FLR income requirement

[el2004]

It's not his money. It's a Ltd company money. He is not a sole trader. He is a shareholder in a Ltd company. Look at my above post

[stuartsko]

It's not his money. It's a Ltd company money. He is not a sole trader. He is a shareholder in a Ltd company. Look at my above post

He's a corporate lawyer haha

[durhamboy]

Stuart - Yes she earns it but it's not exactly the same situation because she earns it from you and thereby REDUCES your income. Get real.

[durhamboy]

So who do you guys think owns a limited company then?

It's the shareholders and stuart is a shareholder.

If stuart owns 30% of the company and it had £100million in the bank and no other debts and liabilities then stuart would own £300,000 of it. So if the company was liquidated by the shareholders he would get £300,000 paid into his own personal bank account.

And you guys call me a moron. Jesus!

[el2004]

Stuart - Yes she earns it but it's not exactly the same situation because she earns it from you and thereby REDUCES your income. Get real.

It's doesn't reduce his income his salary will be the same. If the shareholders decide to take less dividends that is up to them. I really don't think you grasp the difference between stuarts money and the company's money. I dare bet Stuart salary will be circa 8k per year and he will continue to take that salary as it is. His dividends may change but that has nothing to do with his wife now in employment. That would be again a company decision.

[el2004]

So who do you guys think owns a limited company then?

It's the shareholders and stuart is a shareholder.

If stuart owns 30% of the company and it had £100million in the bank and no other debts and liabilities then stuart would own £300,000 of it. So if the company was liquidated by the shareholders he would get £300,000 paid into his own personal bank account.

And you guys call me a moron. Jesus!

Commercial lawyer lol he would get 30 million actually. It would still be the company's money until he drew it down presumably as a dividend not sure if it's still a dividend if the company is wound down or there is a different term. But that would be a dividend from the company money to Stuart and a tax bill for Stuart to go with it.

[stuartsko]

So who do you guys think owns a limited company then?

It's the shareholders and stuart is a shareholder.

If stuart owns 30% of the company and it had £100million in the bank and no other debts and liabilities then stuart would own £300,000 of it. So if the company was liquidated by the shareholders he would get £300,000 paid into his own personal bank account.

And you guys call me a moron. Jesus!

No I wouldn't I would have 30 million Edited December 17, 2015 by stuartsko

[el2004]

Until that point it's the company's money the company has 100 million.

[stuartsko]

So who do you guys think owns a limited company then?

It's the shareholders and stuart is a shareholder.

If stuart owns 30% of the company and it had £100million in the bank and no other debts and liabilities then stuart would own £300,000 of it. So if the company was liquidated by the shareholders he would get £300,000 paid into his own personal bank account.

And you guys call me a moron. Jesus!

Commercial lawyer lol he would get 30 million actually. It would still be the company's money until he drew it down presumably as a dividend not sure if it's still a dividend if the company is wound down or there is a different term. But that would be a dividend from the company money to Stuart and a tax bill for Stuart to go with it.

Ive just got this image in my head of him sat in my board room in front of me and 6 other seasoned directors proposing to represent us.. He would get laughed out with some of the views he has expressed

Edited December 17, 2015 by stuartsko

[stuartsko]

So who do you guys think owns a limited company then?

It's the shareholders and stuart is a shareholder.

If stuart owns 30% of the company and it had £100million in the bank and no other debts and liabilities then stuart would own £300,000 of it. So if the company was liquidated by the shareholders he would get £300,000 paid into his own personal bank account.

And you guys call me a moron. Jesus!

Commercial lawyer lol he would get 30 million actually. It would still be the company's money until he drew it down presumably as a dividend not sure if it's still a dividend if the company is wound down or there is a different term. But that would be a dividend from the company money to Stuart and a tax bill for Stuart to go with it.

It's called a dissolution when a company winds up voluntary with no creditors, assuming the company can honour any redundancy pay.. I give insolvency advice through a local IP to clients who want to go insolvent but carry on trading out of the other end, as it's illegal for the IP to offer said advice... Lets see what the commercial lawyer has to say about this

[durhamboy]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

[stuartsko]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

[bobrussell]

His wife might get away with it if the paperwork, including tax paid, matched up. A genuine company, doing genuine work and producing genuine accounts should allow a visa to be granted.

If employment was questionable, then it might be HMRC as well as the Home Office/UKVI that might become involved! Attempted fraud might lead to more than a refusal, it might result in a ban!

Setting up a company with the sole purpose of getting a visa is so fraught with risks that only a madman would think it's a good idea. Having a spouse working for a proper company tends to be a very tax efficient system. Usually the spouse would be a director to maximize the tax benefit, but you then complicate the visa application!

Edited December 17, 2015 by bobrussell

[el2004]

Would the 10k not have to also pay himself a salary? She couldn't be sole director as she would have to supply all the documents associated with that. She would have to be an employee. So 10k wouldn't do it. 20k might do it if the slips all matched I can't see why that stupid unrelated scenario wouldn't work. But the financial cost of it they would both be better just getting a full time minimum wage job each

[el2004]

Also why would he put in his application he set up a company just to pay his wife. Does it ask that? Or does it ask if the applicant can meet the financial requirements? To which the answer would be yes

[Richard W]

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

I presume you are quoting Section 4.2.1 of Appendix FM1.7 of the guidance. I find that wording horribly ambiguous. But note that the excluded income source is described as

Income from others who live in the same household (except any dependent child of the applicant who has turned 18 and continues to be counted towards the higher income threshold the applicant has to meet until they qualify for settlement).

Note that it says 'income from others', not 'income of others'.

Now, turning to the Immigration Instructions Appendix FM-SE Paragraph 14, we find

Where the requirements of this Appendix and Appendix FM are met by the combined income or cash savings of more than one person, the income or the cash savings must only be counted once unless stated otherwise.

This seems much clearer, and is the most relevant text for the concern. It appears to prevent a husband from paying his wife a taxable salary out of his income to boost their joint income.

As the plan is only to use Mrs Stuartsko's income, there is no problem with this hurdle. If full bank statements of the business were presented, they would show that what Mrs Stuartsko got, Stuart and the other shareholders didn't get. (I'm sorry, I don't know if the ones to be submitted would show payments to each employee.) I think we can dismiss this worry.

[Richard W]

If employment was questionable, then it might be HMRC as well as the Home Office/UKVI that might become involved! Attempted fraud might lead to more than a refusal, it might result in a ban!

As a matter of curiosity, what would HMRC's complaint be?

Apart from the HMRC issue, this has been my worry all along. If UKVI sees an application from a 'cleaner' earning £30k and scream "No office cleaner makes that! Fraud! Refuse!" - and even the Old Git seemed sceptical in his summary, is it likely to be corrected when an internal review is requested? Or does Stuart have to take pains to ensure that the application explains precisely what his wife does, e.g. by 'accidentally' submitting a job description along with the terms of employment.

Unless Stuart's firm has changed name and address recently, it will be fairly obvious from her UKVI file that Mrs Stuartsko is working for the family firm. Her surname might even be a bit of a giveaway!

[7by7]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Well if you would like to quote where it says in the rules income cannot be used where a family member owns shares or is a director of that company I will agree with you.. Don't forget in one of my posts I explained we got her spouse visa with my PAYE income from a company I own shares in and also was a director of 6 months prior to the application... They make the rules and as long as I am applying within those rules they can't really refuse

Yes you got the visa before because it was your income. That's not the same as your proposal here. Here your wife is using your income.

The applicant's earned income, or potential earned income once in the UK, cannot be used to meet the financial requirement for the initial visa application.

But it can be used if the applicant is in the UK with permission to work, as in this case.

So Stuart had to use his income for his wife's initial visa application, but her income alone can be used for her FLR application.

[7by7]

<snip>

If UKVI sees an application from a 'cleaner' earning £30k and scream "No office cleaner makes that! Fraud! Refuse!" - and even the Old Git seemed sceptical in his summary, is it likely to be corrected when an internal review is requested? Or does Stuart have to take pains to ensure that the application explains precisely what his wife does, e.g. by 'accidentally' submitting a job description along with the terms of employment.

Unless Stuart's firm has changed name and address recently, it will be fairly obvious from her UKVI file that Mrs Stuartsko is working for the family firm. Her surname might even be a bit of a giveaway!

To take your last point first; as said ad nauseum in this topic, there is nothing illegal, tax wise or immigration rules wise or any other wise, about working for one's spouse; whether that spouse be a sole trader or a major shareholder and/or director of the applicant's employer.

Secondly, Stuarts wife is not an office cleaner!

<snip>

currently my wife earns £10 an hour working as a cleaner, she cleans a factory floor with heavy CNC machinery operating.. When the machines are not in use she gets inside them and even maintains them, oiling etc... It is very manual but semi skilled... Also dangerous.. She loves the job and banter with the lads.. If I decide to increase her pay to say £20 an hour for 30 hours that is my decision and nobody elses...

A lot depends on which part of the country one is in, but here in the South East office cleaners get at least £10 per hour.

Industrial cleaners doing the type of work Mrs Stuartsko does get a hell of a lot more. Up to twice that, which for a 30 hour week would put her well above the minimum required.

BTW, £18,600 p.a. for a 30 hour week works out at £11.93 per hour; not excessive!

Plus, of course, the evidence which she must submit with her application will show that she does, indeed, earn the amount she says she does on the form.

Finally, details of the applicant's and sponsor's employment, if working, are required in the financial section of form FLR(M) so there is no need for Stuart to 'accidently, include same!

This also means, of course, that they will be unable to hide the fact that she works for his company.

But as there is absolutely no reason why she should not be so doing, there is no reason for them to wish to hide it!

Edited December 18, 2015 by 7by7

[Richard W]

If UKVI sees an application from a 'cleaner' earning £30k and scream "No office cleaner makes that! Fraud! Refuse!" - and even the Old Git seemed sceptical in his summary, is it likely to be corrected when an internal review is requested? Or does Stuart have to take pains to ensure that the application explains precisely what his wife does, e.g. by 'accidentally' submitting a job description along with the terms of employment.

Secondly, Stuarts wife is not an office cleaner!

<snip>

Finally, details of the applicant's and sponsor's employment, if working, are required in the financial section of form FLR(M) so there is no need for Stuart to 'accidently, include same!

Where, prithee? All I see is Question 7.3A(ii) "What is your/your sponsor’s job title?". I think there should be enough information provided in the application to make it clear she isn't a mere office cleaner.

This also means, of course, that they will be unable to hide the fact that she works for his company.

But as there is absolutely no reason why she should not be so doing, there is no reason for them to wish to hide it!

Is it clear what should be done for Stuart's income? Can it be left blank, do they just not provide the evidence, or do they need a covering letter explaining that it is not needed to meet the requirement?

[durhamboy]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

[stuartsko]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

I would say wrong company son haha. For a start we have 7 directors.. And as a commercial lawyer (pmsl) you would know what counts is the pay the directors are drawing and the dividends the shareholders are taking... Only a business that relies heavily on credit has to show a profit, you know that stuff a company gets taxed on haha Edited December 18, 2015 by stuartsko

[el2004]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

Where do you get the 53450 from?

[stuartsko]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

Where do you get the 53450 from?

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

Haven't got a clue EL

Profit is after PAYE salary and other expenses..... I don't think that Mr commercial lawyer understands that???

I think my company should show less than that in profit.. It's called clever accounting... Many times has our accountant managed to reduce our tax liability, it's what he's paid to do... 2 years ago it was using a provision for warranty (saved us 20k in tax) last year it was the right off for new machines we bought (tax relief to encourage manufacturing in UK).. This year will be the same... You know the really simple stuff a commercial lawyer should know

[stuartsko]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-

stuart - will his wife get her visa?

7by7 - will his wife get her visa?

el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

Where do you get the 53450 from?

Definitely wrong company, our last financial year showed about 30k, couldn't get it any lower.. Still paid nowt in tax though.. Was due to new machinery we purchased

[el2004]

Yes correct he would get £30 million. Slip of the pen! However, whilst your scoring a cheap point the principle is still the same. Stuart owns part of his company so it is his money that he is paying his wife in proportion to his percentage shareholding.

You guys can laugh at me all you want but that doesn't change company law.

Now I think we have exhausted this avenue in the topic.

I want to ask each of you about the bloke with £10k. I do so because the principle is exactly the same. He sets up a limited company with his 10 grand. He owns 100% of it. He pays his wife £9300 over 6 months and submits an FLR application with his wife's wageslips and under other information he truthfully puts a note that he has set up a company and paid his wife.

Right answer me this :-
stuart - will his wife get her visa?
7by7 - will his wife get her visa?
el - will his wife get her visa?

If any of you say no she won't get her visa then please explain what, in essence, is the difference between stuart's proposal and the bloke with £10k. Thank you.

Well the guy would be risking a rejection because if ukvi dug deeper they would see it's an obvious fraud... He would have no income himself and one person on his books taking every penny of his turnover... This is obviously not the case for me.. It's just a ridiculous extreme scenario invented by you to make a ridiculous point... Only an absolute idiot would try it

Yes that's true stuart. And what if ukvi dug deeper into your company and realised that for the last 5 financial years (from 1st April 2010 up to 31st. March 2015) your company, with 5 directors, only made a grand total profit of £53,450? Wouldn't ukvi smell a rat?

Where do you get the 53450 from?

Definitely wrong company, our last financial year showed about 30k, couldn't get it any lower.. Still paid nowt in tax though.. Was due to new machinery we purchased

What exactly is a commercial lawyer

[stuartsko]

What exactly is a commercial lawyer

You know my friend I haven't got a clue, where I'm from they call them selves solicitors???? I don't think Durham is too far from me either... I think lawyers are what they are called in America and cuckoo land

[stuartsko]

Yes durhamboy, it's all a fraud.. I've even faked all this to get my wife a visa https://www.facebook.com/SheffieldKitchenOutlet/posts/922471787843962

[el2004]

Yes durhamboy, it's all a fraud.. I've even faked all this to get my wife a visa https://www.facebook.com/SheffieldKitchenOutlet/posts/922471787843962

Off topic. Some lovely kitchens there mate

[stuartsko]

Thank you mate.. The one with the big oak island is mine lol