Couple of clarifications on proposed new rules

[BoholoX]

As this is my personal situation just wanted to keep it out of messing up the main threads but as I see it, could anyone chime in if I've got it wrong

I am currently actively looking for work so any job with a gross salary of £18,600 pa is ok for bringing my wife in as I cant yet apply till 6 months payslips?
My Philippine born but British citizen son isnt included as I am not sponsoring him with a visa so I dont need the additional £3800 to take the gross to £22,400? Assume this requirement is for stepkids?

Thanks

[joebloggs]

yes i think your right you need 6 payslips at that salary or savings if your salary is lower (alot of savings)

see page 53 onwards..
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf

this is probably the one nearer your situation..

Sponsor in the UK
1.
Leon
Leon works in a bank in the UK earning £19,000 a year. He has been with the bank for over a year. Leon will meet the financial requirement using Option A.
If Leon had been promoted into his current role within the last 6 months from a salary of £15,000, he would not be able to use this option. Leon would either have to wait until he had completed 6 months at his new salary of £19,000, or use non-employment income or savings as well.

err from the press article mentioning Jcwi they mention a scenario where a british woman is pregnant with twins shes in the uk and it said she would need to earn £32k( the higher figure) a year, but that was b4 the statement of intent was published. but need to check if they are correct.
remember your sponsoring your wife, and they are stating as you have to kids you would need 18.6+2.4+2.4 to be able to support your wife, but i hope they are wrong.

[DeltaRomeo]

That could be very unfair.. consider a sponsor that has children from a previous relationship that he/she is paying maintenance for but does not live with.
The financial obligation is there sure, but as far as I can see there is no requirement to mention this as they do not live with him/her.

[lastlid]

That could be very unfair.. consider a sponsor that has children from a previous relationship that he/she is paying maintenance for but does not live with.
The financial obligation is there sure, but as far as I can see there is no requirement to mention this as they do not live with him/her.


I have a son who is 13 who I have to pay maintenance for but do not live with. You will notice that there is a question(s) on children from a previous marriage (relationship) on the application form. I don't know how far they check into such matters........

[Terpe]

To be honest, without seeing the wording of the policy/rule it's always a guess, but the difference is that the new financial requirement is based solely on gross income.
The current/previous financial requirement was based solely on disposable cash after housing and secured loans.

Maintenance payments for children was classed as non-discretional spending and so could not be used as disposable income. So it was important for UKBA to know that.

Gross income alone is no indicator of affordability or capability to support.

Even if a sponsor will live with their parents (free accomodation) they still must meet minimum gross income level. :doh

[joebloggs]

the 'old' finanical rules still apply for some people

That existing requirement will apply where the applicant is exempt from the new financial requirement because their sponsor is in receipt of a specified disability-related benefit or Carer’s Allowance

i think all this will lead to more refusals, in certain cases the embassy will not bother to contact you if you make a mistake , just refuse youm but they might for simple ones :NoNo: