'Absurd' visa rules on income force UK citizens into exile, court told

[Anon999]

£18,600.

It's hardly a kings ransomed.

I certainly couldn't live on that amount, not even here in Thailand.

Well the 800,000 baht required to get an extension to stay equates to £16k. It depends where you live in a country and how you spend your money. Exactly the same here and in the UK.

[Anon999]

7) To repeat, prior to July 2012 the financial requirement was based on net income; after all deductions and regular outgoings.

Just because the system prior to 2012 was fairer, in your opinion, doesn't mean it was right. I think there should be threshold and there will always be anomalies.

Also if the people you are referring to don't earn a lot of money, they won’t be buying much to pay loads of VAT. It's a poor argument.

With VAT at 20% just buying essentials and items that need replacing it still adds up to a lot.

[Donbanpho]

Political policies on immigration have created an overly beurocratic application process it's targeted at resolving what the politicians generically see as "the Problem"

people are all different everyone each have their own issue with it. The financial requirement doesn't take into account individuals. My wife and I now live in the Uk and we're coming up to the end of the first 30 months. But we very nearly didn't get here due to the financial requirement.

I was working in Singapore and wanted to bring my wife to the UK which we did on a tourist visa. I resigned from my job as we would be here 6 months. When we returned to Thailand we applied for the visa to move to the UK.

I didn't have a job at this time but assured them I had earned over 100k per an mum for the last decade and would easily gain employment but this wasn't enough.

They didn't want to know I owned four houses that I rented

They didn't want to know I had already accumulated a £1m pension fund for when I retired

They didn't want to know I had

130k in a stock market account unless I sold them paying 35k in taxes and putting it in a savings account

I had to scrape information from about seven accounts to meet the 62k threshold.

I have never claimed a benefit and have never been out of work in 30 years apart from our uk tourist visa.

My point here is that putting any figure in the financial threshold won't suit everyone and we're all individuals. But one thing is for sure an Englishman should be able to bring his wife home if they sign up to receiving no benefits at all.

The government cannot implement this type of rule as they are governed by Brussell's so wait for the Supreme Court if you want to but I believe that whilst we're part of the EU we have to have a one size fits all policy that cannot give preferential treatment to its own countrymen because of the EU. The 23rd of June will be an opportunity for all of us in this forum to seek better immigration conditions for our loved ones I hope you join me in voting to Leave.

[Alwyn]

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

[cjw121]

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

The rules are the rules if you do not like it don't apply again and just leave the UK and go and live in Thailand and get your yearly visa.

[Alwyn]

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

The rules are the rules if you do not like it don't apply again and just leave the UK and go and live in Thailand and get your yearly visa.

That's the point. The rule says £18,600 annual income minimum. It does not say lowers monthly income multiplied by 12, it clearly states required annual income £18,600! I would go back to Thailand and I will but I'm getting treatment for cancer so I need another 18 months for it to hopefully clear.

[Jonmarleesco]

'Seven supreme court justices ... will decide ... whether the rules contravene article 8 of the European convention on human rights ...' For illegal immigrants ... they undoubtedly would. Legal spouses? Well, who can tell?

[Jonmarleesco]

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

The rules are the rules if you do not like it don't apply again and just leave the UK and go and live in Thailand and get your yearly visa.

And the law is, all too often, a ass.

[rasg]

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

Just to follow up this one.

A BUPA travel insurance policy for a year for my fiancée is 4200 baht. Whew you are a little younger, a non smoker and healthy, it's a lot cheaper.

I know where I would place my trust and it's not in my local hospital.

Edited February 24, 2016 by rasg

[louse1953]

£18,600.

It's hardly a kings ransomed.

I certainly couldn't live on that amount, not even here in Thailand.

But many people can,easily done in Thailand.Don't drink in farang bars or don't drink at all is a huge money saver.No car,limited ac if any and you will have baht left over.

[louse1953]

The same applies to the schooling for those children; most of them are British citizens.

Not forgetting of course that since being in full time education up to 18 is a legal requirement, there is no option of not sending kids to school, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to provide free education.

If the child is also in the UK on a setllement visa why should they be given free schooling?

Because it is fair.

[louse1953]

For the same reason any child in the UK is entitled to free state schooling.

Namely because at least one of their parents is working and paying tax.

The Uk parent is only going to be a stepparent so why should that entitile that child to free schooling at the tax payers expense

A parent is a parent,step or not.You can't discriminate like that.

[Richard W]

Yes, Cameron has threatened to withdraw from the ECHR if the UK is not allowed a veto on decisions of the ECtHR.

But that has nothing to do with the EU. They are completely separate entities. Being a member of one does not make a country a member of the other.

If the UK leaves the EU we will still be a signatory of the ECHR; unless we also leave the ECHR and it's court.

Actually, to be in the EU, a country is required to sign up to the ECHR.

If the child is also in the UK on a setllement visa why should they be given free schooling?

The Uk parent is only going to be a stepparent so why should that entitile that child to free schooling at the tax payers expense

'Only' a step parent!

I have been more of a father to my now 25 year old daughter than her biological father, who abandoned her and her mother when she was 2, ever was!

If the child is going to settle in the UK, it's a good idea for it to be educated.

Actually, one of the biggest savings from the raised threshold comes from excluding British citizen children from the UK be keeping their mothers out. Additionally, child benefit (some of which is the old tax allowance) is only payable for children resident in the EU.

The latter point is one of the worrying things about the sole responsibility rule. It means, for the most part, that the UK gets the children of irresponsible fathers, not the children of responsible fathers. That is not a good way to select future generations!

[louse1953]

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

The rules are the rules if you do not like it don't apply again and just leave the UK and go and live in Thailand and get your yearly visa.

Rubbish,they make the rules up to suit their agenda.This has happened in Australia as well.They rely on the applicant not having money to fight the case but luckily there are lawyers that work pro bono while the govt.get QC's,paid with taxpayers money.After years and eventually reaching the High Court the govt loses,as Blindy Freddy could see from the start.What the QC gets,alone would set up the applicant for several life times,but hey,it's only taxpayers money for friends of the govt.

[Richard W]

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

Did you select the salary method or the irregular wage method? Under the latter, the income should be calculated as the minimum of the 12 months' pay and twice the last 6 months' pay. (If this threatens to become a long discussion, I think we should detach it from this thread.)

[jinners]

why are people still complaining about the income level it really has not been set very high and it has been around for a few years now. I would prefer for it to be higher but I dout it will be. If you swap it around you need to show money to stay in Thailand and then that only allows 1 year at a time. So stop moaning about the income level and if you do not earn enough money to statisfy it then simple get another job.

Poppycock, see below and learn. It's not simply the arbitrary amount set by some faceless civil servant, but the idiocy of the policy.

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

Now, as well as the minimum income required being well above that which the government expect a British couple to live on, outgoings are completely 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!

[jinners]

Well, don't countries have the rights to set some rules and policies on immigration, medical, communicable diseases, means of support, income, net worth etc? If UK laws don't quite line up with some EU documents, that will be interesting to see what the court rules. If the ruling is simply to determine that the UK rule is in conflict with the EU charter or whatever, well, so what? Exactly how binding are the EU things?

Amazing how people don't wince at the 600,000 plus immigrants coming to the UK but then get uppity over the thought of a few thousand that would scrape in if the threshold was lowered.

Not only that, we're talking about UK citizens wishing to bring in their spouse, and sometimes kids. Not economic migrants with no support structure, zero affinity with the country past or present and having made no previous financial or community contribution in any form.

[jinners]

So if the

people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights and it's court have nothing to do with the European Union.They were established by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member, in 1950.The Council of Europe currently has 47 members, including all 28 members of the EU.The UK was a member of the ECtHR long before we joined what was then the EEC and will still be if we leave the EU.So even if the UK does leave the EU, that will have no effect on this case nor any other human rights cases or legislation in the UK.

Not 100% correct.It may well have an effect read this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/david-cameron-prepared-to-break-with-europe-on-human-rights

On another note,why does it take up to 6 months to reach a decision?

There's wages and mortgages and school fees for all those judges need paying you know, not forgetting partners commissions and other in kind payments.

[sandyf]

Well, don't countries have the rights to set some rules and policies on immigration, medical, communicable diseases, means of support, income, net worth etc? If UK laws don't quite line up with some EU documents, that will be interesting to see what the court rules. If the ruling is simply to determine that the UK rule is in conflict with the EU charter or whatever, well, so what? Exactly how binding are the EU things?

Amazing how people don't wince at the 600,000 plus immigrants coming to the UK but then get uppity over the thought of a few thousand that would scrape in if the threshold was lowered.

Not only that, we're talking about UK citizens wishing to bring in their spouse, and sometimes kids. Not economic migrants with no support structure, zero affinity with the country past or present and having made no previous financial or community contribution in any form.

You will never get past the ' I am better off than you' brigade.

I started work when I was 11, up at 5am to deliver milk, paid NI contributions for 45 years and now live on state pension. My son lives and works in the UK and if I did want to spend the last few years of my life closer to him and his family I would have to leave my wife behind.

The UK government are hypocrites, they preach family values but your family has no value if they are foreign nationals.

[cjw121]

Well, don't countries have the rights to set some rules and policies on immigration, medical, communicable diseases, means of support, income, net worth etc? If UK laws don't quite line up with some EU documents, that will be interesting to see what the court rules. If the ruling is simply to determine that the UK rule is in conflict with the EU charter or whatever, well, so what? Exactly how binding are the EU things?

Amazing how people don't wince at the 600,000 plus immigrants coming to the UK but then get uppity over the thought of a few thousand that would scrape in if the threshold was lowered.

Not only that, we're talking about UK citizens wishing to bring in their spouse, and sometimes kids. Not economic migrants with no support structure, zero affinity with the country past or present and having made no previous financial or community contribution in any form.

You will never get past the ' I am better off than you' brigade.

I started work when I was 11, up at 5am to deliver milk, paid NI contributions for 45 years and now live on state pension. My son lives and works in the UK and if I did want to spend the last few years of my life closer to him and his family I would have to leave my wife behind.

The UK government are hypocrites, they preach family values but your family has no value if they are foreign nationals.

The rules are there for a reason, if you do not have the required income level then tuff, theres not a lot of point moaning about it, if your wife came to the UK who is going to support her financially? do you expect the tax payer to provide her with the things she may need?

[Trevor1809]

If the child is also in the UK on a setllement visa why should they be given free schooling?

The same reason that people in the black economy and pay zero UK tax and NICs get free NHS treatment and their kids get free education.

[7by7]

The rules are there for a reason, if you do not have the required income level then tuff, theres not a lot of point moaning about it, if your wife came to the UK who is going to support her financially? do you expect the tax payer to provide her with the things she may need?

1) Yes, the rules are there for a reason; but they need to be fair and equitable; which this requirement isn't. That other counties also have unfair rules is no reason for the UK to follow suit.

BTW, as you should know, if a Brit living in Thailand cannot meet the Thai financial requirement then s/he has the option of border runs; an option not available in the UK.

2) No one is saying that the foreign spouses of British citizens coming to live in the UK should be supported by the tax payer.

No one expects the tax payer to provide said spouse with the things they need.

This is impossible anyway because, as repeatedly pointed out, their access to public funds is, and has been for many years, extremely limited. As you seem to have missed the link to the Home Office leaflet detailing what they can and cannot claim, here it is again. I suggest that you read it before commenting further.

3) As I said earlier; the system in place prior to July 2012 was based upon net income after deducting regular outgoings including housing costs and debt repayments. This requirement is based purely on gross income before any deductions at all.

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!

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

[Hedghog]

£18,600.

It's hardly a kings ransomed.

I certainly couldn't live on that amount, not even here in Thailand.

But many people can,easily done in Thailand.Don't drink in farang bars or don't drink at all is a huge money saver.No car,limited ac if any and you will have baht left over.

I don't drink,or use air con.

I do run a car and motorcycle.

Mostly I holiday,fly business,stay in nice hotels.

That was the idea when I retired at 46.

[7by7]

£18,600 p.a. is £1550 p.m. which at 50 baht to the pound is 77,500 baht per month.

That's over 5 times the Thai average wage (source) and over 1.5 times what a Thai airline pilot earns (source).

If you can't live on that in Thailand you must have some very expensive hobbies!

[cjw121]

The rules are there for a reason, if you do not have the required income level then tuff, theres not a lot of point moaning about it, if your wife came to the UK who is going to support her financially? do you expect the tax payer to provide her with the things she may need?

1) Yes, the rules are there for a reason; but they need to be fair and equitable; which this requirement isn't. That other counties also have unfair rules is no reason for the UK to follow suit.

BTW, as you should know, if a Brit living in Thailand cannot meet the Thai financial requirement then s/he has the option of border runs; an option not available in the UK.

2) No one is saying that the foreign spouses of British citizens coming to live in the UK should be supported by the tax payer.

No one expects the tax payer to provide said spouse with the things they need.

This is impossible anyway because, as repeatedly pointed out, their access to public funds is, and has been for many years, extremely limited. As you seem to have missed the link to the Home Office leaflet detailing what they can and cannot claim, here it is again. I suggest that you read it before commenting further.

3) As I said earlier; the system in place prior to July 2012 was based upon net income after deducting regular outgoings including housing costs and debt repayments. This requirement is based purely on gross income before any deductions at all.

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!

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

BTW, as you should know, if a Brit living in Thailand cannot meet the Thai financial requirement then s/he has the option of border runs; an option not available in the UK.

After recent clamp downs multiple tourist visas can be difficult to obtain.

Health care, schooling where does the money come from to pay for it thin air?

The system before was not really fair as you could get a setllement visa for you wife when you did not have a job and just showed say £20,000 in savings which is not very much money.

The new system is better but stil not really right as the income level is set too low, you now have to pay a small health supplement again which has been set at a far to low a level also a person should have to pay a supplement if they have children to contribute towards there schooling.

[7by7]

Can be difficult; but border runs for Farang living in Thailand are still possible.

The money for an immigrant child's education comes from their British step parents taxes, and their immigrant parent's if they, too, are working; which many are. This would be the case whatever the financial requirement.

Health care not only comes from the same source, but also the £200 per year per applicant health surcharge.

Like the new requirement, the old one could be met by savings, income or a combination of both. Under the old requirement the level of savings required had to be sufficient for the couple, plus any children, to live on without recourse to public funds.

I repeat:-
As I said earlier; the system in place prior to July 2012 was based upon net income after deducting regular outgoings including housing costs and debt repayments. This requirement is based purely on gross income before any deductions at all.

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!

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

Will you now respond?

[7by7]

I mentioned earlier the APPGM's Parliamentary inquiry into (the) new family migration rules.

Those interested can download their report, published in June 2013, here.

[bobrussell]

The figure was chosen because it is the level where income related benefits do not apply. It means the government does not need to do any calculations to ensure adequate net income.

Not fair, nonsense and lazy. Completely inflexible as was shown when someone was short by about £30 (due to ECO miscalculation).

OK as a figure for many applicants but it should be possible for others to demonstrate the ability to afford to live in the UK.

[cjw121]

Can be difficult; but border runs for Farang living in Thailand are still possible.

The money for an immigrant child's education comes from their British step parents taxes, and their immigrant parent's if they, too, are working; which many are. This would be the case whatever the financial requirement.

Health care not only comes from the same source, but also the £200 per year per applicant health surcharge.

Like the new requirement, the old one could be met by savings, income or a combination of both. Under the old requirement the level of savings required had to be sufficient for the couple, plus any children, to live on without recourse to public funds.

I repeat:-

As I said earlier; the system in place prior to July 2012 was based upon net income after deducting regular outgoings including housing costs and debt repayments. This requirement is based purely on gross income before any deductions at all.

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!

Kindly explain how you can possibly consider that to be logical, let alone fair.

Who is better able to financially care for his foreign spouse; Mr. A or Mr. B?

Will you now respond?

The £200 per year per applicant is really going to make a difference to the health service, one can only hope that at some time we get a govenment with some balls and make all immigrants have proper health insurance so they do not become a burden on the NHS. The same with immigrants children if they decide to come to the UK then the parents should be prepared to provide private schooling for said child. One of the parents will of course be a step parent and will always be a step parent. If the childs biological parents can or will not provide money for said child then why should the state pay for the childs schooling. Just becuase one parent is a British Citizen and have paid taxes does nto mean that it should go towards an immigrant's child schooling or health care.

[borncal]

I understand your point of view, but I see it differently