UK Supreme Court to rule on foreign spouse income.

[cheapskatesam]

Why should the British tax payer be liable for thousands and thousands of potential failed marriages and the financial fallout that ensues? 

 

Typical scenario.

 

Barry the plumber goes on holiday to Pattaya

Brit marries Thai and brings her over to the UK.

Has a baby.. and also ships over the kid from a previous relationship from the Thai village

Relationship fine for a few years until she decides to get rid..

Barry the plumber earns next to nothing therefore is not liable for child payments.

She is habitually resident in the UK therefore gets - Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Income Support and all the other goodies

 

Result = The country is screwed over for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of £ over the course of 18 years. She will sit on her arse and do nothing because she's unemployable and needs to "take care" 

 

 

 

 

[NanLaew]

10 hours ago, mark131v said:

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!

Totally agree, plenty of sage advice along with the helpful links and references.

 

8 hours ago, cheapskatesam said:

Why should the British tax payer be liable for thousands and thousands of potential failed marriages and the financial fallout that ensues? 

 

Typical scenario.

 

Barry the plumber goes on holiday to Pattaya

Brit marries Thai and brings her over to the UK.

Has a baby.. and also ships over the kid from a previous relationship from the Thai village

Relationship fine for a few years until she decides to get rid..

Barry the plumber earns next to nothing therefore is not liable for child payments.

She is habitually resident in the UK therefore gets - Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Income Support and all the other goodies

 

Result = The country is screwed over for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of £ over the course of 18 years. She will sit on her arse and do nothing because she's unemployable and needs to "take care" 

 

And then you get this rubbish from others, some of whom are probably happily screwing around in Pattaya.

 

Typical.

[Basil B]

On 23/02/2017 at 2:48 AM, 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

 

There are many who earn less than £18,600 who mange well. ( a married couple on state pension only get £12,400 PA)

 

"anyone who has effectively planned for their retirement should also be able to meet this financial requirement". a good point, with the government allowing over the 50s to raid their pension pots, (assuming one has not converted it to an annuity) for many they may well have over £250K in their UK pension pot which they could move £62.500 (25%) to a qualifying account tax free, note any amount over 25% will be subject to tax which could be up to 40% (but their again if it were subject to 40% tax one would not need to raid their pension pot).

 

A very good tool if one was only on a low income but when the wife got settled in the UK and started working the joint income would exceed ones financial requirements.

[Nurseynutcase]

18 hours ago, mark131v said:

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.

 

 

So what is wrong with working 50 hours a week?

 

I have done that and i am sure many others have also.

 

I have also worked much longer hours per than that

[JB300]

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.

I agree 100% with what your saying, but where does it stop?

For instance, if my Ms (Filipina) wanted to move to the UK & I couldn't "afford" it, my Parents would welcome her with open arms (no rent, not taxes, no grocery bills) she wouldn't need any money at all to get by.

So do we add something in there about other Family/Non-Family support??? Impossible, government has to draw a manageable line somewhere...

[JB300]

I agree 100% with what your saying, but where does it stop?

For instance, if my Ms (Filipina) wanted to move to the UK & I couldn't "afford" it, my Parents would welcome her with open arms (no rent, not taxes, no grocery bills) she wouldn't need any money at all to get by.

So do we add something in there about other Family/Non-Family support??? Impossible, government has to draw a manageable line somewhere...

Sorry to quote my own post but I doubt either of my parents (Warrington) have ever earned £18,600 a year.. I'm just trying to highlight a point

[7by7]

1 hour ago, JB300 said:

 

I agree 100% with what your saying, but where does it stop?

For instance, if my Ms (Filipina) wanted to move to the UK & I couldn't "afford" it, my Parents would welcome her with open arms (no rent, not taxes, no grocery bills) she wouldn't need any money at all to get by.

So do we add something in there about other Family/Non-Family support??? Impossible, government has to draw a manageable line somewhere...
 

 

Offers of accommodation from family or friends is still allowable.

 

 Prior to July 2012, financial support from family, or even friends, was allowable.

 

This was particularly useful for ex pats returning to the UK, for example at the end of their contract, with their foreign partner as they could use this support until they found suitable work in the UK.

 

If the sponsor's family are willing and able to financially support the couple, and any children, until they are able to support themselves, what is wrong with that? When it was allowable it didn't cost the taxpayer anything. Still wouldn't.

Edited February 25, 2017 by 7by7

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Nurseynutcase said:

So what is wrong with working 50 hours a week?

 

I have done that and i am sure many others have also.

 

I have also worked much longer hours per than that

 

As have I; particularly when I was self employed.

 

But if a person is perfectly capable of supporting their partner and any children, without resorting to public funds, without working that long; why should they be forced to do so?

 

Remember, I am not saying, and never have said, that there should be no financial requirement. What i am saying is that it should be both logical and fair; this current one is neither.

 

[JB300]

Offers of accommodation from family or friends is still allowable.

 

 Prior to July 2012, financial support from family, or even friends, was allowable.

 

This was particularly useful for ex pats returning to the UK, for example at the end of their contract, with their foreign partner as they could use this support until they found suitable work in the UK.

 

If the sponsor's family are willing and able to financially support the couple, and any children, until they are able to support themselves, what is wrong with that? When it was allowable it didn't cost the taxpayer anything. Still wouldn't.

But I don't see anywhere where it says my parents offering to board us (at no cost) reduces the income or savings limit.

No skin of my nose [pass the financial tests on both (passive) income & having >£62,500 in the bank] just pointing out that the rules are pretty binary & don't take into consideration factors that actually make a major difference in people's living expenses.

But that's already been done, there was a guy (think he was Australian) earning £250k equivalent in Dubai, had a £3.5Million house in the UK but couldn't get a Visa to live there as his wife didn't (& woukdnt) work so had no salary

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, JB300 said:

But I don't see anywhere where it says my parents offering to board us (at no cost) reduces the income or savings limit.

 It doesn't.

 

That is one of the illogical aspects of this current requirement; it takes no account at all of outgoings.

 

As i said earlier in the topic

On ‎22‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 6:47 PM, 7by7 said:

..........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.

 

11 minutes ago, JB300 said:

But that's already been done, there was a guy (think he was Australian) earning £250k equivalent in Dubai, had a £3.5Million house in the UK but couldn't get a Visa to live there as his wife didn't (& woukdnt) work so had no salary

Yes, he is Australian; and he also had a job offer in the UK paying around £400K! See post 58 above.

 

But another illogical aspect of this requirement is that his income, and potential income once in the UK, doesn't count; only the British sponsor's income can be used for the initial application.

 

No doubt some will say that his wife could have returned to the UK, either with her children or leaving them in Dubai with their father, and found a job and after 6 months her husband could then apply to join her; which is true. But why should she?

 

There are other ways they could have met the requirement; such as remortgaging their UK property to provide a cash sum; but, again, why should they have to do so?

 

Here is a couple who are obviously not going to be a burden upon the taxpayer. Why can they not simply use the husband's income to meet the financial requirement; as they could have done prior to July 2012?

[JB300]

Another crazy example of somebody being rejected for a UK Visa... http://links.info2.news.co.uk/ctt?kn=4&ms=MTM4MTI2NQS2&r=Mjg5Njg3NjcyODQS1&b=0&j=NzMwODMwODMxS0&mt=1&rt=0

[JB300]

There are other ways they could have met the requirement; such as remortgaging their UK property to provide a cash sum; but, again, why should they have to do so?

Sorry to snip your post but this particular part is of interest to me.

The >£62,500 in savings I have is in an "Offset" mortgage account basically cancelling out any money I owe on my mortgage (I.e. they pay me pennies in interest per year instead of me paying them £1000s).

This is with "One Account" (was Virgin now RBS) which unlike Barclays/Woolwich where the monies are held in a separate account, its in "virtual pots".

Anybody know if this would count as savings (have an ATM & Credit card I can spend/withdraw cash from the account) or would it be considered part of my mortgage & be considered as the £500 or so above the mortgage owed that I keep in it?

[7by7]

8 hours ago, JB300 said:

Sorry to snip your post but this particular part is of interest to me.

The >£62,500 in savings I have is in an "Offset" mortgage account basically cancelling out any money I owe on my mortgage (I.e. they pay me pennies in interest per year instead of me paying them £1000s).

This is with "One Account" (was Virgin now RBS) which unlike Barclays/Woolwich where the monies are held in a separate account, its in "virtual pots".

Anybody know if this would count as savings (have an ATM & Credit card I can spend/withdraw cash from the account) or would it be considered part of my mortgage & be considered as the £500 or so above the mortgage owed that I keep in it?

 To be honest; not sure.

 

Section 7 Cash savings of the financial requirement appendix  does give some examples of the types of account that can be used, such as ISAs, but this type of account isn't there. They are just examples, though; not being listed doesn't mean it can't be used if it meets the requirements

Quote

7.4. Cash savings – further guidance

 

7.4.2. The bank/savings account can be a current, deposit or investment account, provided by a financial institution regulated by the appropriate regulatory body for the country in which that institution is operating. Current and deposit accounts are usually easily identifiable. An investment account must also meet all of the other cash savings requirements to be considered as a bank/savings account for the purposes of the cash savings rules at paragraphs 11 and 11A(a).  
 
7.4.3. The following table illustrates all the requirements that must be met:

1 The bank/savings account is a current, deposit or investment account......

 

6 The savings are held in cash (or their cash value is clear)
7 The savings can be immediately withdrawn (with or without penalty)........

If the account meets these, and all the other, requirements and you can provide all the required documentation, then I think you can use it.

 

Maybe PM Thai Visa Express; Paul and Tony there both know more about this than I do.

[Tony M]

9 hours ago, JB300 said:

Sorry to snip your post but this particular part is of interest to me.

The >£62,500 in savings I have is in an "Offset" mortgage account basically cancelling out any money I owe on my mortgage (I.e. they pay me pennies in interest per year instead of me paying them £1000s).

This is with "One Account" (was Virgin now RBS) which unlike Barclays/Woolwich where the monies are held in a separate account, its in "virtual pots".

Anybody know if this would count as savings (have an ATM & Credit card I can spend/withdraw cash from the account) or would it be considered part of my mortgage & be considered as the £500 or so above the mortgage owed that I keep in it?

As I understand it, you still have a current account, and that account is "linked" to your mortgage ?  If that is so, then your current account, where your savings are held, should qualify. The requirements of FM-SE are specific - your savings must be in a  current, deposit or investment account.

[Trevor1809]

Is the point of earnings requirement not being missed if the passport is stamped no recourse to publinc funds. The earnings requirement might as well be £1.50, no recouse to public funds.

Iaine Dale presenter on LBC had a phone in on this subject the other evening. Normally he is a sane, respectable presented but even he displayed the type of bigotry that many who say keep immigrants out at all cost display. When presented by a woman from a support group with the fact that any immigrant can't claim any any benefits for at least 5 years he simply didn't believe it. He then stated that immigrants would dissapear into the black economy if they fell on hard times.

Like all the self employed builders, taxi drivers aren't part of the black economy.

The Government has succeeded with its intention of demonising spousal immigrants as layabout scroungers and nobody can see it.

[Tony M]

On 2/23/2017 at 8:15 AM, ThaiVisaExpress said:

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

 

 

 

Further to the above, the UKVI have today published details of a "pause" in "some" settlement application processing, while they consider the Supreme Court ruling, especially where children (and this may only mean British children, I think) are involved.  See the attachment.

We understand that the UKVI/Home Office may be considering exempting applicants from the financial threshold requirement (of 18,600 GBP a year, etc)  if there are (British) children involved. The applicant might then be able to qualify for a settlement visa if the sponsor can show that he can adequately support and accommodate the applicant ( as it used to be, before Appendix FM-SE was introduced in 2012).  I assume that couples without (British) child(ren) would still have to meet the full requirements of Appendix FM-SE.   We now wait to see what UKVI will come up with.

 

 

 

Tony M

[Tony M]

On 2/23/2017 at 8:15 AM, ThaiVisaExpress said:

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

 

 

 

Further to the above, the UKVI have today published details of a "pause" in "some" settlement application processing, while they consider the Supreme Court ruling, especially where children (and this may only mean British children, I think) are involved.  See the attachment.

We understand that the UKVI/Home Office may be considering exempting applicants from the financial threshold requirement (of 18,600 GBP a year, etc)  if there are (British) children involved. The applicant might then be able to qualify for a settlement visa if the sponsor can show that he can adequately support and accommodate the applicant ( as it used to be, before Appendix FM-SE was introduced in 2012).  I assume that couples without (British) child(ren) would still have to meet the full requirements of Appendix FM-SE.   We now wait to see what UKVI will come up with.

 

Edit :    The possible proposal appears to be that, if the threshold cannot be met, and the sponsor can demonstrate that he can adequately support and accommodate the applicant, then the applicant's route to ILR will be the 10 - year route, and not the normal 5  - year route.  I hasten to add that none of the above has been "officially" put forward as a proposal.  It is rumour, so far.

 

Tony M

[bobrussell]

I don't see where the nationality of the child is relevant as long as he or she is a dependent.

Not saying the UK government will not try it on but the rules have been deemed illegal where the interests of the child have not been considered appropriately.

The key thing is that the applicant must be able to show adequate support and accommodation. Quite right too!

Nice to see applicants can cancel the application but will not receive a refund! Heads they win, tails you lose!

Edited March 3, 2017 by bobrussell

[Tony M]

19 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

I don't see where the nationality of the child is relevant as long as he or she is a dependent.

Not saying the UK government will not try it on but the rules have been deemed illegal where the interests of the child have not been considered appropriately.

The key thing is that the applicant must be able to show adequate support and accommodation. Quite right too!

Nice to see applicants can cancel the application but will not receive a refund! Heads they win, tails you lose!

 

I agree (about the children).   Might see an increase in births soon, then !

[agudbuk]

Spouses of pensioners are effectively banned.