DaveLovesDee

I think the government's trying to get everyone to use an immigration lawyer, without actually admitting that to be an objective.

rebeccajo

Hi englishguy -

The rules say "specified savings". Which gives much leeway for IDI "policy".

englishguygoinghome

In appendix FM, but then there is FM-SE which does the specifying.

Two examples - the idi states that rental income cannot be from a lodger but neither FM or fm-se state this. The idi specifically states you cannot combine savings and self-employed income but again, nothing in the rules.

rebeccajo

But do the rules also not say "specified income"? I'm not home where I've access to my bookmarks.

As long as ambiguous terminology like "specified" or "required" are used, the IDI's can be rewritten, modified and changed - as is the intent. It's not unlike US immigration matters. You have the law and then you have policy memoranda. Policy will always just be a reflection of the law.

alliekat

"Specified savings" and other acceptable forms of income are spelled out in the IDI. Additionally, it explicitly states that ANY sources of income not specifically stated as acceptable are in no uncertain terms - completely NOT acceptable.

Section 5.4.3: "Income from the following sources will not be counted towards the financial requirement:"

....."Any other source of income not specified as counting towards the financial requirement." (emphasis added)

There is absolutely NO leeway.

You are only permitted sources specifically laid out in this document, and the IO has no leeway or discrepancy to do anything other than ask you for more information if you have not submitted enough of something. I am, however, reading stories of applications being flat out denied for lacking a single document.

This would lead me to believe that if you fail to provide any required document, this will lead to a denial, however, if you submitted required documents and they require additional information relating to a submitted document, then they have the leeway to ask you for more information.

The above theory on missing documentation is my own theory, and I have not found nor do I have any access to tangible proof that this in fact the case. I have extrapolated this information based on denial experiences I have been reading on this and other forums/discussion boards in combination with (what I think could be) strict interpretation of the rules to the "letter" of the law. I did attend law school (I am NOT a lawyer), so reading legal documents and how they might legally be construed is something I have a bit of training in. That said, it does not make me an expert on these laws nor this field, so any information I provide/lend to this discussion is purely a citizen/layman's interpretation.

=)

alliekat

IMHO, the laws/rules are VERY straight forward, albeit excessively restrictive and lacking common sense in many cases - as is often the case with laws, legal precedent and the legal profession in general.

I don't think you need to be an immigration lawyer, or any other kind of lawyer to read the rules that have been constructed. While it can certainly be daunting to try and read/absorb information that is too voluminous and/or includes unfamiliar subject matter or terminology, it is a non-emotional "slow and steady wins the race" frame of mind that can allow for accurate and clear readings of any laws/regulations. That said, laws/policy are generally open to interpretation, and even an attorney can do no more than offer his/her subjective, albeit trained (and hopefully experienced) opinion on the possible directions interpretation and application of regulations.

In the case of the July UK Immigration laws, it is my opinion that there is very little (if any) room for interpretation by immigration officers. Because of this, I think it is possible for a layman reader to gain an accurate picture of expectations and where/when discretion or leeway by an IO is permitted.

I think what we all do, as is in human nature, is to find a way to ease the burden/impact of what we perceive as unreasonable. This is why we try to keep up hope and find work-arounds to rules that don't sit well with us.

The bottom line, is that the rules, though unreasonable and inflexible, are the rules, plain and simple. Application policies (applying the rules) can be accessed and parsed through for the layman to gain a fairly accurate assessment of where he or she stands.

But again, just my humble opinion.

holly_1948

I'm guessing, but I would wager a modest sum that it would come down to whether there is a separate address. For example 10a Farm Road and 10b Farm Road. And the simple litmus for that is whether or not the tenant pays their own council tax.

As to appeals -it is getting more like the American system where the merits of the case count for little; it is getting a hearing in a sympathetic forum that is key. And keeps the good attorneys busy and makes it crucial not to hire a bad or lazy attorney (which is most of them).

Which is presumably an attraction of the Surinder Singh route. An Irish driving licence works throughout the Common Travel Area while things are pending.

englishguygoinghome

Yes, but they are also spelled out very clearly in the rules in Appendix FM-SE. In some cases the IDI and FM-SE are different.

Hence my concern that the IO/ECO will follow the IDI to the letter and deny an applicaiton without realising that the rules are equally specific but would lead to the applicaiton being approved if followed.

rebeccajo

englishguy - Without appearing to seem unsympathetic, (cause you know what I think of these damnable changes), I want to say that I don't see this issue as odd at all. I guess I feel that way because of my experience with the US system.

Over here we have the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) - in the UK I would consider rules laid before Parliament in the form of Statements to be comparable to the INA. IMO, both are the basic framework of the law.

Then, the US system then goes further and applies the FAM (Field Adjudicator's Manual) which I would consider to be comparable to Home Office IDI's. The FAM and IDI's instruct ECO's on how to specifically achieve the goals of the law.

In the US, the FAM is more often modified than the INA.

Politically, I think what you are seeing in Britian (by the laying of several sets of rules since July) is every attempt by the Home Office to say that the rules have been legally blessed. Thus making court challenges more problematic. I find this more problematic than perceived differences in the Rules and the IDI's. My hope is they shoot themselves in the foot by spinning too complicated a web.

tomkent45

If you ask me the whole visa processing is a money making machine, they charge up to £1000 on a service that was once free.Not to mention the application might even get rejected. Where is the justification for this? bunch of pencil pushers. People who legaly have the right to live here at times can't make the payment after payment. The prices rise and the service just keep getting worst

rebeccajo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20207357

alliekat

Appalling.

SanDiegogirl

It is a well know fact that the majority of health care costs are spent in the last 2 to 5 years of one's life. People in long term care (nursing homes/assisted living) can be in those facilities for 10, 20 years or more.

The average age of death for women these days is 83.

The lady in this article is 64. While her daughter and son in law have said they would be willing to pay for private insurance for her for, say 5 years, and she herself has savings which she is willing to use for her health and care costs, she, potentially, could be using the NHS and public services from 69 onwards. That could mean up to 14 years of costs. She may or may not have good health in her old age. Would her son and daughter in law be prepared to pay for medical and possibly long term care for a further 14 years? I doubt it very much.

Being a resident of the UK will mean that she will be eligible for all public services, even though she has not paid a cent in taxes.

The main reason why most British immigrants to the US don't bring their aging parent to the US, is because of medical costs - aging relatives always need medical services.

Unlike the UK health system which is based on residency, the US one is based on contributions to the system. Paid your Medicare tax while in work? Then you get Medicare (a government health run system) when you are 65. People coming to the US who don't have the necessary contributions are not, at first, eligible for Medicare and have to pay for private insurance.

Even after 5 years of residency when you MAY become eligible for Medicare, you have to pay for all parts of the service. This means a minimum monthly premium of (currently) 450 dollars - which only pays for hospital treatment. Add another 100 bucks for doctors visits and you are already looking at 550 a month.

Most relatives, when they hear of the costs, baulk at the idea of having to pay these costs for years at a time.

While the US system for mature immigrants can be daunting (one serious illness and bankrupcy looms), the UK system is/has been lax and uncontrolled in its approach as to who can, and should, receive NHS and public services.

Someone has to pay for the medical/care services provided to aging relatives joining families in the UK.

If the relatives do not (or cannot) pay for this, who does?

DaveLovesDee

+1

alliekat

Source of your "well known fact", please?

Source??

Yes they were prepared to pay for insurance and the mother has her own savings. The family said as much in the article.

Anyone can pay into the National insurance scheme. Voluntarily, while living abroad or non-national. There is a very convenient chart on the HMRC website of how much one should pay based on category. Immigration could have just as easily required the payment of and proof of payment into the insurance system for a specified number of years before qualifying.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

Did you know that loads of British folks with the same access to NHS don't pay in and continue to access NHS? For self employed folks, for instance, the weekly pay in is about 3 quid and some folks opt out for decades, figuring "if I get caught they can only go back a few/several (low end - under 10) years." For some it's worth the risk not to pay their 150 quid per year to get away with something like that. I have found that "stick it to the government" is quite a prevalent attitude in the UK, especially among the children of the baby boomer generation.

I'm sorry, but what does US health care costs have to do with this article, or my reaction to it? I certainly am no fan of it, as I am an individual who was bankrupted by a single major medical event just as I was coming out of college and 'starting' life as it were. I'm no more a fan of US health care than I am of these new UK immigration policies, and I never said I was.

Not true. It's 67 now (with plans to raise the minimum age). Also, you can access medicare if you are permanently disable and have never paid into the system. If you receive SSI, (the "welfare" portion of Social Security - which even if you are disabled, you are switched to once you hit a certain age, even if you receive SSA) you may not retain in your ownership assets exceeding $2,000 (the figure I had in 2008 - may have changed since). There is no "allowance" for housing, vehicle, clothes, jewellery, etc. It's an 'across the board' number. If your assets exceed that number, the government puts a lien on and seizes your assets so that they can sell your assets and recoup their costs for your care prior to your death. That includes your house. They will sell it and split any overflow of proceeds to your heirs. That is, IF there are any proceeds left.

Premiums and deductibles are part and parcel to Medicare. That is why one should not rely on only Medicare (and everyone is told this, or should know it!). It is why there are so many supplemental insurance policies for older folks. If one is too poor for their own supplemental policy, then he/she most likely is eligible for whatever state medicaid program there is- which covers deductibles, pays medicare premiums and provides prescription coverage.

That said, there are uninformed folks that will rely solely on Medicare for elderly health insurance. It is a huge mistake, and the system was only meant as a supplement program. "SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME"


While I respect your opinion, your information is: a) incomplete, and; b) not at all having to do with the article.

In the article, the woman has her own savings and the family is willing to provide private health insurance for her. That means she would not be accessing NHS.

What is appalling is that under the new scheme, the family is completely unable to be reunited, even if financially independent. AND if the family is financially independent, then the parent MUST stay in their country of origin - because that means that the family can afford nursing care in the other country. THAT is what is appalling.

As far as NHS being lax about who accesses it: I did not find that to be the case AT ALL while living in England. I had a kidney stone while there and not one surgery, pharmacy, or hospital let me in/offered me service for free. I eventually had to come back the the US for medical care because the cost of the surgery I needed exceeded 10,000 quid and my insurance was a policy of reimbursement rather than providing the service. That is a fairly common arrangement with travel/expat insurance. There are some (costly) exceptions.