For the benefit of members who have not taken part in discussions on this before, let me explain something.

Prior to 9/7/12 the ECO would look at the applicant and sponsor's income and savings and all of their regular outgoings, rent/mortgage, debt repayments etc., before deciding if they had enough left to support themselves with.

Now, if the sponsor earns £18,600 p.a. (plus any extra for children also applying) or has the necessary amount of cash savings or combination of income and savings; they meet the requirement.

Regardless of their regular outgoings!

This means that a sponsor with an income of £18,600 p.a. and with regular outgoings of £10,000 p.a., leaving £8,600 p.a. for the couple to live on, qualifies.

But a sponsor with an income of £18,500 p.a. and regular outgoings of £5,000 p.a. leaving £13,500 p.a. for the couple to live on doesn't qualify!

How is that fair, reasonable and logical?

In addition, prior to 9/7/12 the applicant's employment prospects once in the UK would be considered; especially if they had a firm job offer.

Now, even if the applicant has a firm job offer paying above the minimum income required, this is ignored.

How is that fair, reasonable and logical?

I agree. How can they have a minimum income requirement that's fair if no account is taken of outgoings? If you earn £18,600 but are up to your eyes in debt and pay out most of your income in credit card payments and are left with enough only to eat beans on toast that's ok, but if you earn £18,500 have no mortgage and no debt you are ineligible. It's the stupidest rule of them all.