UK - Families to challenge minimum income visa rules in supreme court

[MESmith]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/21/families-challenge-minimum-income-visa-rules-supreme-court-non-eu-partner

[7by7]

As the article says, these cases have been going on for some time while they slowly wend their way through the legal system.

I expect them to end up at the ECtHR before a final decision is reached, which could take another couple of years at least.

This whole requirement is an ill thought out and rushed piece of legislation.

Prior to July 2012 applicants and sponsors had to show they could support themselves without recourse to public funds. There was no fixed minimum income, but in practice this meant they needed an income of at least the income support level for a British family of the same size.

Which for a couple is £114.85 p.w., £5972 p.a.

So the government demands that a couple where one is a non EEA immigrant have an income of more than three times that they expect a British couple to live on!

Of course, a British couple on income support will in many cases also get housing benefit, but that will very rarely be enough to raise their total income up to £18,600.

Loppylugs1, you should familiarise yourself with the immigration rules; particularly those relating to what public funds are available to British/immigrant families before making comments like that above.

The British partner can claim any and all to which they may be entitled as a single individual, but cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant partner living with them. The immigrant partner cannot claim anything until they have ILR; which takes at least 5 years to obtain. Five years during which their British partner and/or themselves have been working and paying tax and NICs.

This has been the case for as long as I have taken an interest; over 15 years.

Then there is now also the £200 per year health surcharge they have to pay.

No one, I'm sure, is saying that these families should be supported by the state from the day they arrive. All we want is a fair and equitable financial requirement, as it was prior to July 2012.

Edit:

The post I refer to has been removed while I was typing the above (not surprised considering the language used) but I'm leaving the public funds remarks in mine for future readers.

Edited February 22, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

Prior to July 2012 applicants and sponsors had to show they could support themselves without recourse to public funds. There was no fixed minimum income, but in practice this meant they needed an income of at least the income support level for a British family of the same size.

Which for a couple is £114.85 p.w., £5972 p.a.

I should have said that this figure was their net income, after housing costs and other fixed outgoings, such as debt repayments, had been deducted.

Now, such outgoings are ignored.

Which means we have the ludicrous situation whereby, for example, Mr A who has an income of £18,600 p.a. but mortgage and other debt repayments of £15,000 p.a. meets the requirement; but Mr B who has an income of £18,599 p.a. but his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts doesn't!

[Trevor1809]

As the article says, these cases have been going on for some time while they slowly wend their way through the legal system.

I expect them to end up at the ECtHR before a final decision is reached, which could take another couple of years at least.

The British partner can claim any and all to which they may be entitled as a single individual, but cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant partner living with them. The immigrant partner cannot claim anything until they have ILR; which takes at least 5 years to obtain. Five years during which their British partner and/or themselves have been working and paying tax and NICs.

.

And NHS surcharge and VAT and air passenger duty and I am sure a few more taxes that I haven't thought of. And all of that at a much higher rate than the multi nationals pay.