UKBA Income Threshold - Changes to Simplify Operation

[Terpe]

In previous news updates Theresa May has announced the publication of a number of new application forms.
The latest application forms released today can be found on the UKBA website or can be identified in this forum thread

She has also made reference to

changes to simplify the operation of the income threshold for sponsoring family migrants.

The way these 'simplified changes' have been worded is, IMHO, poorly done to the point of being ambigious.

Here's what's stated for salaried employment:-

2. In respect of salaried employment in the UK, all of the following evidence must be provided:

(a) Wage slips covering:

(i) a period of 6 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months (and where paragraph 13(b) of this Appendix does not apply); or
(ii) any period of salaried employment in the period of 12 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) of this Appendix), or in the financial year(s) relied upon by a self-employed person.

(b) A letter from the employer(s) who issued the wage slips at paragraph 2(a) confirming:

(i) the person's employment and gross annual salary;
(ii) the length of their employment;
(iii) the period over which they have been or were paid the level of salary relied upon in the application; and
(iv) the type of employment (permanent, fixed-term contract or agency).

(c) Personal bank statements corresponding to the same period(s) as the wage slips at paragraph 2(a), showing that the salary has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly.

Here's what paragraph 13 (a & b) states (in part)

13. Based on evidence that meets the requirements of this Appendix, and can be taken into account with reference to the applicable provisions of Appendix FM, gross annual income under paragraphs E-ECP.3.1., E-LTRP.3.1., E-ECC.2.1. and E-LTRC.2.1. will be calculated in the following ways:

(a) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months, their gross annual income will be (where paragraph 13(b) does not apply) the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from their employment as it was at its lowest level in the 6 months prior to the date of application;
(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and
(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

(b) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a)), their gross annual income will be the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from employment as it was at the date of application;
(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and
(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

I can't see anything that changes the existing financial requirement principles.

Now, whether or not these 'weasel words' infer a specific choice as to income review (category A or Category B) in terms of 6 month assessment or 12 month assessment remains to be seen.

I'll try and make some time to review all related documentation including the application forms.

What does everyone think?

[sheldon1]

Many thanks Terpe. I will be submitting my application on Monday. And i have to pay online now. So i take it my visa debt should suffice? That actually might be better. I can't improve on my letter from my employer just the rate of pay.hourly. The hours 60 all adds upto £20280. All my 6 months payslips are well above £1550 I am permanent etc. So we will see. With regard to the new rules. It looks like nothing has really changed where i am concerned. Many thanks again Terpe for your time and advice. It was really appreciated by my wife and i. I will keep you posted. Are they really brave enough to refuse my wife. But i will bring my kids anyway. My MP standing by. And Steven Nolan from BBC 5 live has expressed an interest. I can't do anymore. Thanks once again everybody!!!

[Terpe]

All best wishes and good luck Sheldon.
From what you've divulged it's hard to see any way you'll have a problem with the financials.

[Arthur Little]

What does everyone think?

... it's like "all Greek to me" and, simultaneosly, reading "Double Dutch" rolled into the one package! Thank heavens Myrna got HER Settlement Visa before this current rigmarole came into force!

[lastlid]

... it's like reading "Double Dutch" and, simultaneously, "all Greek" to me. Thank heavens Myrna got her Settlement Visa before the current rigmarole came into force!

Have a ciggie Arthur. It will all become clearer.

[raynaputi]

Have a ciggie Arthur. It will all become clearer.

[Arthur Little]

... ahhh ... [puff] ... ... bliss!

[lastlid]

Thankyou Rayna.

[Arthur Little]

Thankyou Rayna.

... might be wrong here ... but I suspect Rayna's use of appropriately wordless smilies in #6 above, was most probably another [polite] way of saying: "Oh no~oo ... - NOT AGAIN!"

[Arthur Little]

Have a ciggie Arthur. It will all become clearer.

... alas, I've had my daily cancer stick; time, now, to light my pipe - which will help me concentrate better ...

[sars_notd_virus]

Have a ciggie Arthur. It will all become clearer.

whats wrong with having a fag...you dont pay for it

[joebloggs]

i think these changes were made (as they come into effect immediately ) because in some circumstances they couldn't be met. for example the requirement was for self-employed people to provide audited accounts, but not all businesses have audited accounts. So, if audited accounts are not required by HMRC, then why should UKBA demand them, this has been changed now. also no longer need a certificate of registration with HMRC.

it looks like the ECO now has some new discretion to accept documents or not to accept them. He can now, if he wants, ask for more documents, or accept what you submit ( within certain limits), which he couldn't do before

[KeithD]

The wage figure should be subject to common sense as well rather than a fixed figure (which will be shown as illegal in the first test case against it, then more UKBA backlog as all the refused cases are reviewed again ).

For instance someone on disability allowances could be getting £16,000 a year and be allowed in, whereas someone working and getting £16,000 is refused!!!!

So if you are disabled you have a Right to Family Life under the Human Rights Act, if you are not and earn less than £18,600 then you don't! Anyone else see a major flaw in the rule?

[sars_notd_virus]

The wage figure should be subject to common sense as well rather than a fixed figure (which will be shown as illegal in the first test case against it, then more UKBA backlog as all the refused cases are reviewed again ).

For instance someone on disability allowances could be getting £16,000 a year and be allowed in, whereas someone working and getting £16,000 is refused!!!!

So if you are disabled you have a Right to Family Life under the Human Rights Act, if you are not and earn less than £18,600 then you don't! Anyone else see a major flaw in the rule?

yes the law should be fair, as with the EEA family permit who dont pay for any visa!!..british WAGS should have priorities whether earning or not or in any qualifying benefits

[andy222]

The wage figure should be subject to common sense as well rather than a fixed figure (which will be shown as illegal in the first test case against it, then more UKBA backlog as all the refused cases are reviewed again ).

For instance someone on disability allowances could be getting £16,000 a year and be allowed in, whereas someone working and getting £16,000 is refused!!!!

So if you are disabled you have a Right to Family Life under the Human Rights Act, if you are not and earn less than £18,600 then you don't! Anyone else see a major flaw in the rule?

It just needs someone with a top class lawyer to take the case on. I havnt seen any evidence of that yet. On the subject of your employer confirming your gross wage. How can they do that? They dont know what overtime you will do.

[Iani]

It just needs someone with a top class lawyer to take the case on. I havnt seen any evidence of that yet. On the subject of your employer confirming your gross wage. How can they do that? They dont know what overtime you will do.

My guess is they mean your basic gross wage, ie contracted hours. Huge worry for me because I don't have contracted hours to one of my employers. Granted I can prove I'm earning in excess of what they want - but my employer can't say "Ian earns x amount a year".

I spoke to an immigration advisor, and she said to simply have 6 months wageslips, along with a letter from the employer saying what the situation is, that there's no way I'd ever earn less the amount they need, and she said this should be fine, however personally, well - not sure about this one. My mp has asked for clarification, and it would be crazy to turn anyone down on that score, when these people can prove they are earning in excess and especially as so many government workers are on the same sort of employment - no fixed salary but likely to earn way in excess of their little plucked out of the air requirement figure

[Terpe]

My guess is they mean your basic gross wage, ie contracted hours. Huge worry for me because I don't have contracted hours to one of my employers. Granted I can prove I'm earning in excess of what they want - but my employer can't say "Ian earns x amount a year".

I spoke to an immigration advisor, and she said to simply have 6 months wageslips, along with a letter from the employer saying what the situation is, that there's no way I'd ever earn less the amount they need, and she said this should be fine, however personally, well - not sure about this one. My mp has asked for clarification, and it would be crazy to turn anyone down on that score, when these people can prove they are earning in excess and especially as so many government workers are on the same sort of employment - no fixed salary but likely to earn way in excess of their little plucked out of the air requirement figure

I would be very cautious about following the advice you've been given.
UKBA are very strictly following the stated rules.
There are many folks who have not been fully compliant with the stated requirements and are now left to face the consequences:-
Appeal and hang on for 7-9 months to hear a fail
or
Re-apply and provide the evidence they want.

I'm not commenting on the right or the wrong or the what might have been or lets hope and pray the ECO will show compassion etc.

I'm simply telling you the hard facts.
If you wish to mount that white charger and make a fight so be it
If you want to achieve that settlement visa with minimum fuss, stress and heartaches so be it, at least you know what you MUST do.

[cheekee]

So does this mean the freshold is still £18,600 You just have to show the evidence as stated in the changes ?

[Terpe]

So does this mean the freshold is still £18,600 You just have to show the evidence as stated in the changes ?

Yes, the thresholds are still the same.
Basically there is no change in terms of financials for the application.

[Iani]

Thanks for the advice.
Well, what it comes down to is, I earn in excess of the requirement - period. I can provide wageslips which will show this, 6 months or more if needed. I have two employers, one pays a fixed annual salary, lets say it's £17k. The other one is a part time job four evenings a week (or more when busy). This however does not pay a fixed yearly salary set in stone. The working hours can vary.
There is no way on earth they could ever dip enough to pay me less than I'd need to boost my income, and if anything we get requested to work extra hours. What the employer though can't say is "this is the yearly salary". The employer could say "the yearly salary would be in excess of", but not a fixed figure.

This is going to be the case for pretty much anyone getting a part time job I'd imagine. They tend not to have fixed hours contracted. This is the case in many in the restaurant industry, and I understand not uncommon in retail at all.

So does this mean we are going to be apart forever? Even though I earn probably near £24k per annum

Oh, not saying you or anyone else knows of course, I'm more thinking out loud

[Terpe]

.......So does this mean we are going to be apart forever? Even though I earn probably near £24k per annum

Oh, not saying you or anyone else knows of course, I'm more thinking out loud

You already know the detail of what UKBA wants to see as supporting evidence in meeting the Financial Requirement.

Even plenty of self-employed folks work on a cash basis and are able to be compliant.
When your time comes dig deep into the acceptable evidence that will be acceptable and you'll have no problems.

[cheekee]

On top of my regular job I work bank shifts as a nurse. I may do 3 or 4 extra shifts a month.

Will I be able to submit these "bank" payslips alongside my regular payslips when the time comes in the future to apply ?

My regular income is way above the required level but I would like to bolster my chances.

[Terpe]

On top of my regular job I work bank shifts as a nurse. I may do 3 or 4 extra shifts a month.

Will I be able to submit these "bank" payslips alongside my regular payslips when the time comes in the future to apply ?

My regular income is way above the required level but I would like to bolster my chances.

Yep

[andy222]

From what I have seen Bank hours are overtime and will be counted. Thats what I am doing. I hope.

[Iani]

Ok if it might be of use to anyone. I've spoken today to an immigration advisor, and she is insistent that these written criteria must be followed to the letter.

This means, you MUST have in your letter from your employer(s) your type of contract, how long you've worked there and what your yearly salary is.

If you cannot give a fixed yearly salary - this will cause your visa application to be rejected. Never mind if you earn half a million a year, it will be rejected and she has seen recently one such rejection.

So many workers in the NHS, restaurants, offshore ship workers - you can't have a visa.

[andy222]

You mean those on zero hour contracts?

[Iani]

Yes, that will cover zero hour contracts, anyone who doesn't have set in stone guaranteed working hours.

This is one area I genuinely think the government has overlooked, rather than deliberately set out to prohibit those applicants, after all this includes a huge chunk of government workers.

[Terpe]

Yes, that will cover zero hour contracts, anyone who doesn't have set in stone guaranteed working hours.

This is one area I genuinely think the government has overlooked, rather than deliberately set out to prohibit those applicants, after all this includes a huge chunk of government workers.

I think that's not correct.

[Iani]

I think that's not correct.

Which bit Terpe - the bit where anyone applying has to have set in stone guaranteed hours, which will give a definite figure for a yearly salary - or my guess that the government isn't deliberately trying to exclude these workers, but just didn't think it through in this case?

Now I don't know of course, I'm an accounts bod not a solicitor or immigration advisor (Although I sometimes wish I'd studied law, I think I'd have taken to that).

The only thing I can go by, is what others tell me - whether it's in this case an immigration advisor, or even from yourself as you seem to be in a position of knowledge on these matters.

I'm just a peasant

[joebloggs]

the changes on the 13th DEC I beleive have given ECO's some discretion in certain circumstances.
last thing they want is for it to go to appeal.