Cost of UK visa appeals to rise by 600%

[Tony M]

The Home Office are proposing massive increases in appeal fees, up by 570% and 600%. This from Free Movement :

"In percentage terms, the increase from £140 to £800 for a First-tier Tribunal oral hearing comes in at 570%. And remember, when the Immigration Bill becomes law that will be for an out of country appeal at which the appellant is not allowed to be physically present. Even an “on the papers” hearing where there are no lawyers or witnesses is going up from £80 to £490, an increase of over 600%."

The full article can be found here :

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/massive-increase-in-immigration-appeal-fees-proposed/?utm_source=FM+master+list&utm_campaign=e7ecb581a4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-e7ecb581a4-105100321&mc_cid=e7ecb581a4&mc_eid=2b5f179930

The consultation document can be found here : consultation document.pdf

The Equality statement can be found here : equalitystatement.pdf

An interesting snippet can be found in the Equality Statement, where the Home Office agrees that certain categories will be hit hard by this financially. They find it justifiable. Quote :

" Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds within FTT service users (more information is set out at table 1 below). Therefore it is more likely that individuals with these protected characteristics could potentially be put at a particular financial disadvantage when applying to the Immigration and Asylum Chambers since they will now have to pay more fees for services than previously. To the extent that increased fee levels would put individuals sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, the Government believes this is justifiable."

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tony M

[theoldgit]

Beggars belief.

[Donutz]

I find the very thought of a first appeal not being free outreagous. If an application is dismissed there should be the option to ask for a second look/opinion in which the applicant may point out errors by the officer or provide information that countere whatever the officer has concluded. If based on nothing but thin air such an appeal could be dismissed swiftly. And if the decision seems to have been made too easily that would be a very legit reason for a proper look at the case. Now if one wants to fight the appeal in court, then yes by all means it should cost a fee to cover the costs partially or completely. If fees become so high that low incomes cannot realistically afford going to court, then those incomes should be compensated as not to make court cases a thing for those who have a more generous income.

An inflation like this screams "division of classes" and "let's conjure something up so we can look to be though on immigration/visa matters regardless of what is fair or just".

Edit: I don't know how many appeals there are for visas and immigration. You don't want too many but then the original decision should most often be correct. Allowing for swift dismissal of appeals that stand no chanche at all.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Donutz

[Tony M]

I find the very thought of a first appeal not being free outreagous. If an application is dismissed there should be the option to ask for a second look/opinion in which the applicant may point out errors by the officer or provide information that countere whatever the officer has concluded. If based on nothing but thin air such an appeal could be dismissed swiftly. And if the decision seems to have been made too easily that would be a very legit reason for a proper look at the case. Now if one wants to fight the appeal in court, then yes by all means it should cost a fee to cover the costs partially or completely. If fees become so high that low incomes cannot realistically afford going to court, then those incomes should be compensated as not to make court cases a thing for those who have a more generous income.

An inflation like this screams "division of classes" and "let's conjure something up so we can look to be though on immigration/visa matters regardless of what is fair or just".

Edit: I don't know how many appeals there are for visas and immigration. You don't want too many but then the original decision should most often be correct. Allowing for swift dismissal of appeals that stand no chanche at all.

Figures are never up to date, but in 2014 the number of immigration appeals was around 70,000, I believe. But, that does include asylum appeals of course. The percentage of that 70,000 that were allowed was 26%. Around 17 -18,000 ?

You are also right that there should be a "first look" to see if the decision is good or not. This is actually done by the Entry Clearance Manager review, but that review only comes into play if the applicant appeals. The applicant must therefore pay the appeal fee, and the ECM then looks at the decision. If the ECM decides to overturn the refusal decision, the appeal fee is not refunded. I guess that, in theory, the ECO's could refuse as many settlement visa applications as they want, and then overturn the decision once the appeal fee has been paid ? That does seem unfair, and you would at least expect a free review of the decision before having to cough up 490 GBP or 800 GBP.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tony M

[johnatong]

I will not indulge in a rant but this seems unfair to those who attempt to gain admission to the UK via legal means.

There are many who enter the country by other means and who are either allowed to remain or who 'disappear' into the illegal (and often criminal) economy.

[Donutz]

@Tony: Thanks for those details.

As for the fee, which besides being raised much too high in my opinion, such a thing as a fee would only be fair if it was charged for appeals that are made in cases were both the applicant and authorities know that there is zero chanche of a decision being overturned. The type of "we are going to appeal just to drag things out or to annoy the auhorities". Can't think those appeals are very common. Senseable appeals should not cost people a fee, or at the very least in case of a positive appeal the fee should be returned. If the authorities admit they made a mistake, judged too quickly, keeping the fee makes no sense at all.

Imagen this in any other sector: plumbing, medical treatment and so on, the client pays a fee, the service provider has a look but the issue is not fixed in the way the client expected. And they'd dare to ask for a fee to have a second look? Let alone not return this fee if they would admit that they made a mistake or oversight the first time around? It simply does not make sense nor is it fair to operate like that!

[bobrussell]

I would support this move to 'at cost' appeals if the system was working well as it is.

Why should someone have to find hundreds of pounds to correct an ECO mistake?

Put in a simple, independently monitored review of appealed rejections to fix the silly mistakes and misunderstandings that inevitably will happen from time to time. Then it is appropriate that someone appealing should pay the costs if unsuccessful.

[ubonjoe]

A off topicinflammatory post and a reply to it has been removed.

[inbangkok]

It would be interesting to know how many appeals are successful. If the percentage of successful appeals is very low (which I am guessing they are) it would make sense that they would attempt to discourage it.

[johnatong]

It would be interesting to know how many appeals are successful. If the percentage of successful appeals is very low (which I am guessing they are) it would make sense that they would attempt to discourage it.

The answer is earlier in thread .

"Figures are never up to date, but in 2014 the number of immigration appeals was around 70,000, I believe. But, that does include asylum appeals of course. The percentage of that 70,000 that were allowed was 26%. Around 17 -18,000 ?"

Courtesy of Tony M

[inbangkok]

It would be interesting to know how many appeals are successful. If the percentage of successful appeals is very low (which I am guessing they are) it would make sense that they would attempt to discourage it.

The answer is earlier in thread .

"Figures are never up to date, but in 2014 the number of immigration appeals was around 70,000, I believe. But, that does include asylum appeals of course. The percentage of that 70,000 that were allowed was 26%. Around 17 -18,000 ?"

Courtesy of Tony M

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

[Richard W]

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

That's why the right of appeal had to be removed. Oddly, though, I had read that the rate of success of appeals at the time was closer to 50%. Perhaps it was in a different category.

If the Home Office pockets the fee when a family permit is approved by an ECM on appeal, that's quite an incentive to automatically refuse family permits, as an explicit charge is prohibited for them.

[Rob180]

I will not indulge in a rant but this seems unfair to those who attempt to gain admission to the UK via legal means.

There are many who enter the country by other means and who are either allowed to remain or who 'disappear' into the illegal (and often criminal) economy.

Exactly. The whole system is a disgrace and discriminatory. Where do you start?

Rip-off Visa fees which are going up again in October.

Denying visas unless you earn £18,600 even if you're married.

A1 English tests being changed to minimum A2 from October.

A health care charge of £500 for entry and FLR visas, despite the fact some people may never see a doctor.

No recourse to public funds.

Even if the person who has the visa is working full time and paying tax to the UK Government, they are subjected to these ridiculous discriminatory rules and are subsidising countless thousands of people who speak no or little English, claim state housing and welfare benefits, don't look for jobs, get health care free and don't pay tax.

The whole system is a shambles.

[Denim]

I have taken my wife to England several years ago. No problem.

Now we would like to go again in September but although our circumstances remain the same I am weary at the thought of even bothering to apply since you can be refused for the slightest error in your application and find that unless you are willing to throw an ever increasing amount of money at it then it seems prudent not to bother in the first place.

A totally unfair system altogether caused by a knee jerk response to the immigration issue.

[brewsterbudgen]

I will not indulge in a rant but this seems unfair to those who attempt to gain admission to the UK via legal means.

There are many who enter the country by other means and who are either allowed to remain or who 'disappear' into the illegal (and often criminal) economy.

Exactly. The whole system is a disgrace and discriminatory. Where do you start?

Rip-off Visa fees which are going up again in October.

Denying visas unless you earn £18,600 even if you're married.

A1 English tests being changed to minimum A2 from October.

A health care charge of £500 for entry and FLR visas, despite the fact some people may never see a doctor.

No recourse to public funds.

Even if the person who has the visa is working full time and paying tax to the UK Government, they are subjected to these ridiculous discriminatory rules and are subsidising countless thousands of people who speak no or little English, claim state housing and welfare benefits, don't look for jobs, get health care free and don't pay tax.

The whole system is a shambles.

Where did you see that the A1 English test requirement was being changed to A2?

[al007]

Yes does sound a bit outrageous

So solution is read the rules very carefully and make sure you comply fully the first time, and if not understanding fully the requirement then use professional advice to assist

[alanrchase]

Seems like a bit of a case of xenophobia and they only want the money.

[theoldgit]

Where did you see that the A1 English test requirement was being changed to A2?

There was an earlier thread about this recently, l've only get limited internet access access at the moment so can't look it up. Off the top of my head I think it's at the FLR stage, not the initial application.

[laislica]

It would be interesting to know how many appeals are successful. If the percentage of successful appeals is very low (which I am guessing they are) it would make sense that they would attempt to discourage it.

The answer is earlier in thread .

"Figures are never up to date, but in 2014 the number of immigration appeals was around 70,000, I believe. But, that does include asylum appeals of course. The percentage of that 70,000 that were allowed was 26%. Around 17 -18,000 ?"

Courtesy of Tony M

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

Indeed and to me, it shows that the IMM O's get their evaluation wrong 26% of the time - a Huge number.

Why don't the IO's contact some of the people whose contact details are given in the initial application.

Surely, they could then clear up some worries they had and reduce the number of refusals made "On the balance of probability....."

An error rate of 26% is far too high and unacceptable and it is not fair!

[laislica]

Yes does sound a bit outrageous

So solution is read the rules very carefully and make sure you comply fully the first time, and if not understanding fully the requirement then use professional advice to assist

But if the application is to allow your legal wife to visit your own country of birth, shouldn't you have some rights?

Why does the application ask for contact details of family and friends if they have no intention of ever checking anything with them

-because they are too busy and it's up to you to totally understand Immigration rules and law?

Looks to me that they make the rules very hard to understand and when you try, the Imm website just goes into loops

and it is almost impossible to get the answers you need.

Also PLAIN ENGLISH please.

For many applicants English is not their first language!

[inbangkok]

It would be interesting to know how many appeals are successful. If the percentage of successful appeals is very low (which I am guessing they are) it would make sense that they would attempt to discourage it.

The answer is earlier in thread .

"Figures are never up to date, but in 2014 the number of immigration appeals was around 70,000, I believe. But, that does include asylum appeals of course. The percentage of that 70,000 that were allowed was 26%. Around 17 -18,000 ?"

Courtesy of Tony M

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

Indeed and to me, it shows that the IMM O's get their evaluation wrong 26% of the time - a Huge number.

Why don't the IO's contact some of the people whose contact details are given in the initial application.

Surely, they could then clear up some worries they had and reduce the number of refusals made "On the balance of probability....."

An error rate of 26% is far too high and unacceptable and it is not fair!

I totally agree! But I was under the impression that IOs don't make these decisions anymore. I thought the UK hired a private firm to deal with visa applications. So maybe time to hire a new firm? Or, considering national security issues, Mayne better of the UK government just does it themselves?

[PeeJay1959]

Where did you see that the A1 English test requirement was being changed to A2?

There was an earlier thread about this recently, l've only get limited internet access access at the moment so can't look it up. Off the top of my head I think it's at the FLR stage, not the initial application.

Correct OG, only at the FLR stage is A2 required.

[laislica]

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

Indeed and to me, it shows that the IMM O's get their evaluation wrong 26% of the time - a Huge number.

Why don't the IO's contact some of the people whose contact details are given in the initial application.

Surely, they could then clear up some worries they had and reduce the number of refusals made "On the balance of probability....."

An error rate of 26% is far too high and unacceptable and it is not fair!

I totally agree! But I was under the impression that IOs don't make these decisions anymore. I thought the UK hired a private firm to deal with visa applications. So maybe time to hire a new firm? Or, considering national security issues, Mayne better of the UK government just does it themselves?

My wife's application for a two week holiday visa was turned down 3 years ago and as far as I know, IO's did the evaluation then.

If it is a contractor, then yes, lets have a new contractor.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Where did you see that the A1 English test requirement was being changed to A2?

There was an earlier thread about this recently, l've only get limited internet access access at the moment so can't look it up. Off the top of my head I think it's at the FLR stage, not the initial application.

Yes, my take on it as well. A2 for the mid-way Further Leave to Remain in the UK.

[crazydrummerpauly]

I will not indulge in a rant but this seems unfair to those who attempt to gain admission to the UK via legal means.

There are many who enter the country by other means and who are either allowed to remain or who 'disappear' into the illegal (and often criminal) economy.

Exactly. The whole system is a disgrace and discriminatory. Where do you start?

Rip-off Visa fees which are going up again in October.

Denying visas unless you earn £18,600 even if you're married.

A1 English tests being changed to minimum A2 from October.

A health care charge of £500 for entry and FLR visas, despite the fact some people may never see a doctor.

No recourse to public funds.

Even if the person who has the visa is working full time and paying tax to the UK Government, they are subjected to these ridiculous discriminatory rules and are subsidising countless thousands of people who speak no or little English, claim state housing and welfare benefits, don't look for jobs, get health care free and don't pay tax.

The whole system is a shambles.

I thought the health care / NHS surcharge, was £200 for EVER YEAR or EVERY PART of a YEAR, so a 2.5 year entry visa or FLR costs £200 x 3 which is of course £600 not £500. It's all bad !

[crazydrummerpauly]

Hi all. This is a very depressing thread. I came online to ask a related question about appeals.

If a normal settlement application is refused, and it is taken up in an appeal - IF the appeal is WON, and the original decision on the application is therefore shown to be in error - is the original £1,200 application fee refunded (since it was the ECO's mistake), and if not, why not ?

Tell me something cheerful....pleeeeez.

[theoldgit]

I was under the impression that IOs don't make these decisions anymore. I thought the UK hired a private firm to deal with visa applications. So maybe time to hire a new firm? Or, considering national security issues, Mayne better of the UK government just does it themselves?

No that's not the case, applications are decided on by Entry Clearance Officers, they are directly employed, either centrally or locally, by the UKVI.

I understand that their training is quite thorough, what I don't know is how much, or how little, accountability there is.

[Jonathon]

It would be interesting to know how many appeals are successful. If the percentage of successful appeals is very low (which I am guessing they are) it would make sense that they would attempt to discourage it.

The answer is earlier in thread .

"Figures are never up to date, but in 2014 the number of immigration appeals was around 70,000, I believe. But, that does include asylum appeals of course. The percentage of that 70,000 that were allowed was 26%. Around 17 -18,000 ?"

Courtesy of Tony M

That is a way higher number of successful appeals than I imagined.

It would be interesting to have more data on that; either they get it wrong too often or they are beaten into allowing them by the scourge of HR lawyers in the UK.

[robhufton]

I will not indulge in a rant but this seems unfair to those who attempt to gain admission to the UK via legal means.

There are many who enter the country by other means and who are either allowed to remain or who 'disappear' into the illegal (and often criminal) economy.

Exactly. The whole system is a disgrace and discriminatory. Where do you start?

Rip-off Visa fees which are going up again in October.

Denying visas unless you earn £18,600 even if you're married.

A1 English tests being changed to minimum A2 from October.

A health care charge of £500 for entry and FLR visas, despite the fact some people may never see a doctor.

No recourse to public funds.

Even if the person who has the visa is working full time and paying tax to the UK Government, they are subjected to these ridiculous discriminatory rules and are subsidising countless thousands of people who speak no or little English, claim state housing and welfare benefits, don't look for jobs, get health care free and don't pay tax.

The whole system is a shambles.

My wife has just applied (successfully) for her 2nd 2.5 year LTR visa and we had to pay £500 NHS fee, despite the fact that she has been working full time and paying full tax and NI for the last 2,5 years. Outrageous...

[Jonathon]

Seems like a bit of a case of xenophobia and they only want the money.

Sadly it is targeted xenophobia against our legitimate wives and family whilst vast numbers of illegals get away with it and end up being supported at the taxpayers' expense. I could go on....but nothing will change.