UK Supreme Court to rule on foreign spouse income.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Trevor1809 said:

 

Call it fraud if you like but it is perfectly legal. Just like Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook etc etc etc act perfectly legally when they divert income to tax havens

 Show me where i said using Surinder Singh was fraud.

 

What I said, and you quoted, was

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

in order to prevent fraud and make it available only to couples who had genuinely been living in another member state, rather than those who moved there temporarily purely to utilise the judgement to by pass the immigration rules of the EU nationals home state.

Two reasons, not one. Fraud and taking advantage of a loophole.

 

Fraud is illegal. This report, which was discussed here at the time, is a bit hyperbolic; but it does show that fraud goes on: Thousands use 'fake life' scam to get into the UK.

 

Taking advantage of loopholes is not illegal; but one cannot blame governments for seeking to close those loopholes so the ruling applies only to those couples who had been genuinely living together in another EEA state. Indeed, following the ECJ judgement in the case of  O and B v The Netherlands in 2014, the requirements for qualifying under Surinder Singh were considerably tightened up. The key points being:
 

Quote

 

1. A genuine residence period of at least three months is required (para 54)

2. Weekend visits and holidays do not count as residence for this purpose (para 59)

3. Any citizen of the Union can potentially benefit from this right, not just workers and the self employed (references to Article 7 of Citizens Directive 2004/38, e.g. para 56, and to Article 21 of the TFEU, e.g. para 54)

4. During the period of residence family life must have been “created or strengthened” (para 51)

5. Abuse is impermissible (para 58)

 

 

The UK's interpretation of this judgement was in dispute, and in November 2016 para 9 of the UK's EEA regulations were amended

Quote

The short version is that the new regulations provide that a residence card will be issued to a direct family member of a British citizen where:

• the British citizen exercised free movement rights as a worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person or student in an EEA host country immediately before returning to the UK, or had acquired the right of permanent residence in the EEA host country, and
• the British citizen would satisfy the conditions for being a qualified person if they were an EEA national, and
• the family member and British citizen resided together in the other EEA member State and that residence was genuine, and
• the purpose of the residence in the EEA host country was not as a means to circumvent any UK immigration law applying to non-EEA nationals (e.g. the Immigration Rules)

 The above two quotes come from this Free Movement article.

 

Whilst I don't really want to drag this topic any further way from the OP, I would be interested in your explanation of how any of the above means that using the Surinder Singh route is being

4 hours ago, Trevor1809 said:

denied to UK nationals thanks to David Cameron

 

[7by7]

34 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

EEA free movement cannot be controlled (as yet) therefore the only way to get numbers down (and thereby appease the general public) is to reduce the numbers where it can be done.

As can be seen from the above post, the main driving force for changes in the Surinder Singh part of the UK's, and everyone else's,  EEA regulations was the case of O and B v The Netherlands; not a lot to do with the UK!

[mickj88]

When my Thai wife came to the UK 11 years ago I had to show that I had an income of £8500 so now it is up to £18500 which to me seems an awful lot of an increase over an 11 year period. I am waiting to see what happens when brexit is triggered as my wife is in the UK on indefinite leave to remain , If they start handing free ilr visas out to Europeans that have been here for 10 years or less, I am going to write and ask that they refund the £1750 I paid for her ilr visa + interest .The reason she hasn't sat the new UK nationality exam is  that again its another £1200 and if she fails she would have to pay again. I have done the mock test and I failed it ( I'm born here and have lived here 52 years). Why should she have to when she has been in the UK for nearly 12 years and in all that time has worked and paid her NI contributions and taxes the same as any british citizen and in some circumstances more than some of the scrounging dole dossers. I know loads of people who voted out so that their wife or gf could have the same rights as the EU residents, we will soon find out if there are going to be changes . It makes you wonder if the EU residents will still get preferential treatment even though where I live there a numerous Asian Drs, nurses and carers working hard while we seem to have had an influx of Rumanians who are here to claim off our social and use our NHS.

[7by7]

35 minutes ago, mickj88 said:

When my Thai wife came to the UK 11 years ago I had to show that I had an income of £8500 so now it is up to £18500 which to me seems an awful lot of an increase over an 11 year period.

Prior to July 2012, when the financial requirement came into effect, there was no official minimum income required. All that was needed was that the applicant had to show that they, and any children, would be supported and accommodated in the UK without recourse to public funds.

 

However, in 2006  a UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (UKAIT) ruling strongly suggested that it would be inappropriate for an immigrant family, or a family which was made up of a British citizen and one or more immigrants, to subsist on an income which was less than the income support level for a solely British family of the same size.

 

This is currently £114.85 per week (£5972.20 p.a.) for a couple.

 

So since 2006 the unofficial income requirement was this figure, plus any and all fixed outgoings; rent or mortgage, debt repayments etc..

 

This new financial requirement was set at the level of income at which a British family of the same size would be ineligible for any income related benefits; not at the level of benefit such a family would receive. So the government now insists that a British/immigrant family have a higher income than that which they expect a wholly British family to be able to live on.

 

Not only that; but it is a gross, pre tax figure which also takes zero account of outgoings.

 

So a British sponsor with a pre tax income of £20,000 p.a. and mortgage and other repayments of £5000 p.a. meets the requirement.

 

But a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,000 p.a. whose mortgage is paid off and has no other debts, so has a higher net, disposable income than the example above, doesn't!

 

To date, no one has been able to tell me why they think this is either logical or fair.

 

35 minutes ago, mickj88 said:

I know loads of people who voted out so that their wife or gf could have the same rights as the EU residents, we will soon find out if there are going to be changes

Then they voted leave for the wrong reason!

 

Brexit will have absolutely no effect on the UK's immigration rules. Post Brexit your acquaintances' wives and girlfriends will not get the same rights currently enjoyed by EEA nationals in the UK, and British nationals in other EEA member states, under the freedom of movement directive.

 

What will change, though, is that, unless the UK agrees to still be bound by the directive (unlikely), EEA citizens who wish to live in the UK will have to apply under the UK immigration rules and meet the same requirements, including the financial one, as non EEA nationals do.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by 7by7

[Richard W]

9 hours ago, whatawonderfulday said:

But a recently retired UK pensioner, say 65 years old, who then marries a Thai lady,  would not be able to live "happily ever after" back in the UK as she would not be granted a settlement VISA apparently as his State pension together with any private pension (if any) would not meet the 18,600 income requirement. 

 

But it appears no problem if the lady comes from Latvia !!!!

 

 

Seems wrong some how

Yes, you've got it wrong.  She would not gain any rights to live in the UK on the basis of her husband unless she went by the same visa route as her husband.  On the other hand, he would enable her to naturalise sooner than she could if on her own.

 

Now, it so happens that we don't hear of married EU citizens in this situation being removed because they have no right to be in the UK; there are many EU wives in a legally untenable position because they've being living in the UK with their British husband without bothering to work, get comprehensive sickness insurance or get a settlement visa.

[rasg]

 

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

This is currently £114.85 per week (£5972.20 p.a.) for a couple.

 

So since 2006 the unofficial income requirement was this figure, plus any and all fixed outgoings; rent or mortgage, debt repayments etc..

 

This new financial requirement was set at the level of income at which a British family of the same size would be ineligible for any income related benefits; not at the level of benefit such a family would receive. So the government now insists that a British/immigrant family have a higher income than that which they expect a wholly British family to be able to live on.

 

Not only that; but it is a gross, pre tax figure which also takes zero account of outgoings.

 

So a British sponsor with a pre tax income of £20,000 p.a. and mortgage and other repayments of £5000 p.a. meets the requirement.

How anybody can live on that £114.85 per week is beyond me even if they have no mortgage unless they are living in the sticks. But I assume that people do.

 

Somebody who lives in or around London will be paying a minimum of £750 a month in rent. My council tax for a year is well over £1K for the two of us, plus, plus plus. Even on a salary of £18600 gross, after tax how on earth can a family afford the visas in the first place? The £18600 is probably too low for London but might be ok for the North or Wales.

 

How something like it would be possible to implement I have no idea.

[mickj88]

7 by 7 that's quite interesting but I had to take all my financial records to Bangkok embassy to show I was earning over £8500 . Now this may not have been a legal requirement but as I am not a lawyer I don't know so I took it that it was . I was told that if I did not show an income of £8500 then my wife would not be issued a spouse visa and would not be allowed to come back with me until such time that I met that requirement. I remember this quite clearly at I am and was then self employed and luckily for me the previous year I had made a profit of £8900 which meant she was granted a visa. Now  as I said that may not have been legally binding but its what the British embassy informed me at that time . 2005 well before 2012 . Obviously things have changed a lot over the last 11 years , she first came over in 2004 on a 3 month visa and I was told I had to show that I had £2500 in the bank to support her stay, again I am not sure if this was a legal requirement but it was what the embassy told me. This information was also given to me in early 2005 when she came back again on a 3 month holiday visa.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

To get back on topic..................................  it's really necessary to see some of the finer detail in the Supreme Court judgment.  The financial requirement was upheld, but there is still some hope. The justices said that even if the Home Office  continue with the requirements as they stand, then an applicant can put forward a case, under Article 8 that the Home Office should consider other forms of available finance, for instance the potential income from the applicant when he/she arrives in UK (if I'm reading it right).  Free Movement, as usual, have posted on this. They say that the Home Office are now obliged to amend Appendix FM-SE, and have only around 2 months to do so :

 

"What happens next?

The Home Office will now have to issue new amended rules and guidance on cases involving children and new guidance on the assessment of other sources of income.

We can hope that the Government will show some genuine respect for family life and the welfare of children, but the precedents are not good. Helpfully, though, the Supreme Court ends the judgment by formally adjourning the question of remedies to allow amendments to the rules and policies to take place and will then consider whether a further hearing is necessary. This places pressure on the Home Office to devise some genuinely compliant new rules and policies.

Been told by member of #MMcase legal team HO has 56 days to put plan into action to take on board s55 (kids) & alternative funding comments"

 

Free Movement website has this link :

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/supreme-court-upholds-minimum-income-rule-18600-sponsor-foreign-spouses/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=supreme-court-upholds-minimum-income-rule-18600-sponsor-foreign-spouses&utm_source=FM+master+list&utm_campaign=d51c473059-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-d51c473059-105100321&mc_cid=d51c473059&mc_eid=2b5f179930

 

Tony M

 

 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

To get back on topic..................................  it's really necessary to see some of the finer detail in the Supreme Court judgment.  The financial requirement was upheld, but there is still some hope. The justices said that even if the Home Office  continue with the requirements as they stand, then an applicant can put forward a case, under Article 8 that the Home Office should consider other forms of available finance, for instance the potential income from the applicant when he/she arrives in UK (if I'm reading it right).  Free Movement, as usual, have posted on this. They say that the Home Office are now obliged to amend Appendix FM-SE, and have only around 2 months to do so :
 
"What happens next?

The Home Office will now have to issue new amended rules and guidance on cases involving children and new guidance on the assessment of other sources of income.

We can hope that the Government will show some genuine respect for family life and the welfare of children, but the precedents are not good. Helpfully, though, the Supreme Court ends the judgment by formally adjourning the question of remedies to allow amendments to the rules and policies to take place and will then consider whether a further hearing is necessary. This places pressure on the Home Office to devise some genuinely compliant new rules and policies.

Been told by member of #MMcase legal team HO has 56 days to put plan into action to take on board s55 (kids) & alternative funding comments"

 

Free Movement website has this link :

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/supreme-court-upholds-minimum-income-rule-18600-sponsor-foreign-spouses/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=supreme-court-upholds-minimum-income-rule-18600-sponsor-foreign-spouses&utm_source=FM+master+list&utm_campaign=d51c473059-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-d51c473059-105100321&mc_cid=d51c473059&mc_eid=2b5f179930

 

Tony M

 

 

 

I like your optimism! It will be interesting to see how Ms Rudd and ultimately Ms May react.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

20 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

I like your optimism! It will be interesting to see how Ms Rudd and ultimately Ms May react.

 

 

Well, the Supreme Court have adjourned "the question of remedies", so there is still hope that the government will see sense, and allow additional means of meeting the threshold. 

[theoldgit]

More off topic posts removed, please keep responses directly to the subject matter.

[samsensam]

 

Just setting up the English test for my wife's ILR, £15 per minute. Even a solicitor doesn't charge that.

 

actually some solicitors do charge that, and some considerably more

 

and you're paying £15 per minute to set up an english test? really? that's the cheapest option you can find?

[samsensam]

 

playing devil's advocate, £18,600 is not  a high salary for the UK, i was earning considerable more that that in the 1980s.

 

my friends in the UK easily earn this in a month or two.

 

anyone who has effectively planned for their retirement should also be able to meet this financial requirement.

 

alternatively the savings of your wife can be used to support the application

[Baerboxer]

The Supreme Court commented on the lawfulness. Interesting that they also chose to comment on the humanitarian aspects. Trying to send a hint or suggestion to the current thick skinned government may well be wasted.

 

If people feel strongly about it they should write to their MP's and take it up with them and opposing candidates. Courts do not change or make laws. Parliament does.

 

I wasn't impressed with May as a Home Secretary, and Rudd even less so up to now. Wouldn't expect this will very high on either's agenda.

 

Expats, whether it's pensions, tax, rights of spouses and children, and even maintaining the right to vote are perceived as soft touches who can be screwed when necessary for some good political point scoring. 

 

 

[Krataiboy]

Can somebody please tell me what UK expats in Thailand who continue to pay tax on pensions and other UK "earnings" are actually getting in return?

 

Our State pensions are frozen (in my case for the last 18 years), we are no longer entitled to NHS treatment or additional pension for our wives or child allowance or any other benefits which, when I first moved to my wife's country, were available.

 

If I want to take my wife to live in my homeland I am expected to show annual earnings of 18,000 pounds plus and more than 23,000 to give my daughter (who has a British passport) the right to accompany us.

 

This is more than 5,000 pounds over the median earnings of millions of resident Brits who have a family to support, which strikes me as extremely unfair.

 

Personally, I am not in the position of having to return to the UK, but I know there are many UK expats who may have little choice, particularly since devaluation of the pound following Brexit, which has decimated our state and private pensions.

 

They are between a rock and a hard place and I feel for them - and their families.

 

 

[theoldgit]

17 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

If I want to take my wife to live in my homeland I am expected to show annual earnings of 18,000 pounds plus and more than 23,000 to give my daughter (who has a British passport) the right to accompany us.

That's not correct, if your wife wanted to settle in the UK you would need to show an income of £18,600, as your daughter holds a British Passport there would be no increase in that figure.

[dunroaming]

There were a lot of hoops to jump through for my wife as well. I sympathise with anyone going through this at the moment.  It is a minefield and if you keep meeting a brick wall then I suggest you consider an immigration lawyer.  Can be expensive but sometimes a one hour consultation with the lawyer gives a much clearer picture and puts your chances in perspective.  We didn't use one but I know many who have.

[7by7]

13 hours ago, rasg said:

How anybody can live on that £114.85 per week is beyond me even if they have no mortgage unless they are living in the sticks. But I assume that people do.

 

Somebody who lives in or around London will be paying a minimum of £750 a month in rent. My council tax for a year is well over £1K for the two of us, plus, plus plus.

Remember that is the basic income support amount for a couple; you'll get more if you have children. Plus, if you qualify for income support then you probably also qualify for other income related benefits such as housing benefit if you rent or support for mortgage interest if you have a mortgage and council tax relief.

 

13 hours ago, rasg said:

Even on a salary of £18600 gross, after tax how on earth can a family afford the visas in the first place? The £18600 is probably too low for London but might be ok for the North or Wales.

 

How something like it would be possible to implement I have no idea.

The old system managed it quite well, and as it took both income and expenditure into account it did factor in the difference between both incomes and the cost of living in various parts of the UK. Factors which this current, rigid system ignores completely. 

[7by7]

13 hours ago, mickj88 said:

7 by 7 that's quite interesting but I had to take all my financial records to Bangkok embassy to show I was earning over £8500 . Now this may not have been a legal requirement but as I am not a lawyer I don't know so I took it that it was . I was told that if I did not show an income of £8500 then my wife would not be issued a spouse visa and would not be allowed to come back with me until such time that I met that requirement............

I have, of course, no reason to doubt you; if that's what the embassy told you then I  accept it.

 

But I do wonder why they told you that.

 

The pre July 2012 situation was as I described; there was no official minimum income, net or gross required. That is still the case for those few who can meet the financial requirement through adequate maintenance; MAA4 Maintenance: general requirements

Quote

There is no explicit minimum figure for what represents adequate maintenance. If dependants of the main applicant are going to accompany him / her to the United Kingdom, resources must be available for the whole family unit to be maintained.

The ECO should bear in mind the position taken by the UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (UKAIT):

In 2006, the UKAIT in UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the Income Support level for a British family of that size.

 

When my wife and step daughter applied in 2000 we were not told by the embassy that we needed a set minimum income; just that we needed to be able to support and accommodate ourselves without recourse to public funds. As I was a complete visa naïf at the time we used an agent, and he suggested a minimum figure based upon our circumstances once in the UK; but emphasised this was his suggestion, not an official figure and that earning that amount did not guarantee a visa.

 

Of course we, like all applicants, did have to provide financial records, bank statements, pay slips etc., to show that my finances were as claimed.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, samsensam said:

 

playing devil's advocate, £18,600 is not  a high salary for the UK, i was earning considerable more that that in the 1980s.

 

my friends in the UK easily earn this in a month or two.

 

anyone who has effectively planned for their retirement should also be able to meet this financial requirement.

 

alternatively the savings of your wife can be used to support the application

Bully for you and your friends!

 

There are many people, approx. 40% according to some figures, who earn less than £18,600 p.a. but are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their partner without state aid.

 

Yes, savings, whether the sponsor's, applicant's or held jointly, can be used either alone or in combination with most, but not all, sources of income to reduce the amount of each required.

 

But you need at least £16,000 of savings, and if relying on savings alone at least £62,500; and it has to be in cash and immediately available.

 

I am not saying that there should be no financial requirement; just that it should be fair and logical. The one prior to July 2012 was; this one, for many reasons, some which I explained earlier, is neither.

[roamer]

8 hours ago, samsensam said:

 

playing devil's advocate, £18,600 is not  a high salary for the UK, i was earning considerable more that that in the 1980s.

 

my friends in the UK easily earn this in a month or two.

 

anyone who has effectively planned for their retirement should also be able to meet this financial requirement.

 

alternatively the savings of your wife can be used to support the application

£18,600 is not a high salary but that's not the point. The £27K average salary is a median figure, only 40% of UK taxpayers earn over £18K and that percentage would be a lot lower in many of the regions.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

If people feel strongly about it they should write to their MP's and take it up with them and opposing candidates.

 

I did write to my MP when this requirement was first announced. His reply was that as I was not personally effected by it, there was nothing he could do. As he's a Tory, and this measure was introduced by a Tory Home Secretary,  I don't know if he was telling the truth or merely giving me the brush off.

 

Like other members here, I also made a submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into new family migration rules; which reported in June 2013.

Quote

Key findings

1. Some British citizens and permanent residents in the UK, including people in full-time employment, have been separated from a non-EEA partner and in some cases their children as a result of the income requirement

2. Some British citizens and permanent residents have been prevented from returning to the UK with their non-EEA partner and any children as a result of the income requirement

3. Some children, including British children, have been indefinitely separated from a nonEEA parent as a result of the income requirement

4. The current permitted sources in order to meet the income requirement may not fully reflect the resources available to some families

5. The adult dependent relative visa category appears in effect to have been closed

The government ignored the report.

 

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Courts do not change or make laws. Parliament does

This requirement, like all changes to the immigration rules, was not introduced by an Act of Parliament; it was introduced by the government via a Statutory Instrument.

 

The courts have the power to determine whether such changes are lawful or not.

 

Although the government were attempting to use the Royal Prerogative rather than a Statutory Instrument, the recent Supreme Court ruling on triggering Article 50 is another example of how the courts can rule on the lawfulness of government actions.

 

One of the advantages of having an independent judiciary.

Edited February 23, 2017 by 7by7
Correct typo

[rasg]

I read the conclusions about how the figure of £18600 was arrived at and the assumption was that rent being paid is £100 a week. Really?! You wouldn’t get a rabbit hutch anywhere near London for less than £650. A minimum mortgage if you are starting out, about the same, but you would need £20-30K deposit to get it in the first place.

 

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/the-minimum-income-requirement-for-non-eea-family-members-in-the-uk-2/

Edited February 23, 2017 by rasg

[mickj88]

rasq, Id like to point out that London is not the whole of the UK and that  past the Watford gap most wages are no where near £18500 a year I'd say most people in the north and in Wales and Scotland as a usual wage would earn around £14k to £16 k  a year , sorry but anyone in London who moans about this then sell your little house for £400k and move to somewhere that yu can buy a house 4 times the size for half the money. The average rent on a 3 bed house here in west Yorkshire is £550 a month where as in London I have friends that live in bedsits that pay nearly that a week . The wages they earn allow them to do this and £18500 a year in London may be a pittance but in the real world people do not earn that a year.  My wife earns around £11000 per annum and I reckon this year I will just about hit £12500  so as you can see between the 2 of us its only £23500, As for the guy who has mates who earn £18500 in a couple of months , I guess they are the tossers in the banks that have screwed the rest of us over the last 10 years or they are in insurance or some other industry that rips off the general public.

[rasg]

1 hour ago, mickj88 said:

rasq, Id like to point out that London is not the whole of the UK and that  past the Watford gap most wages are no where near £18500 a year I'd say most people in the north and in Wales and Scotland as a usual wage would earn around £14k to £16 k  a year , sorry but anyone in London who moans about this then sell your little house for £400k and move to somewhere that yu can buy a house 4 times the size for half the money. The average rent on a 3 bed house here in west Yorkshire is £550 a month where as in London I have friends that live in bedsits that pay nearly that a week . The wages they earn allow them to do this and £18500 a year in London may be a pittance but in the real world people do not earn that a year.  My wife earns around £11000 per annum and I reckon this year I will just about hit £12500  so as you can see between the 2 of us its only £23500, As for the guy who has mates who earn £18500 in a couple of months , I guess they are the tossers in the banks that have screwed the rest of us over the last 10 years or they are in insurance or some other industry that rips off the general public.

That was my point. If £18600 is enough for London it should be less for the rest of the country wher salaries and rents are lower...

 

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. It would be unworkable to have a different figure for different parts of the countries.

[Nurseynutcase]

I have read all the posts and I think I maybe missing something - or not?

 

So to take a spouse to the UK, you need to show £18600 gross per annum.

 

However as an ex-pat here in Thailand I need to prove an income of £19200 per annum to stay here for one year.  This is working on an exchange rate of £1 = 42 baht.

 

Huh - what is the problem?  I f you have a full time job whereby you do not earn that amount then get a second job - many people of my age did just this to pay for ourselves and families.

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

12 hours ago, rasg said:

It would be unworkable to have a different figure for different parts of the countries.

Not really.

 

Salaries and housing costs vary considerably across the country.

 

But the cost of other basic essentials, food, clothing, utilities, is fairly constant.

 

So a system which took income, deducted housing costs, and any other fixed outgoings such as debt, would take these variables into account.

 

Which is what we had prior to July 2012.

 

Despite what the government, and their poodle the Migration Advisory Committee, said at the time and still say now, this requirement was not brought in to reduce the number of immigrant family members, or their British partner, claiming public funds.  They were banned from so doing before July 2012, and are still banned from so doing now.

 

This financial requirement's sole purpose was, and still is, to reduce net migration by making it harder for British citizens to live in the UK with their foreign spouse or partner.

 

 

[7by7]

53 minutes ago, Nurseynutcase said:

So to take a spouse to the UK, you need to show £18600 gross per annum.

 

However as an ex-pat here in Thailand I need to prove an income of £19200 per annum to stay here for one year.  This is working on an exchange rate of £1 = 42 baht.

 

£19,200 p.a. is approx. 65,000 baht per month; so I take it you are in Thailand with a retirement visa. There is no equivalent UK visa to this.

 

We are talking here about UK family settlement; the Thai equivalent being a marriage visa for which you need 40,000 baht per month, approx. £11,500p.a. using your exchange rate example.

 

That is, of course, above the income needed to live in Thailand; just as £18,600 p.a. is above the income needed to live in the UK. Live, not necessarily live well.

 

Both income levels are therefore, in my opinion, too high. But we are discussing the UK one here, not the Thai one.

 

53 minutes ago, Nurseynutcase said:

Huh - what is the problem?  I f you have a full time job whereby you do not earn that amount then get a second job - many people of my age did just this to pay for ourselves and families.

Not always possible; particularly as the lower paid tend to work long hours already. 5% of UK workers earn just the minimum wage of £7.20 p.h. and they would need to work approx. 50 hours a week to earn £18,600 p.a.

 

Many British families survive because both partners work. But that's no good for this financial requirement because the applicant's income, even if they have a guaranteed job once in the UK, cannot be used in the initial visa application. This has caused particular hardship where the British partner is the wife and there are young children and she has not been working whilst living abroad. This means that even if she does have a guaranteed job in the UK paying at least £18,600 p.a. she does not meet the requirement because she has not been earning at least that amount while living abroad!

 

An example of this from the APPGM report linked to earlier (page 26)

Quote

In other cases, the UK sponsor could not demonstrate prior overseas earnings at the required rate because they had not been in employment overseas. This was usually because the nonEEA partner was the main earner. PricewaterhouseCoopers reported the following case: “Our client, an Australian national, is a Chief Financial Officer with a multinational company in Dubai. His current salary package is £250,000 per annum. Our client is married to a British national and they have children together... However, despite his earnings abroad and prospective earnings in the UK of £400,000 per annum as well as having property in the UK valued over £3.5 million, our client is not eligible under the new threshold... This is because his earnings overseas could not be considered and his wife is not employed nor does she intend or need to undertake employment in the UK.”

 

As i said before, I do believe that there should be a financial requirement; but not a fixed, inflexible and in many cases illogical one.

 

For the immigrant spouse to get their visa the couple should be able to support and accommodate themselves, plus any children, in the UK without resorting to public funds.

 

But, as already discussed, the costs of housing, and therefore the level of income required, vary considerably across the UK. So the pre July 2012 requirement which took this into account is not only fairer, but more logical than this current one which does not.

Edited February 24, 2017 by 7by7

[mark131v]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

£19,200 p.a. is approx. 65,000 baht per month; so I take it you are in Thailand with a retirement visa. There is no equivalent UK visa to this.

 

We are talking here about UK family settlement; the Thai equivalent being a marriage visa for which you need 40,000 baht per month, approx. £11,500p.a. using your exchange rate example.

 

That is, of course, above the income needed to live in Thailand; just as £18,600 p.a. is above the income needed to live in the UK. Live, not necessarily live well.

 

Both income levels are therefore, in my opinion, too high. But we are discussing the UK one here, not the Thai one.

 

Not always possible; particularly as the lower paid tend to work long hours already. 5% of UK workers earn just the minimum wage of £7.20 p.h. and they would need to work approx. 50 hours a week to earn £18,600 p.a.

 

Many British families survive because both partners work. But that's no good for this financial requirement because the applicant's income, even if they have a guaranteed job once in the UK, cannot be used in the initial visa application. This has caused particular hardship where the British partner is the wife and there are young children and she has not been working whilst living abroad. This means that even if she does have a guaranteed job in the UK paying at least £18,600 p.a. she does not meet the requirement because she has not been earning at least that amount while living abroad!

 

An example of this from the APPGM report linked to earlier (page 26)

 

As i said before, I do believe that there should be a financial requirement; but not a fixed, inflexible and in many cases illogical one.

 

For the immigrant spouse to get their visa the couple should be able to support and accommodate themselves, plus any children, in the UK without resorting to public funds.

 

But, as already discussed, the costs of housing, and therefore the level of income required, vary considerably across the UK. So the pre July 2012 requirement which took this into account is not only fairer, but more logical than this current one which does not.

I always listen when 7by7 posts as unlike the majority of us on the board he always backs his posts with facts, probably one of the genuinely most helpful posters on TV, keep up the good work!

[Krataiboy]

On 2/23/2017 at 0:37 PM, theoldgit said:

That's not correct, if your wife wanted to settle in the UK you would need to show an income of £18,600, as your daughter holds a British Passport there would be no increase in that figure.

I stand corrected. The 23,000 figure would be in respect of my daughter's older sister, who is a Thai national. Of course, we could always just leave her behind to fend for herself.