West London businesses face fines

[Terpe]

19 February 2014

Businesses in Ealing and Hanwell are facing financial penalties for employing illegal workers following operations by Home Office immigration enforcement.


Source:-
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2014/february/35-west-london

[Dedworth]

"Civil penalties" are increasing in April to max £20000 per undesirable - they should be imposing the max in every case

[Terpe]

"Civil penalties" are increasing in April to max £20000 per undesirable - they should be imposing the max in every case

I wonder what percentage actually end up paying ?? and also how much they pay on average?

[Dedworth]

I wonder what percentage actually end up paying ?? and also how much they pay on average?


Very little - try asking the UKBA under an FOI request and you'll get a refusal under "against national interest" type grounds

[Terpe]

Has that happend to you ?

I may take a search later if I can squeeze the time.

[Dedworth]

Has that happend to you ?

I may take a search later if I can squeeze the time.

Oh yes and a similar response when you ask how many "sham brides" have been brought before the courts over the last 3 years. Actually the response for that one might have been "we do not keep records of this only the statistics for raids".

[Terpe]

I've submitted quite a number of FOI requests.
Had a few decent responses, a few that said the information is already in the public domain (somewhere) and suggesting I do more research, a couple that have never been resolved and one that said my request didn't fall under FOI rules.

You really need to be very specific on the info you want and carefully construct the request.
Well in my experience anyway.

[Dedworth]

I've submitted quite a number of FOI requests.
Had a few decent responses, a few that said the information is already in the public domain (somewhere) and suggesting I do more research, a couple that have never been resolved and one that said my request didn't fall under FOI rules.

You really need to be very specific on the info you want and carefully construct the request.
Well in my experience anyway.

Thank you for your e-mail of 25 September in which you ask for Immigration Enforcement visits taking place to prevent Sham Marriages taking place between a non EC National Groom and an EC National Bride. You specifically asked for details for 2011, 2012 and 2013 on:
A) How many raids successfully prevented a sham wedding taking place
B) How many female EC Nationals were questioned but not charged with offences involved in participating in the wedding attempt.
C) How many female EC Nationals were taken to court and convicted of offences involved in participating in the wedding attempt.
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I am able to disclose some of the information that you requested. In relation to the term “sham weddings”, the Home Office has interpreted this to refer to “marriage abuse” enforcement visits. The Home Office does not collate specific information on how many marriages were found to be fake or a sham because there is no specific offence relating to “sham wedding”. On this matter we can only provide information on how many visits were undertaken concerning abuse of the marriage process.
The Home Office is able to disclose the following information in the attached Annex concerning the number of marriage abuse enforcement visits for each calendar year between 2011 and 2013. The table below shows the number of visits undertaken for the purposes of investigation of marriage abuse and the number of arrests which occurred in the course of those visits. Our internal systems do not break down the outcomes of such visits in the format you have you have requested, nor do they record whether a wedding ceremony did not proceed as a result of the visit. Information will be available in the public domain concerning marriage abuse-related prosecutions in the UK once such cases have reached the courts.

Additionally the Home Office neither confirms nor denies whether it holds any further information within the context of your request and relies on the exemption at section 23(5) of the Act. Section 23(5) is an absolute exemption and requires no assessment of the balance of public interest in its application. Please note that reliance on the exemption at section 23(5) should not be understood as a confirmation or denial that any further information does, or does not exist – or is, or is not held by the Home Office.


2011
Number of visits undertaken 312
Number of arrests made 223
2012
Number of visits undertaken 529
Number of arrests made 221
2013 (to end of June)
Number of visits undertaken 531
Number of arrests made 239

Information displayed relates to marriage abuse enforcement visits and subsequent arrests in the Home Office regions nationally.

I think I was fairly specific in what I asked :smile:

[Terpe]

...I think I was fairly specific in what I asked :smile:

Yep very specific.... :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

[Dedworth]

Yep very specific.... :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

In yesterdays Daily Hate Mail :-

A sham marriage 'every hour' in the UK: More than 7,500 fake ceremonies reported but just 90 people thrown out of the country

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562615/A-sham-marriage-hour-UK-More-7-500-fake-ceremonies-reported-just-90-people-deported.html#ixzz2tsrzDKlX