life in the UK Test

· prove you have sufficient English language skills

If you don’t meet these 2 requirements you can apply to extend.

Your 10-year qualifying period starts from either:

· when you arrived in the UK with a visa

· when you were given permission to stay in the UK

Continuous residence

Continuous residence is time you’ve spent in the UK without gaps.

You can leave the UK during the continuous residence for up to:

· 180 days at a time

· 539 days in total

You can’t count time spent in:

· a prison, young offender’s institution or secure hospital

· the Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man or Channel Islands

The link is :

https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/overview

[7by7]

loppylugs1, your comments show a complete ignorance of the immigration rules regarding public funds.

Access to public funds has always been severely limited until the person has ILR or the equivalent. Basically, with a few exceptions, to just any contribution based benefits the person may be entitled to. As, in my opinion, it should be. See Public Funds.

Immigrants, even if they are family members of a British citizen, cannot enter the UK and immediately claim public funds; not even social housing.

As previously said, under the old pre 9/7/12 rules applicants had to show that they would be supported and accommodated in the UK without access to public funds; if they couldn't do so their application was refused.

In addition, whilst their British family member is entitled to receive any and all public funds to which they may as an individual be entitled, they cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant family member living with them.

If you do indeed know of "a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune" then either they have been in the UK long enough to be legally entitled to any public funds they are receiving, or they are claiming them fraudulently.

[7by7]

Plus we now know the spouse/partner is earning over £18600 and a net contributor to Her Majesty's Government!

I would still love to know what the government is going to do with all those families at FLR renewal that no longer meet the requirements! Children settled in school for two years being loaded onto a plane to be repatriated?

These requirements still have a lot of challenges ahead!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that no family member will be removed from the UK for not meeting the financial requirement alone, and they will eventually be able to qualify for residence under the 10 - year long residence provision.

That's interesting. Any idea how that would work in practice? What if they went back to Thailand (or anywhere) say for a holiday? Would they be allowed back in? Would they have to keep applying for FLR every 2 1/2 years, paying the £600 visa fee but not getting it?

Also after 10 years can they get ILR without passing KOLL?

Sorry to ask so many questions but have the government really thought this through?

This might answer some of your questions :

2. Eligibility

You must have permission to stay (‘leave to remain’). This can be in any immigration category, or a combination of different immigration categories.

You must also have:

· been in the UK legally for 10 years (known as your ‘continuous residence’)

· kept to the terms of your UK visa

If you’re aged 18 to 65 years old, you must:

· pass the Life in the UK Test

· prove you have sufficient English language skills

If you don’t meet these 2 requirements you can apply to extend.

Your 10-year qualifying period starts from either:

· when you arrived in the UK with a visa

· when you were given permission to stay in the UK

Continuous residence

Continuous residence is time you’ve spent in the UK without gaps.

You can leave the UK during the continuous residence for up to:

· 180 days at a time

· 539 days in total

You can’t count time spent in:

· a prison, young offender’s institution or secure hospital

· the Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man or Channel Islands

The link is :

https://www.gov.uk/long-residence/overview

Thanks for that. Tony.

Still not clear on one point, though.

If someone cannot meet the financial requirement at either their 30 month FLR or 60 month ILR, would their LTR be extended for 10 years, or would they, as durhamboy asks, have to keep applying for FLR, and paying the ever increasing fee, until they have lived in the UK for 10 years?

The first sentence, "You must have permission to stay (‘leave to remain’)" suggests the latter.

Which does make a mockery of the income requirement for FLR, as it seems you'd get it even if you can't meet the requirement!

What if they couldn't meet it after 30 months, but could after 5 years; could they then apply for ILR? Or would they be irredeemably set on the 10 year route to ILR?

BTW, rhetorical questions; I don't expect you to know the answers; despite your acknowledged all round expertise. But if you do...........

This is yet another factor which shows the criticism that this part of the legislation was ill thought out and rushed coming from many quarters, including the APPGM, is correct.

[durhamboy]

Yes 7by7 I agree with your sentiments and rhetorical questions. There seems to be more questions than answers here. I really don't think the government have thought this through. It wouldn't be the first time e.g. acceptance of expired English Language Pass Certificates.

The new rules came in in July 2012 so I suppose that we have to wait at least 2 1/2 years to the end of this year/beginning of next to find out what will happen to people who no longer meet the financial requirements. In the meantime I am sure there will be some people in this unfortunate position who will be very worried about deportation.

[durhamboy]

I have known a few Thai wives plus kids taken to the UK and it cost the UK taxpayers a fortune.

Better to have a system where no benefits are paid,not one penny,to immigrants. Once they are forced by whatever circumstances to apply for them ,then they are deported

Wow - full of compassion aren't you?

Don't forget to put your jackboots on when you frogmarch them to the airport.

.What has compassion to do with anything?

If you yourself are in the position of attempting to get wife/kids into the UK and there is any doubt that you could not permanently support them ,then you should not consider taking them

I was really quite surprised that the moderators in this forum did not delete your first post and my reply to it. I could get into a long argument with you about how morally and factually wrong your comments are. However, frankly you are not worth it. The sort of views that you express were those of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. In my opinion you and your sentiments have no place in this forum.

[loppylugs1]

I was really quite surprised that the moderators in this forum did not delete your first post and my reply to it. I could get into a long argument with you about how morally and factually wrong your comments are. However, frankly you are not worth it. The sort of views that you express were those of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. In my opinion you and your sentiments have no place in this forum.

You can be damned sure this one is looking for a way in regardless of what restrictions are applied

The old chestnut "nazis" " morally""factually" what the hell has that to do with anything? Simply if you or your family cannot pay your way in the UK you should and will be denied entry, and am all in favour,not only personally, but the the UK gov. and the overwhelming majority of the UK tax payers say so.

1 example English guy falls in love with Thai woman (who by the way has 3 kids,not his) after a spell the Thai woman believes ghosts are after her,into the looney bin for a year or so,meanwhile the 3 kids are not only struggling with everything and anything the English guy obviously draws on "public funding" to help alleviate his problems. To my mind the lot of 'em should be bundled on the next Thai airways jet that happens to be warming up at Heathrow Could go on Thai women lining up at county courts to take English husband for all they are worth with a few months of landing in the UK

If as you say 7 by 7 no public funding is now available that would be a magnificent achievement by UK govt. to control immigration

[bobrussell]

What I tried to ask in my previous post (and did not do so clearly!) is:

Does anyone failing to meet the financial requirement at the first FLR (ie 2½ years into settlement) lose the right to claim ILR 2½ years later even if they can meet it then? This would make it unnecessary to show a suitable income at the half way point.

If they don't meet it but can at the next FLR (at 5 years) could they apply for ILR next time (at 7½ years) or have to wait until the ten years are up?

Not expecting an answer because I am not convinced anyone has thought up the answer yet.

Yes I do think anyone that were to get discretionary settlement (were it to be allowed) based on demonstrating affordability, should be excluded from income related benefits if they cannot cope without. The number of families able to by pass the financial requirement would be small, I suspect.

Some posts have strayed into lunacy territory, I fear!

Edited July 16, 2014 by bobrussell

[Tony M]

7x7,

I don't have the answers to your questions, and it may well be that the Home Office doesn't have those answers ( yet) either. I assume fees will have to be paid at each stage, and leave to remain (of some sort) will be granted, but ILR will not be granted until the 10 years are completed. The applicant/holder will be able to travel, as the leave to remain will be valid, etc. After 10 years, I guess they will just apply for ILR under the long residence concession, submit the required documents, and pay the fee.