Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all
Dont know if it has been discussed before but i wanted to know when and how much is the threshold going to be changed.
What happened in 2012 ?
I am not in Uk so dont know a lot.
Was it the same government who introduced the 18600 threshold.
What was the threshold before 2012.
Just thinking how much they increased then and how much can they increase now.
When was the first time it announced in 2012 or 2011 that they will increase the threshold.
and when did it finally happen.
What are the chances now of it happening?

i hope i didnt ask a stupid question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,103 Posts
Not a stupid one but impossible to answer, as we don't know. With a minority government, I'd have thought they are more pressing things to do, such as getting prime legislation through like the budget and keeping the Labour Party at bay, or Tory leadership challenge. So I don't foresee early change. If they do decide to change the financial requirement, the least they can do is to keep pace with inflation since 2012, which will raise it towards £20,000 mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,882 Posts
Not a stupid one but impossible to answer, as we don't know. With a minority government, I'd have thought they are more pressing things to do, such as getting prime legislation through like the budget and keeping the Labour Party at bay, or Tory leadership challenge. So I don't foresee early change. If they do decide to change the financial requirement, the least they can do is to keep pace with inflation since 2012, which will raise it towards £20,000 mark.

To say nothing if the Brexit negotiations which start in a few days. The government has far more pressing issues to worry about than increasing the threshold.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
I hope they never increase it.
That's never going to happen... £18.6k is barely enough for two people to live on, especially in London, and given that Spousal Visa holders aren't entitled to go on Benefits/Public Funds, the government is going to need to ensure that visa holders and their sponsors have enough money on which to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leanna

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
That's never going to happen... £18.6k is barely enough for two people to live on, especially in London, and given that Spousal Visa holders aren't entitled to go on Benefits/Public Funds, the government is going to need to ensure that visa holders and their sponsors have enough money on which to live.
I agree. However having a threshold limit is pretty pointless. A sponsor who earns the minimum of £18.6k is irrelevant if he/she has a mortgage, car payments and debts that means that one sponsor is living on the bread line in London, compared to someone in the north of England who own their own home, car and who may earn considerably less than the threshold but has more more money left each month to live on.

As it stands, a visa holder is not entitled to public benefits, thats a show stopper in its own right.

What I would propose is something along the lines of a Visa Insurance program for those that are unable to meet the threshold (or much higher threshold).
The sponsor pays a monthly fee into an insurance that guarantees that the visa holder has a pot of money equal to the threshold limit. The insurance payments are locked into the visa and payable to the government and the payment are non refundable.

If the sponsor fails to make the insurance payment then the visa is immediately invalid and the visa holder has 28 days to leave the country.

Could also be a money earner for the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
I agree. However having a threshold limit is pretty pointless. A sponsor who earns the minimum of £18.6k is irrelevant if he/she has a mortgage, car payments and debts that means that one sponsor is living on the bread line in London, compared to someone in the north of England who own their own home, car and who may earn considerably less than the threshold but has more more money left each month to live on.

As it stands, a visa holder is not entitled to public benefits, thats a show stopper in its own right.

What I would propose is something along the lines of a Visa Insurance program for those that are unable to meet the threshold (or much higher threshold).
The sponsor pays a monthly fee into an insurance that guarantees that the visa holder has a pot of money equal to the threshold limit. The insurance payments are locked into the visa and payable to the government and the payment are non refundable.

If the sponsor fails to make the insurance payment then the visa is immediately invalid and the visa holder has 28 days to leave the country.

Could also be a money earner for the government.
I agree with the financial threshold being somewhat arbitrary.

However, having some form of insurance program where by those who aren't earning enough to meet the threshold have to then pay premiums on top of visa fees sounds a bit like marginalising those who earn less.

Granted I don't have the answer to the question, but given that visa holders don't have recourse to public funds, surely that's all is required? It's then up to the sponsor and applicant to decide whether then can afford to live here without that safety net. But then I don't buy into the whole "Immigrants are stealing our jobs and taking advantage of the benefits system" that the Daily Mail print. Immigrants have shown to be of net economic benefit to the UK (both EU and non-EU).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
It also begs the question as to how are they going to enforce the "insurance" program if someone defaults on the payments?

They (the Home Office) has a hard enough time enforcing people to keep to their reporting conditions (people who are here illegally/asylum seekers etc are often required to check in at a designated "reporting centre" until their cases are heard/paperwork by which to send them back to their home country has been received etc)... trying to track down and enforce these insurance payments would be more hassle than they have the manpower to deal with.

Also, where's the incentive to keep paying monthly? So the visa is approved, the sponsor pays a couple of months worth of premiums and then, suddenly stops paying on the premiums; Home Office invalidates the visa and sends a notice of deportation to the visa holder etc; who's to say that the notice of deportation is received by the visa holder?; by the time the Home Office finally catches up with the visa holder to try to collect, who's to say that they've not absconded or just fallen through the cracks and disappeared, never to be seen again.

You've got a good idea in theory but on practicalities, there's an enormous amount of trust being placed by the Home Office on the Applicant and Sponsor with no real guarantee that they'll comply with their end of the bargain and at the end of the day, there's no way to screen out or differentiate the legitimate applicants from those who are desperate enough to get to the UK that they'll resort to using deception/fraud or whatever means necessary to get into the country and stay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,558 Posts
I agree with WCCG, the idea of "insurance" is an interesting concept but it adds a lot of administrative overhead to the Home Office. It also doesn't really make sense because the applicant and sponsor are required to show they have the ability to support themselves BEFORE being granted entry clearance; once they are living together in the UK there is little enjoyment in breaking apart their relationship due to a sudden inability to meet the requirement (hence the likelihood of being placed on the 10-year route to ILR, rather than being removed from the UK).

I'm all for a financial requirement, because I think it's important that a couple be able to support themselves above the poverty level. However, rather than reducing the salary requirement, I hope that UKVI will take into account the Supreme Court's recommendation to allow for 3rd party financial support and (possibly) the foreign spouse's earning potential. As it stands, the British sponsor's sole income isn't a great indicator of a couple's ability to maintain themselves. I came form a 6-figure executive position in IT, but my husband's meagre salary wasn't terribly far above the financial requirement. An ancestry visa applicant is required to show their willingness and ability to find employment in the UK - I think it would make sense to include that employment potential into a spouse visa (if the British sponsor didn't meet the income requirement). Of course, it does open the application to a more subjective interpretation, and thus could lead to more appeals being filed which may be more difficult to defend from the ECO's end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
924 Posts
I am with Clever on this one. The British spouses ability alone is not sufficient in determining the financial position of the couple. Heck, even if the partner gets a minimum wage job, that's 12 K a year on top of the British partners' earnings right there.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top