- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Surely it cant be the true that, as my wife is financially dependent on me, I have to prove that she has funds in her name too?IQU wrote:you should contact solvit www.solvit.ie
Is your wife`s EU1 application on hold due to this? How and why were you informed to have her name on your account? Did the EU treaty ask you to provide evidence of joint bank account with funds to complete your EU1 application? You need to give more information.keloid wrote:Surely it cant be the true that, as my wife is financially dependent on me, I have to prove that she has funds in her name too?IQU wrote:you should contact solvit www.solvit.ie
I am not sure the intent of those who framed the EU Directive includes telling applicants to have "joint" bank account. It should not be the prerogative of the INIS to assume that having joint account translates to having access to the same fund - a silly line of thinking.agniukas wrote:i think this is so that to show that your spouse as your dependant, has access to the funds that you hold. if you have a bank account and she has access to that bank account, that shows that she is your dependant, and you support her... that would be my thinking...
I am not sure the intent of those who framed the EU Directive includes telling applicants to have "joint" bank account. It should not be the prerogative of the INIS to assume that having joint account translates to having access to the same fund - a silly line of thinking.agniukas wrote:i think this is so that to show that your spouse as your dependant, has access to the funds that you hold. if you have a bank account and she has access to that bank account, that shows that she is your dependant, and you support her... that would be my thinking...
Very valid point. But it can be easily rectified imho by sending DOJ an attested letter stating he/she has access to those funds at any given time.agniukas wrote:i think this is so that to show that your spouse as your dependant, has access to the funds that you hold. if you have a bank account and she has access to that bank account, that shows that she is your dependant, and you support her... that would be my thinking...
If that is their thinking, then that is a warped logic and a silly way to think.fatty patty wrote:Very valid point. But it can be easily rectified imho by sending DOJ an attested letter stating he/she has access to those funds at any given time.agniukas wrote:i think this is so that to show that your spouse as your dependant, has access to the funds that you hold. if you have a bank account and she has access to that bank account, that shows that she is your dependant, and you support her... that would be my thinking...
There is nothing to say that this requirement is an obligation, at all. THe application form is silent on it. The CJEU is very liberal about where the source of finance comes from. Considering that ye are man and wife, it seems obvious that this is the account to be used. You have a legitimate complaintkeloid wrote:I'm British.
Wife is non-EU.
Want to apply for Residence Card on the basis that I'm exercising my EU Treaty Rights because I'm self-sufficient.
However, just been informed by INIS that all my bank accounts should be held jointly in both my name and my spouse's name. Is this correct? This can't be right. Surely as long I'm self-sufficient - and that I have enough money to cover my living expenses for me and my wife - that's acceptable. What difference does it make it my wife's name is on the accounts or not? Is this even a requirement?
These "rules" are provisions so that the State can be satisfied that they are actually living together as a couple. For many, yes, the PRTB issue is onerous, and a matter for the landlord, who may not have registered. But it is is, on paper a better proof than other proofs of living together, in a way. It is not a back door rule , as unreasonable as it might be. It is not overtly onerous requirement either.adlexy wrote:If that is their thinking, then that is a warped logic and a silly way to think.fatty patty wrote:Very valid point. But it can be easily rectified imho by sending DOJ an attested letter stating he/she has access to those funds at any given time.agniukas wrote:i think this is so that to show that your spouse as your dependant, has access to the funds that you hold. if you have a bank account and she has access to that bank account, that shows that she is your dependant, and you support her... that would be my thinking...
I dont see the sense in the argument that a Dependant MUST have access to your account or be listed on a joint account to prove that they have access to the funds. It doesnt make sense and the framers of the Directive did not ask for joint accounts - for the same reason!
It is just one of the many "rules" that these guys come up with all the time through the back door to torment people with silly requests.
And then they will soon ask for PRTB with both names listed