Government launches consultation on family route

[GrahamD85]

Don't UKBA make decisions based on individual cases? It just seems like hypocrisy to put in place new rules and then say that they may or may not apply depending on the situation.

[GrahamD85]

Hi guys, I've just had another thought. On page 22 of the consultation it says this:

"We have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee for advice on a new minimum income threshold for sponsors for maintenance and accommodation. We think that the level should be higher than that of the safety net of Income Support, which is how the courts have interpreted the current maintenance requirement under the Immigration Rules. It should represent what is needed, in the light of the cost of living in the UK, to support a spouse or partner (and dependants) at a reasonable level that helps to ensure they do not become a burden on the taxpayer and allows sufficient participation in everyday life to facilitate integration. We have asked the Migration Advisory Committee for advice. We have drawn their attention to the approach taken in some other countries. We will take account of their advice, which will be published, in setting the level of the new minimum income threshold."

Below that is a table that lists amounts in other countries a sponsor must have. These amounts are monthly or annual amounts that do not take into account mortgage/rent payments and council tax - they're just flat rates, such as "793 euros a month" or "5,349 euros per year".

Does this then mean the government will actually just be looking for one figure that the sponsor must earn without taking into account their personal living costs, or will they still use a system similar to the old one but with higher requirements? The current system, as mentioned previously, states that couples must have £105 per week after housing payments, but it also takes into account what the applicant is earning.

[MWill]

Below that is a table that lists amounts in other countries a sponsor must have. These amounts are monthly or annual amounts that do not take into account mortgage/rent payments and council tax - they're just flat rates, such as "793 euros a month" or "5,349 euros per year".

Does this then mean the government will actually just be looking for one figure that the sponsor must earn without taking into account their personal living costs, or will they still use a system similar to the old one but with higher requirements? The current system, as mentioned previously, states that couples must have £105 per week after housing payments, but it also takes into account what the applicant is earning.

You see to me, income threshold means "you must be earning over x amount a year". That's how it's done in other countries, like America. If they go that way, my guess - and this is purely a guess - would be something like "1.25 times the minimum wage", so you'd have to be earning over about £13,000 a year. Along those lines. Two people in a rented flat/terrace house could certainly live on that in the north - I know we could. You can even rent self-contained studio flats around London for around £400-450 a month.

I actually think using the "after housing costs" test can be misleading, because everyone budgets differently - we, for example, don't run a car, so our after-housing living costs are low. We could live on £105 a week after rent/tax quite comfortably, with at least £100 at the end of the month to do what we wanted with. But the money we save by not having a car, we spend on renting a nicer flat. Of course, if we downsized - knocked £100 a month off the rent - we'd have more left over, with no essentials to spend it on.

They say they want it to be a "clear test" for people, so sponsors and IOs know the limit. That to me suggests just looking at the salary, not doing complicated calculations involving living costs. I've no problem with them doing that way, as long as it isn't set too high. I just have a big problem with them not looking at the applicant's earnings/savings.

Worth mentioning that MigrationWatchUK - whose recent report on family migration is pretty much repeated in this consultation - suggested that, for a couple, the income threshold should be the equivalent of one full-time minimum-wage job. So £11,500. That organisation tend to be pretty keen on stamping out immigration wherever possible, so I'd be surprised if the government set it too far above that.

[GrahamD85]

It'd be interesting to see what mods and those who know the system very, very well think. Their guesses would hopefully be a bit more accurate than ours.

MWill, I here what you're saying regarding minimum income. My confusion comes from the part showing the housing costs being deducted, as it says there that they want the income level to be higher than the current level of income support we'd receive.

Higher in terms of the overall earnings per year (£5,000) or the amount that's left over weekly after rent/mortgage and council tax (£105)? If the paper was clear we wouldn't have to be fretting over this. It's having an impact on the decisions I'm making now with my life when I don't know if it should, which is incredibly frustrating.

[MWill]

MWill, I here what you're saying regarding minimum income. My confusion comes from the part showing the housing costs being deducted, as it says there that they want the income level to be higher than the current level of income support we'd receive.

Higher in terms of the overall earnings per year (£5,000) or the amount that's left over weekly after rent/mortgage and council tax (£105)? If the paper was clear we wouldn't have to be fretting over this. It's having an impact on the decisions I'm making now with my life when I don't know if it should, which is incredibly frustrating.

I don't think they're sure, to be honest. They've looked around at other countries and thrown in some ideas without really thinking them through. But when other countries do "income tests", it's to do with gross income.

I also don't know how they'll factor savings into this, as it does mention savings. My guess is something like this - if it's an annual amount and you're below it, work out the difference and then times it by 5 - if you have that much saved in your bank account, you're OK. So if your annual salary is £1,000 too low, you'd need £5,000 of savings to pass it. Again, all speculation.

[GrahamD85]

An annual income level would make sense, if that's the route they go down.

As soon as you start looking at what's left over after rent etc it makes no sense - people don't apply for rent and mortgages based on what one of them can afford if both are working steadily.

[midget]

An annual income level would make sense, if that's the route they go down.

As soon as you start looking at what's left over after rent etc it makes no sense - people don't apply for rent and mortgages based on what one of them can afford if both are working steadily.

If you look at page 22 of the consultation, part 2.21 they refer to both sponsor income and savings. This is purely speculation on my part, but I read that as fitting in with the maintenance requirements for other types of visas, where a certain level of savings has to have been held for say 3 months. If you think you might be affected it might be prudent to see what savings you can prove that you have available - keep official bank statements and keep that money above a certain balance - maybe use the Tier 2 maintenance requirements as a baseline.

Ultimately until the results of the consultation are in, and we know what the state of play is regarding the actual rules and who they apply to, there's not much else those of us already "in the process" can do, other than respond to the consultation and follow up with our MPs where appropriate. (speaking as a Brit with a partner on UPV - initial 2 years expiring in Jul 12)

[GrahamD85]

I doubt they'd need your bank account to remain above a certain level. Most people have a bank account and a savings account and therefore don't keep excess amounts in their bank accounts because they won't get decent interest on them.

You're right though, until the results come back in none of us know where we stand. Let's just hope their proposals are reasonable and aren't unrealistic.

For me, the most decent situation to come out of this, if there was one, would be a minimum income level that is set at an annual amount (i.e. minimum wage/£11,500) and savings if you can't make this figure (as MWill says.)

The idea of savings is that you use them someday, so it's unfair that everyone is required to have some level of savings. What if you just bought a car or used them for a big purchase?

[midget]

The idea of savings is that you use them someday, so it's unfair that everyone is required to have some level of savings. What if you just bought a car or used them for a big purchase?

For savings I'd go by the levels set for the Tier2 maintenance, which I think is £800 held for the previous 3 months...there may be an extra requirement if you have a dependant, but I've never looked too closely at the Tier 2 rules so can't say for sure.

I know people applying for Tier 2 have been caught out on not being able to prove they had that balance for the entire 3 month time period (in an account they could access so not shares or bonds), so my thoughts would be to make sure at the date my partner needs to renew his visa we can at least prove that amount.

And until the govt releases more info, cross my fingers on all the other possible changes

[GrahamD85]

Ahhhhh, I see what you're saying! Yes, I get an annual savings statement from my bank, so unless I went to the branch and asked every month for paper statements (which I don't even know if they do for savings accounts) I'd need to dump some in my regular debit account so it showed up on statements each month. Good thinking midget, I might have to do that once we know the new rules!

I've been thinking about the minimum income threshold some more (to be honest it hasn't left my head since last week.) Having let it all settle in I'm wondering if that will only apply to those bringing in a spouse/partner/family for FLR and would only apply in an ILR situation where the applicant (the non-Brit) doesn't earn in the UK.

The consultation document consistently states that migrants shouldn't be a burden on the taxpayer. Surely then, if I'm applying for ILR with my US girlfriend and we're both working we'd be exempt from the minimum income level provided we were both earning enough combined? The more I think about it, the more I think it would be insane to refuse people who don't meet it on their own but do combined. How can a migrant be a burden on the taxpayer when they're working?

[SSEF]

Dear All,

As you are already aware, an consultation has begun by government which propose a change in family route. As a whole, this would have a great impact on non-european nationals including spouses and elderly parents and relatives to enter, permanent stay and nationality. Also it could affect the family visitor as well.

Although some of the points raised like language skills, sham and forced marriages are for the welfare of general public but most of the rules once implemented would make the life pretty hard for genuine cases if in doubt.

What i have learnt from the English system especially related to immigration is that there is no way out once you get stranded and english courts itself find it difficult and hence only improvise the law except in very few cases where either authority is under no influence or there is a great degree of uncertainity and pressure involved through an community or group.

Once implemented, it will make the situation worse especially for spouses or partners come from outside as around 80% of them been abused by immediate family members whether male or female. The reason behind this is that many british partners who marry outside because of one or other weaknesses dont work or pay attention to family commitments hence leave no choice other than for their partner to take whole responsibily which make him or her to suffer physically and mentally.As being socially active in society, i feel that atleast a person under the current rules could raise a voice once get settled or in extreme could take a unavoidable decision to protect him or her. Even under the current rules under two year probation i have gone through so many domestic voilence cases where family in uk has continuosly abused the victim knowing a favour from immigration system which has nothing for the victim but only reward is deportation. You can eaisly imagine how would that be in 5 year probation.

I am fully aware that this is one way to look at the proposal but believe me this side is much more heavier(90%), if you smell real world.

I hereby request all of you to take part in consultation and raise the voice whether related or not especially on probation from 2 to 5 years for spouses,elderly dependent family and forced marriges. You can eaisly take part in consultation by clicking the link below.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/famil ... on-consult

Thank You,

Regards,
SainiJK

Please note the bold - this is a problem within certain eithnic minorities - therefore the new rules will stop this.

As for raising 2 to 5 then this will also stop male bridegrooms coming over here thinking all they have to do is 2 years and then they are free to call for their "new" wife back home...

Sorry but it's certain minorities that have made this happen and its these minorities that are doing all the whining on this forum!

If someone can state a figure such as 80% then something is wrong in that culture! Very very wrong!

You can consult all you like, but I personally think the decision has been made, same as with students, Tier 1 and PSW visa...

Wait untill they start raising the age of elderly parents (in line with pension age) and instisting on private insurance..that will be next.

Oh and the person who thinks he can live in the "North" on £13,000 per year is living in a dream land...does he think that we live on fresh air!!!!

Oh and please dont call me dearly beloved because of my use of "minorities" because some of closest friends have been close to saying goodbye to England because of the Tier 2 changes, fortunately they're been lucky!

[GrahamD85]

Perhaps you could explain exactly what you're talking about so others can engage in conversation with you.

I'm from Middlesbrough so I'm about as far up north as you can get an know the economy there well. You wouldn't have much spare money, but a couple can survive quite easily on £13,000 depending where in the north you mean. £13,000 is more than minimum wage.

Me and my US girlfriend lived on £16,000 between us in a nice neighbourhood in Manchester for well over a year. We budgeted, watched our accounts and adjusted our lifestyle accordingly.

[MWill]

Oh and the person who thinks he can live in the "North" on £13,000 per year is living in a dream land...does he think that we live on fresh air!!!!

For the record, my wife's American. We live in the midlands, and yes, I reckon we could live on £13,000.

That's about £880 a month after tax, even with student loan and pension taken out. You can rent a decent flat for around £300 a month, then less than £100 a month on council tax. The leaves about £490 a month left. We don't run a car, so bills, food and essentials together add up on average to at most £350 a month. That leaves £140 a month spare to spend on what you want. So yes, we could quite happily live on that.

Having said that ... Next year 1.25 times minimum wage would be around £14,800. Maybe that's the sort of figure we'll be looking at.

[GrahamD85]

Hi guys,

I posted the following message on another forum recently to spark some debate over the consultation and what it might mean. I know I've chipped in more than anyone on this thread, and please forgive me if there is any repetition, but I thought some might be interested in what I thought and how I'd personally interpreted the consultation.

For the last couple of days I've been going through the consultation document to try and make sense of it. Having read it a few times now there are things I agree with and things I disagree with, as well as things I understand clearly and things I don't.

I personally don't mind the increase of probation from two years to five before ILR. I do think it would be much better if there wasn't yet another extortionate fee in between FLR(M) and ILR, but the rule itself doesn't seem too harsh considering this government, like those that went before it, seem intent on hugely cutting down those who come here. I personally think if two people really love each other that much then it's not the end of the world for them to have to wait a little longer, as long as they know that they will receive ILR. It may or may not crack down on sham marriages, but we'll see. I think UKBA has a mammoth task on their hands if they want to really restrict forced and sham marriages, but as long as genuine couples are not refused because of potential new rules on this I don't mind that either.

The main thing I think the consultation isn't clear on is the minimum income threshold. The paper is never clear on how a minimum income threshold for the sponsor would be applied. If the applicant (the non-Brit) is either coming in from outside the UK and therefore doesn't have a current job, or is in the UK but doesn't earn I would imagine immigration officers would want to see the sponsor meet the income required. What I don't get is whether the sponsor would have to meet a minimum income requirement at ILR if the applicant was working in the UK already. If the applicant is earning in the UK will the system be the same as it currently is, i.e. the earnings and savings of both sponsor and applicant are taken into account? It would seem ludicrous for Damian Green to talk about how migrants shouldn't be a burden on the taxpayer, but refuse ILR for a couple where the non-Brit applicant is earning and working in a steady job.

When the consultation states the new proposal on minimum income will "take into account only the income and cash savings (including in a joint account with the spouse or partner) of the UK-based sponsor" does it mean job offers and potential earnings for migrants won't be good enough anymore? I initially thought it meant that a migrant currently applying for ILR from within the UK with a job would not have their earnings considered, but that would be ridiculous."

Comments, agreements, disagreements and whatever else all welcome

[maxiy]

What about the ILR Rule for people married outside the UK for 4 years,

I'm sure that they will remove this Option but do you think that they will still apply it but with more period like 5+ years or it will removed completely.

Any Advice will be appreciated.

Also , In case someone apply during the coming 6 month using the 4 years rule, do you think that the UKBA will give him the ILE/ILR or what.

[sainijk]

Please note the bold - this is a problem within certain eithnic minorities - therefore the new rules will stop this.

As for raising 2 to 5 then this will also stop male bridegrooms coming over here thinking all they have to do is 2 years and then they are free to call for their "new" wife back home...

Sorry but it's certain minorities that have made this happen and its these minorities that are doing all the whining on this forum!

If someone can state a figure such as 80% then something is wrong in that culture! Very very wrong!

You can consult all you like, but I personally think the decision has been made, same as with students, Tier 1 and PSW visa...

Wait untill they start raising the age of elderly parents (in line with pension age) and instisting on private insurance..that will be next.

Oh and the person who thinks he can live in the "North" on £13,000 per year is living in a dream land...does he think that we live on fresh air!!!!

Oh and please dont call me dearly beloved because of my use of "minorities" because some of closest friends have been close to saying goodbye to England because of the Tier 2 changes, fortunately they're been lucky![/quote]

My dear friend,

Not for the sake of argument, just think if one of your neighbour needs help but he/she can't ask, you want to help but you can't. I have been in that situation so many times. Well, I and you can't change minorites or ethnic groups not even the system but atleast can help someone as being an human being.

Where do you think it could stop the abuse by lengthning the time. Which culture we are talking about? How many relationships survive in british culture. If changing the system is to stop the benefits then atleast one of the british as being an single parent goes on benefit straightaway for life once the relationship break and how long their relationship survive, i think i don't need to explain.

If changing the system is to stop the chain of people coming in here then i am sorry to say how many EEA national are coming in this country and what most of them are contributing to this country could be seen on the streets. What is the proportion of married people who come to this country to those who come here with family then goes on family benefit and then send back the family home and live happily on taxpayers money and the portion of which they send back home every week to feed the family.

Sorry, if i hurt anyone.

Thank You,

Regards,
SainJK

[aosun007]

Will extending the probationary period from 2years to 5 years prevent sham marriage.
No.it will only expose degree of inefficiency of HO to detect sham marriage.

[greatxander]

Will extending the probationary period from 2years to 5 years prevent sham marriage.
No.it will only expose degree of inefficiency of HO to detect sham marriage.

true.

[leeloo]

I was very upset to see those changes-to-be-implemented and can't really see this new scheme to be working.
The only positive thing I can think of is changes in requirements for the English language, which is really essential as people are going to live in the UK and need to integrate, get a job etc.
Changes in probationaty period - could be a good thing in case, for instance, the HO had a right to prolonge the settlement visa from 2 to 5 years without giving ILR, and that would be applied only for those whose marriage/relationship was still doubtful. For all the rest those changes lead to more unecessary hassle, as families will be tied to the UK soil, having no chance going somewhere (you know that there are lots of people getting short/long-term jobs overseas, and once you've left the country you'd have to start from scratch).

I strongly believe that people seeking for abuse of the system will go for EU marriage/settlement. It's easier and cheaper, and once they've got EEA/EU docs they can move to the UK, so I don't think it's really the way the UK wants to tackle the problems with sham marriages.
I can only see that normal people will be affected and will defenitely struggle to get things sorted by themselves, hence they'd have to pay lots for the lawyers...

[aaaaaa123]

I would like to know how will my weekly savings be worked out if i pay my bill every 3 months. The bills is £600after 3 months. Will they work
it out as 200 each month and add rent to it then work out my weekly savings. At the moment th weekly amount is £105.95 for a couple. If you have saved that amount after bill and rent and you spend from that £105.95. Is that allowed? Do you have to prove on your bank statement that u have saved the weekly amount but you spent some of it or does your visas get refused because that money is not being shown on the statement to the person who deals with your case
Thank for your help

[rexjacobs]

"Currently a parent or grandparent can come to the UK to settle if they are aged 65 or over,...in particular at whether the relative aged 65 or over is necessarily 'dependent' on the UK-based sponsor... for example by being sent money by their relative in the UK.

This change if implemented is highly discriminatory and against human rights of several families. I am the only child of my parents. My father spent his youth working hard, providing for his family, and saving money for my education. My mother is fully dependent on him, financially and also for day to day activities outside the house. My mother is not well educated and my father has been protective towards her all his life. Today they are 75 and 65 years old respectively. They are very independent and lead a busy life. But if my father died, there is no way that my mother can survive on her own in my home country. I do not depend on public funds, have worked 12 years legally non stop, paid NI. I don't think it is humane to force old parents to live by themselves instead of being with their children, especially when their child is independent and able to support them. Am I supposed to only pay NI for all the yobs who live off benefits but struggle to get my parent into this country to live with me?
I know that in past UKBA has suggested that one can go a live with old parents rather than bring them here. Which means my partner and I have to quit our jobs, sell house, move schools for our children, cause all the chaos rather than bring one person into this country. If we moved from the UK then in future we could face more complicated legal issues to come back.

[GrahamD85]

@aaaaaa123, the amount is currently calculated by taking your weekly wage and taking from it your council tax and rent to see if you have £105 remaining each week. You don't need to save that amount of money or keep it aside.

For example, if you earn £300 a week and rent/council tax is £175 a week, you'd have £125 a week remaining which would be acceptable.

Nobody knows how they're going to bring in a minimum income, how much it will be, whether it will affect those already enroute to ILR or whether those with spouses and partners already in the UK and working will have their combined income taken into account.

[vinny]

Pre-testing of English is currently under legal challenge. Abandoning the Life in the UK test should be a good step.

[MWill]

One thing I hadn't really thought of until now, which is slightly worrying - the idea (not even a definite proposal, they're just asking for opinions) of basing part of the system on the Danish system.

Basically it's a "balance of attachment" test that means the couple would have to show a significantly stronger attachment to the UK than to any other country. For a lot of couples that would be downright impossible - any couple who met online or on holiday and haven't lived together yet, or have been living together in another country, wouldn't meet the criteria, as the attachment would be split 50/50 or weighted towards another country. So they wouldn't be able to live together in the UK.

That's ridiculous, surely? It's the ultimate Catch-22 - you need to show ties to the UK to live here, but you can't have any ties here until you have lived here!

In Denmark this doesn't apply if the sponsor is a citizen of over 28 years old, but a lot of younger couples would really suffer with this. For those already here it's not an issue (they clearly have ties - they're living here!), but for those looking to bring spouses over it could be a nightmare.

[davidr28]

As for opinion this would be going great for every family man. the proposals are good, But if implemented on it's requirements then