UK settlement refusal

[RabC]

A very simple question that I have to ask is, what happens to somebody who does not earn enough according to the Immigration regulations. Are poor people not entitled to a family life, a right which is enshrined in the Human Rights Convention? May I emphasise that fortunately, I am not affected by such inhuman regulations!

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This financial prejudice is in breach of the laws set out in Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention. This is something that UK lawyers have been challenging through the courts for some time, and something the European court is at loggerheads with the UK over. Because of this, many settlement visas have been on hold for more than 2 years, pending a review of the current UK law.

Unfortunately the UK is not the only EU countryn trying to impose such inhuman laws/regulations. Admittedly none are as strict and unflexible as the UK, but some are trying.....

I fail to see what is inhuman about the laws. If you can not support your family them it is inhuman to expect the state to support your spouse. The fact that the sponsor my have paid taxes and NI is of no consequence as the arriving spouse hasn't . Cold hearted maybe but I see no way that it is a human right to bring a burden on the state into the country.

[7by7]

A very simple question that I have to ask is, what happens to somebody who does not earn enough according to the Immigration regulations. Are poor people not entitled to a family life, a right which is enshrined in the Human Rights Convention? May I emphasise that fortunately, I am not affected by such inhuman regulations!

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This financial prejudice is in breach of the laws set out in Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention. This is something that UK lawyers have been challenging through the courts for some time, and something the European court is at loggerheads with the UK over. Because of this, many settlement visas have been on hold for more than 2 years, pending a review of the current UK law.

Unfortunately the UK is not the only EU countryn trying to impose such inhuman laws/regulations. Admittedly none are as strict and unflexible as the UK, but some are trying.....

Article 14 of the ECHR has nothing to do with it; the relevant article is Article 8. Article 14 would only be relevant if the requirement was different depending on race, sex, etc. But it isn't; the same requirement applies to all applicants for family settlement.

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the

law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the

country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection

of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms

of others.

(7by7 emphasis)

The government argue that the current financial requirement, effective since 9/7/2012, like the one before it does not breach article 8 due to the parts I have emphasised.

Indeed, all signatory countries to the convention have similar requirements to the UK in their immigration rules. If these, or any other requirement, had been ruled unlawful then all one would have to do is show that the relationship was genuine. But they haven't been.

The current financial requirement has been challenged in the courts. The government lost in the High Court, but the latest ruling from the Appeal Court in July 2014 found in favour of the government. Whether the appellants have been given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and if they lose there whether they will then be given leave to appeal to the ECtHR, I don't know.

BTW, don't confuse the ECHR and ECtHR with the EU and it's court; they are separate entities. All 47 members of the Council of Europe are signatories to the ECHR and members of the ECtHR, including all 28 members of the EU.

I am merely explaining the situation. I am in favour of a financial requirement, but not as it currently stands; as my many posts on the subject show.

Edited September 28, 2015 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

The real issue with the fairness of the financial rules is that some families can cope with living in the UK without claiming any of the in work benefits the £18,600 is based around. I agree that as a taxpayer my human right is not to have to subsidise a non-EU spouse when a family settles in the UK.

Sounds harsh but it is fair! We support plenty already!

The flip side is that anyone who can show they can afford to live in the UK should be allowed to demonstrate it, £18 600 or not. This is where I consider the rules are wrong! If there is going to be a successful challenge to the rules, it should be this group!.

[Pete Beale]

Got an appointment to see my Accountant tomorrow and hopefully can get all the missing documentation. When I appeal do I just have to suppy the missing documents or all the documents including the ones already accepted in the settlement application ?

[sandyf]

The real issue with the fairness of the financial rules is that some families can cope with living in the UK without claiming any of the in work benefits the £18,600 is based around. I agree that as a taxpayer my human right is not to have to subsidise a non-EU spouse when a family settles in the UK.

Sounds harsh but it is fair! We support plenty already!

The flip side is that anyone who can show they can afford to live in the UK should be allowed to demonstrate it, £18 600 or not. This is where I consider the rules are wrong! If there is going to be a successful challenge to the rules, it should be this group!.

Unfortunately fairness is a bit like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

The government has set the threshold at £18,600 but consider it fair to pay a state pension of around £150/week, less than half the threshold.

They have effectively prohibited pensioners married to a foreign national from returning to their home country for the last years of their life, unless they leave their wife behind.

[Trevor1809]

Since when has it been necessary to supply a copy of a self assessment? If self employed I thought that they only ask for certified accounts and bank statements. Now they are asking for self assessments.

I am doing my wife's flr in a few weeks and I have not been told to supply this and the most recent is for 2013-14. The 2014-15 self assessment hasn't been produced yet and is not due yet. The SA302 will not be available either, only for 2013-14.

[7by7]

The specified evidence appendix, which applies to FLR and ILR applications as well as those for the initial visa, is very clear.

7. In respect of self-employment in the UK as a partner, as a sole trader or in a franchise all of the following must be provided:

(a) Evidence of the amount of tax payable, paid and unpaid for the last full financial year.

( b ) The following documents for the last full financial year, or for the last two such years (where those documents show the necessary level of gross income as an average of those two years):
(i) annual self-assessment tax return to HMRC (a copy or print-out); and
(ii) Statement of Account (SA300 or SA302).

© Proof of registration with HMRC as self-employed if available.

(d) Each partner's Unique Tax Reference Number (UTR) and/or the UTR of the partnership or business.

(e) Where the person holds or held a separate business bank account(s), bank statements for the same 12-month period as the tax return(s).

(f) personal bank statements for the same 12-month period as the tax return(s) showing that the income from self-employment has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly.

(g) Evidence of ongoing self-employment through evidence of payment of Class 2 National Insurance contributions, or (where the person has reached state pension age) through alternative evidence (which may include, but is not confined to, evidence of ongoing payment of business rates, business-related insurance premiums, employer National Insurance contributions or franchise payments to the parent company).

(h) One of the following documents must also be submitted:

(i) (aa) If the business is required to produce annual audited accounts, such accounts for the last full financial year; or

(bb) If the business is not required to produce annual audited accounts, unaudited accounts for the last full financial year and an accountant's certificate of confirmation, from an accountant who is a member of a UK Recognised Supervisory Body (as defined in the Companies Act 2006);

(ii) A certificate of VAT registration and the VAT return for the last full financial year (a copy or print-out) confirming the VAT registration number, if turnover is in excess of £79,000 or was in excess of the threshold which applied during the last full financial year;

(iii) Evidence to show appropriate planning permission or local planning authority consent is held to operate the type/class of business at the trading address (where this is a local authority requirement); or

(iv) A franchise agreement signed by both parties.

(i) The document referred to in paragraph 7(h)(iv) must be provided if the organisation is a franchise.

[bobrussell]

The real issue with the fairness of the financial rules is that some families can cope with living in the UK without claiming any of the in work benefits the £18,600 is based around. I agree that as a taxpayer my human right is not to have to subsidise a non-EU spouse when a family settles in the UK.

Sounds harsh but it is fair! We support plenty already!

The flip side is that anyone who can show they can afford to live in the UK should be allowed to demonstrate it, £18 600 or not. This is where I consider the rules are wrong! If there is going to be a successful challenge to the rules, it should be this group!.

Unfortunately fairness is a bit like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

The government has set the threshold at £18,600 but consider it fair to pay a state pension of around £150/week, less than half the threshold.

They have effectively prohibited pensioners married to a foreign national from returning to their home country for the last years of their life, unless they leave their wife behind.

The harshness is more linked with the comment about me not being happy to subsidise a non-EU spouse! The fairness is to my pocket as a taxpayer.

Overall I think the rules are fair for a lot of families but very, very unfair to others.

The level is (IMO) broadly correct but there is no mechanism for those able to afford life in the UK without public support! Many pensioners can cope with an income below the £18 600 and for these the rules can be very unfair indeed.

The government would argue why should pensioners return to the UK and expect financial assistance to do so. The onus would have to be on the applicant to show that additional benefits would not be required.

The rules are too inflexible and this may be where a human rights claim might be successful.

[Trevor1809]

The specified evidence appendix, which applies to FLR and ILR applications as well as those for the initial visa, is very clear.

Well not very clear. I assume that this only applies to those deemed self employed in the eyes of HMRC ie sole traders and not those deemed self employed in the eyes of UKVI, Directors of a limited company. So Directors need not supply self assessment forms. Is that cottect? This is the trouble when the term "self employed" is banded about. It means different things under different conditions.

[7by7]

Directors of limited companies come under Para 9; as you will see if you actually read the appendix.

[Trevor1809]

Directors of limited companies come under Para 9; as you will see if you actually read the appendix.

I know they do. What I am asking is why are the "self employed" Directors treated under one set or rules and the "self employed" sole traders treated under a different set of rules.

I don't actually see what a self assessment form adds to the process given that you have already submitted audited accounts, unless you assume the accountant is a crook. It doesn't show proof of earnings or tax paid. The SA302 makes more sense.

[7by7]

Whilst the requirements, especially the required documents, are clear to those who take the time to read them; those requirements and some the required documents do not have a great deal of logic to them.

You could also ask why it is gross income which counts rather than disposable income; which was the case prior to July 2012.

I only try to help people understand what is required; I make no apology for those requirements nor offer any explanation of their raison d'etre.

Questions about that should be directed to Theresa May and her advisors.

[Trevor1809]

You could also ask why it is gross income which counts rather than disposable income; which was the case prior to July 2012.

Well yes precisely. Previously you just had to prove that you had sufficient income, none of this £18600 pa so you wouldn't be a burden on society rubbish when the applicants passport is stamped no recourse to public funds anyway.

Now a pensioner in his or her own fully paid off house but a pension of £18000 can't sponsor but an up to the eyeballs in debt £19000 pa 20 something can.

[Gringogazzer]

Whilst the requirements, especially the required documents, are clear to those who take the time to read them; those requirements and some the required documents do not have a great deal of logic to them.

You could also ask why it is gross income which counts rather than disposable income; which was the case prior to July 2012.

I only try to help people understand what is required; I make no apology for those requirements nor offer any explanation of their raison d'etre.

Questions about that should be directed to Theresa May and her advisors.

Taxable income, not gross income. (Net income).

If you earn £18,600 gross but take £1 in expenses your net is £18,599 & under the requirement.

I'm not picking holes but needs to be clear.

[bobrussell]

The £18 600 has to relate to taxable income. Gross income is meaningless in itself. UKVI are interested in this because it links with the availability of in work benefits.

Going way back to the original post, my advice would be to send a link to the visa requirements to your accountant and request he or she produces the required documents.

The requirements are very clear and failing to provide the listed documents is only going to result in refusal. Worth doing this ASAP and requesting reconsideration whilst starting an appeal. An appeal should not succeed if refusal is down to inadequate documentation however it does work sometimes.

The speedy way would be to go away, lick your financial wounds and reapply once your accountant has sorted the paperwork. Perhaps open a business account if you have not got one, for income to be banked. Keep paying in slips and link them to the date of earnings.

The ECO does not have any real discretion here and by law has to refuse any application that fails to tick the boxes. Better to spend extra money with an accountant to get a visa than cut corners.

The system is what it is and it is pointless fighting it, you will always lose!

[sandyf]

The real issue with the fairness of the financial rules is that some families can cope with living in the UK without claiming any of the in work benefits the £18,600 is based around. I agree that as a taxpayer my human right is not to have to subsidise a non-EU spouse when a family settles in the UK.

Sounds harsh but it is fair! We support plenty already!

The flip side is that anyone who can show they can afford to live in the UK should be allowed to demonstrate it, £18 600 or not. This is where I consider the rules are wrong! If there is going to be a successful challenge to the rules, it should be this group!.

Unfortunately fairness is a bit like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

The government has set the threshold at £18,600 but consider it fair to pay a state pension of around £150/week, less than half the threshold.

They have effectively prohibited pensioners married to a foreign national from returning to their home country for the last years of their life, unless they leave their wife behind.

The harshness is more linked with the comment about me not being happy to subsidise a non-EU spouse! The fairness is to my pocket as a taxpayer.

Overall I think the rules are fair for a lot of families but very, very unfair to others.

The level is (IMO) broadly correct but there is no mechanism for those able to afford life in the UK without public support! Many pensioners can cope with an income below the £18 600 and for these the rules can be very unfair indeed.

The government would argue why should pensioners return to the UK and expect financial assistance to do so. The onus would have to be on the applicant to show that additional benefits would not be required.

The rules are too inflexible and this may be where a human rights claim might be successful.

You have obviously missed the main point, it was not about expats but about the state pension in general. How does a state pension of about £8000 a year relate to this threshold of £18,600. Are all pensioners deemed to be a burden on the state.

The last comment was more of a personal issue, having paid tax and NI for over 40 years and tax to the UK every year since I retired I believe I should have the right to return should I choose to do so, and it shouldn't be conditional.

You are not happy to subsidise a non EU spouse but quite happy to subsidise EU migrants and those in the UK that have no intention of ever working.

[Trevor1809]

The £18 600 has to relate to taxable income.

Isn't all income taxable?

Why should it matter how the income is derived as log as it is £18600. Not that I agree that there should be a limit in the first place.

As to fighting the system, why not. We do live in a democracy after all. Just because the Government does something doesn't make it right.

[7by7]

Just to make one thing clear; by 'disposable income' I meant income after deducting fixed expenses; such as tax, NICs, rent/mortgage, debt repayments.

Which is how it was calculated prior to July 2012.

<snip>You are not happy to subsidise a non EU spouse but quite happy to subsidise EU migrants and those in the UK that have no intention of ever working.

I don't recall bobrussell saying that!

Anyway, please don't use this topic for yet another ill informed rant against the EEA freedom of movement regulations.

[RabC]

The real issue with the fairness of the financial rules is that some families can cope with living in the UK without claiming any of the in work benefits the £18,600 is based around. I agree that as a taxpayer my human right is not to have to subsidise a non-EU spouse when a family settles in the UK.

Sounds harsh but it is fair! We support plenty already!

The flip side is that anyone who can show they can afford to live in the UK should be allowed to demonstrate it, £18 600 or not. This is where I consider the rules are wrong! If there is going to be a successful challenge to the rules, it should be this group!.

Unfortunately fairness is a bit like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

The government has set the threshold at £18,600 but consider it fair to pay a state pension of around £150/week, less than half the threshold.

They have effectively prohibited pensioners married to a foreign national from returning to their home country for the last years of their life, unless they leave their wife behind.

The harshness is more linked with the comment about me not being happy to subsidise a non-EU spouse! The fairness is to my pocket as a taxpayer.

Overall I think the rules are fair for a lot of families but very, very unfair to others.

The level is (IMO) broadly correct but there is no mechanism for those able to afford life in the UK without public support! Many pensioners can cope with an income below the £18 600 and for these the rules can be very unfair indeed.

The government would argue why should pensioners return to the UK and expect financial assistance to do so. The onus would have to be on the applicant to show that additional benefits would not be required.

The rules are too inflexible and this may be where a human rights claim might be successful.

You have obviously missed the main point, it was not about expats but about the state pension in general. How does a state pension of about £8000 a year relate to this threshold of £18,600. Are all pensioners deemed to be a burden on the state.

The last comment was more of a personal issue, having paid tax and NI for over 40 years and tax to the UK every year since I retired I believe I should have the right to return should I choose to do so, and it shouldn't be conditional.

You are not happy to subsidise a non EU spouse but quite happy to subsidise EU migrants and those in the UK that have no intention of ever working.

I don't think anyone has said they are happy to support an EU national more than a non EU, but that's the law and if you want it changed vote so. What people on here and rightly so in my opinion are saying is that they don't want to support anyone who hasn't paid in to the system. The UK isn't stopping any pensioner returning to the UK, what they are saying is that they have to be capable of supporting anyone they wish to bring with them.

Edited to add, the state pension is for a single person the £18,600 is for 2 people so not actually as much above a couples pension as you like to make out.

Edited October 1, 2015 by RabC

[bobrussell]

I have no choice but to support certain EU nationals as it is entrenched into the system. Thankfully I know that immigrants are net contributors to the system and put more into the system than they take out.

I do resent those that move here to misuse benefits and NHS facilities and approve of mechanisms to minimise them. I also accept that this minority make good newspaper articles and Channel 4 & 5 programmes which encourage the idea that immigrants are a bunch of scroungers. I know most are anything but!

Anyone that has contributed to the system via taxes etc should be entitled to take the benefits. A non EU spouse who has never lived or paid into UK PLC has not earned that right! Therefore I believe a couple should demonstrate the ability to afford life in the UK without extra subsidy.

£18 600 as a default figure but some formula added to allow disposable income to be taken into consideration.

[sandyf]

Anyway, please don't use this topic for yet another ill informed rant against the EEA freedom of movement regulations.

Do not make up something that isn't there, the arrogance is unbecoming.

[bobrussell]

Almost every thread ends up with EU immigration bashing and scrounging being the rule rather than the exception. Sadly this tends to stifle discussions!

Going back to the original post - my accountant was given a list of what was required by UKBA (as UKVI was then). He produced the figures in the format that was asked for rather than producing what he thought they needed. Thankfully it was more straight forward then.

New applicants especially those with a self-employed spouse (also those directors of companies) have my sympathies!

[theoldgit]

This is a thread started by Pete Beal regarding a specific Settlement Visa refusal, so let's help the OP and stick to that issue, please don't let this thread wonder too far off topic.

[Paul888]

This is a thread started by Pete Beal regarding a specific Settlement Visa refusal, so let's help the OP and stick to that issue, please don't let this thread wonder too far off topic.

Having read the entire thread, I have to say that if it was my situation, I would have already retained the services of Tony M directly to look at my documents and numbers and give me some re-assurance that my appeal at least had a chance. I am sure he could also help you with explaining the misunderstandings on the original application.

[cliveshep]

When I applied for my wife under a fiancee visa application 3 years ago I had a "one-man-band" type of business as a building site manager. I had bought a limited company and was a sole director/employee. As a work-around of the tax issues I sent UKBA as financial evidence a years personal account bank statements and a years company bank statements. What this clearly showed was the gross income into the business account transferred monthly to the private account and of course spent.

What I did not do was send them audited accounts as that would not have been evidence in my favour. Our Government are inflexible and venal - it's all about money so don't expect consideration, understanding, compassion or any other emotion to sway them.

It's money only.

Teresa May has made no bones about it - she cannot cut EU migration here, its a treaty thing, so her only only targets are the rest of the world, students, fiancees, family members who are NOT EU Citizens. If you can't grasp this you won't see where the Government are coming from. Example - just try the "Life in the UK" test which was designed for failure, you won't pass it, most highly educated English cannot pass it, and foreigners have no chance, which is how and why it was designed that way. It is a cynical lip-service to fairness by the Government.

Now go back to your application - you must send them loads of paper showing you earn more than their threshold figure, there is no other way. Telling them won't cut it, bury the swine in paper showing numbers that add up to £18600 plus and you'll win. simple as that. I also paid my local Council to come, look at my home, and write a letter saying it was suitable etc. Cover all your bets, go over the top. I sent a massive parcel of paper to Thailand for my wife's application, I did not use an Immigration Advisor - the one I started to use sent in the wrong forms twice and I saw which way that was going and did it myself. It is not hard, it is tedious. Prove the money to them, that's all they ask and all they care about.

What you need to do is stick every penny you earn into the bank, even if you susbequently withdraw it the same day, as it is evidential. Then get original bank statements or prove by bank letter the electronic ones you download. Read up here on financial reqauirements: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452965/Immigration_Directorate_Instruction_Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement_August_2015.pdf

See especially relevant to you para 3.4.1

And the best of luck to you. And as an aside, I'm leaving the UK because I'm retired. We/she didn't even attempt the "Life in the UK" test and we know that come next visa renewal and without the income they'll refuse and men in big boots will come and drag her off and deport her. We are skipping ahead of that particular game. From what I can see we lose nothing and gain everything, it'll be living the dream on my pension rather than the nightmare struggle to exist here.

Edited October 2, 2015 by cliveshep

[bobrussell]

Ms May and her cronies did a pretty good job of making sure ECO's and applicants cannot use any work arounds. The required paperwork is clearly stated and has to be produced or a refusal will result.

Most on here do not feel the system is fair or appropriate in all cases and do not support the inflexibility of the process.

It will be interesting to see what does actually happen to families that cannot meet the financial requirements at FLR. Are they really going to deport a wife and possibly children well settled in work or school?

I still believe the Conservatives did not expect to be back in power and were planning that a different government would have to sort out Ms May's creation!

[7by7]

<Deleted>

Off topic response to deliberate baiting.

Edited October 2, 2015 by 7by7