Only for queries regarding Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Please use the EU Settlement Scheme forum for queries about settled status under Appendix EU
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
-
saj19
- Newbie
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Post
by saj19 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:13 am
Hi All
Could anyone please provide the revised fees for ILR application for the main applicant and a dependent (wef 6th April), if applied in person
is it
Main Applicant --> 1051 + 375
Dependent --> 788 + 375
Regards
-
go2khurram
- Member of Standing
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:01 pm
- Location: UK
Post
by go2khurram » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:17 am
saj19 wrote:Hi All
Could anyone please provide the revised fees for ILR application for the main applicant and a dependent (wef 6th April), if applied in person
is it
Main Applicant --> 1051 + 375
Dependent --> 788 + 375
Regards
details are
here
-
saj19
- Newbie
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Post
by saj19 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:52 am
Thanks mate
-
sayome_now
- Junior Member
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:14 pm
Post
by sayome_now » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:23 pm
@ saj19
That is my interpretation of it as well... That is really unfair!
Anyone has a different opinion/interpretation?
-
uksettlement
- Senior Member
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:07 pm
- Location: London
-
Contact:
![India India](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/in.png)
Post
by uksettlement » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:41 pm
Well its a business so they need to make money from the system. Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
Thanks!
Disclaimer: I am no immigration lawyer nor am I OISC qualified. Suggestions given by me are based on personal experience of dealing with UKBA. Don't treat my advice as a substitute for legal opinion.
-
fomsand1
- Junior Member
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:12 am
Post
by fomsand1 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:31 pm
Oh! and dont forget the £100 booking fee on top of the standard fee + the API fee of 375
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Happy days for UKBA
-
sayome_now
- Junior Member
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:14 pm
Post
by sayome_now » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:30 pm
@ fomsand1
I thought it says £375 includes the booking fee of £100. Or am I reading it wrong?
-
Casa
- Moderator
- Posts: 25769
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:32 pm
![United Kingdom United Kingdom](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/gb.png)
Post
by Casa » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:42 pm
You're correct. The £375 includes the £100 booking fee.
-
aruni4470
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:54 pm
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Post
by aruni4470 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:48 pm
uksettlement wrote:Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
We are the customers of that business
-
kathir2907
- Newly Registered
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:34 pm
Post
by kathir2907 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:22 pm
Obviously the fees are quite high at the moment and increasing that make it worse, it's nothing wrong in expressing our views as we are the victim of it. UK government can treat it as business but the system is totally unfair without doubt.
-
uksettlement
- Senior Member
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:07 pm
- Location: London
-
Contact:
![India India](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/in.png)
Post
by uksettlement » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:47 pm
aruni4470 wrote:uksettlement wrote:Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
We are the customers of that business
True but here is the customer really the king?
Thanks!
Disclaimer: I am no immigration lawyer nor am I OISC qualified. Suggestions given by me are based on personal experience of dealing with UKBA. Don't treat my advice as a substitute for legal opinion.
-
aruni4470
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:54 pm
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Post
by aruni4470 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:49 pm
uksettlement wrote:aruni4470 wrote:uksettlement wrote:Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
We are the customers of that business
True but here is the customer really the king?
Certainly not. The customer is never a king in a monopoly.
-
Hopeful2
- Member
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:58 am
Post
by Hopeful2 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:55 pm
I posted details of the proposed fees on the forum last night and someone deleted it. Please see below details of everything I posted last night:
Hello all, just thought I would share this with you - subject to Parliamentary approval, with effect from 6 April 2013 (and 1 July 2013 for a select few) the following fees have been proposed:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... 9-new-fees. If approved, this will obviously put a strain on the purses of future applicants so please advise any potential applicants you know so they can start saving for any applications they may be making after this date.
Details of proposed fees in the written ministerial statement below:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... rging-wms/
Full timetable of proposed fees below:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary
-
CD_April2013ILR
- Junior Member
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:18 pm
Post
by CD_April2013ILR » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:15 pm
Hope the fees is as below for PEO appointments from 6th April, 2013 in pounds
1051 + 375 for 1 main and 0 dependants
1051 + 788 + 375 for 1 main and 1 dependant
1051 + 788 + 788 + 375 for 1 main and 2 dependants......
And so on
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Regards
-
aruni4470
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:54 pm
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Post
by aruni4470 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:23 pm
As per my understanding..
1051 + 375 for 1 main and 0 dependants
1051 + 788 + 375 + 375 for 1 main and 1 dependant
1051 + 788 + 788 + 375 +375 + 375 for 1 main and 2 dependants......
-
stokbrig
- Member
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:04 pm
- Location: UK
Post
by stokbrig » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:36 pm
[quote="aruni4470"]As per my understanding..
1051 + 375 for 1 main and 0 dependants
1051 + 788 + 375 + 375 for 1 main and 1 dependant
1051 + 788 + 788 + 375 +375 + 375 for 1 main and 2 dependants.....which is £3752!
Last edited by
stokbrig on Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
sayome_now
- Junior Member
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:14 pm
Post
by sayome_now » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:42 pm
The proposal reads "For applications made in person (e.g. at a public enquiry office) the total fee is the relevant standard fee plus £375 per person (this includes the £100 appointment fee, which may be retained should the applicant fail to attend their appointment without good reason)."
-
[iD]
- Senior Member
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:36 am
Post
by [iD] » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:02 am
What I fail to understand is the fact that it costs them £403 to process the ILR applications for the main applicants but they want to charge us £1,051 (+£375 if in person).
HOW RIDICULOUS IS THAT?!!!?!
Goodluck.
-
Amber
- Moderator
- Posts: 17485
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: England, UK
- Mood:
![United Kingdom United Kingdom](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/gb.png)
Post
by Amber » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:18 am
uksettlement wrote:Well its a business so they need to make money from the system. Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
Disagree, the ukba is not a business it's a public body. It is not required to make profit. Furthermore, in a time of hardship fees should not be increased, they should be at the most frozen. The ukba already makes substantial revenue for the treasury. It is unacceptable to penalise people at a time of economic downturn when the individual has no option but to pay the fee. If they refuse the are deemed to be an overstayer and are committing an offence. This is just asking people to get further into debt.
-
uksettlement
- Senior Member
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:07 pm
- Location: London
-
Contact:
![India India](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/in.png)
Post
by uksettlement » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:50 am
D4109125 wrote:uksettlement wrote:Well its a business so they need to make money from the system. Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
Disagree, the ukba is not a business it's a public body. It is not required to make profit. Furthermore, in a time of hardship fees should not be increased, they should be at the most frozen. The ukba already makes substantial revenue for the treasury. It is unacceptable to penalise people at a time of economic downturn when the individual has no option but to pay the fee. If they refuse the are deemed to be an overstayer and are committing an offence. This is just asking people to get further into debt.
It was a sarcastic remark dude!
Thanks!
Disclaimer: I am no immigration lawyer nor am I OISC qualified. Suggestions given by me are based on personal experience of dealing with UKBA. Don't treat my advice as a substitute for legal opinion.
-
Amber
- Moderator
- Posts: 17485
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: England, UK
- Mood:
![United Kingdom United Kingdom](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/gb.png)
Post
by Amber » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:41 am
uksettlement wrote:D4109125 wrote:uksettlement wrote:Well its a business so they need to make money from the system. Who are we to decide if its fair or not?
Disagree, the ukba is not a business it's a public body. It is not required to make profit. Furthermore, in a time of hardship fees should not be increased, they should be at the most frozen. The ukba already makes substantial revenue for the treasury. It is unacceptable to penalise people at a time of economic downturn when the individual has no option but to pay the fee. If they refuse the are deemed to be an overstayer and are committing an offence. This is just asking people to get further into debt.
It was a sarcastic remark dude!
Glad to here it and I'm not a dude.