# Brace yourselves for fee increases in April



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

Here is a link to proposed fee increases:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-immigration-and-nationality-fees-for-2016-to-2017


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

The new proposed fees have been announced a while ago, at least a couple of weeks.


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

The actual proposed fees were announced a week ago and there is no prior post on this issue so I thought forum members who may have missed it would like to know.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

But people have referred to the increased fees in their posts.


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

No harm in giving members a place to reference the proposal as I'm sure not everyone is aware.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

nyclon said:


> No harm in giving members a place to reference the proposal as I'm sure not everyone is aware.


Yes, if its something that will affect our posters, we need to make sure we're informative

Jo xxx


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I'm just pulling your leg!


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

Joppa said:


> I'm just pulling your leg!


Stop!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

No I won't. We tend to get too serious and need to relax more. There is life outside Expatforum.


----------



## Girvatron (Dec 15, 2015)

*Changes - April 2016*

Hi

Just a couple of questions;

I see the fees are going up in April which is fine but I also see that they are changing some rule about earning £35k after 5 years or you maybe forced to leave.

Does this affect spouse visas?
Or is it mostly for people on working visas etc..


----------



## Water Dragon (Jun 28, 2011)

Girvatron said:


> Hi
> 
> Just a couple of questions;
> 
> ...


They seem to increase the fees every year in April. The new earning requirement doesn't apply to spouse visas, thankfully.


----------



## Princess86 (Apr 29, 2015)

So what are the fees for spouse visa in April?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Applying outside UK, it's going up from £956 to £1,195, up 25%.


----------



## Princess86 (Apr 29, 2015)

I see, great thanks Joppa for confirming  x


----------



## Silverlining (Jun 6, 2013)

Not very clear to me, I'm afraid...so Flr(m) application from within UK on Premium service is £??.?? at the moment? And then on which date will the fees go up to what amount?! I did have a look at the link, but....nada -_-


----------



## Water Dragon (Jun 28, 2011)

Silverlining said:


> Not very clear to me, I'm afraid...so Flr(m) application from within UK on Premium service is £??.?? at the moment? And then on which date will the fees go up to what amount?! I did have a look at the link, but....nada -_-


Currently, FLR(M) without dependents is 649GBP. To apply using the in person, one day service is an additional 400GBP. These are the prices until they are increased in April.

All the fees for FLR are listed on page 3 of the application. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478064/FLR_M__11-15.pdf


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

If I'm reading this correctly ILR will be £1850 after the fee increases?

I heard something about how they want to make the whole process self funding. These ECOs must be getting paid fortunes!


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl (Mar 17, 2012)

kotch said:


> If I'm reading this correctly ILR will be £1850 after the fee increases?
> 
> I heard something about how they want to make the whole process self-funding. These ECOs must be getting paid fortunes!


Yes... nuts, isn't it? Just 2 short years ago, I paid just south of £1500 for ILR via a same-day premium appointment.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

Somebody earning £18600 gross, living in London and supporting their partner is really going to struggle with paying that I would have thought.


----------



## emy2007 (Jan 20, 2013)

Good evening!
I've just noticed this post...
How much would FLR (m) be after the increases in April? 
So many figures got confused
Thanks


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

£811 I think.


----------



## emy2007 (Jan 20, 2013)

Thanks and the premium service?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Extra £400.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

It seems the fee increases are the heaviest for family settlement routes. Indicative of a general agenda?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Yes, and nationality applications, because they give you the right eventually to settle in UK (live permanently) or become citizens. Other applications for a limited period such as visit and study have only increased marginally, and PBS visas (mainly work-related) have also seen a small increase, because most such leaves don't lead to settlement.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

It will be interesting to see what Mr Cameron manages to negotiate with the EU toward the aim of making the UK less attractive to migrants. I'm looking to go into immigration work in due course, at this rate there will be no clients who are either eligible or can afford it!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Australia also charge high visa fees for those who seek to eventually settle in their country, and for spouse/partner, it's currently AUD 6865 or £3,370, but those fees may include all subsequent applications till you attain permanent residency. This hasn't deterred people wishing to emigrate to Australia.
In UK, asylum seekers don't pay any application fees.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

Wow, when you consider that we have it fairly cushy in terms of spreading the cost. Still, it does irk me somewhat that as a British born citizen I have to jump through so many hoops, pay a lot of money and endure a lot of stress for marrying another human who is from the same planet but different country. Makes one feel like a second class citizen to some extent. Particularly when a non British EU person can bring their non EU spouse in on a much easier route.

That's a whole can of worms though.


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

kotch said:


> Wow, when you consider that we have it fairly cushy in terms of spreading the cost. Still, it does irk me somewhat that as a British born citizen I have to jump through so many hoops, pay a lot of money and endure a lot of stress for marrying another human who is from the same planet but different country. Makes one feel like a second class citizen to some extent. Particularly when a non British EU person can bring their non EU spouse in on a much easier route.
> 
> That's a whole can of worms though.


You can always move to their country.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Well, UK is pretty powerless when it comes to EU law, but this is something the government is trying to gain opt-outs in negotiations. 
But other EU countries also act in a similar way (though some more punitively than others), so there is a much higher tariff for those from outside EEA in partnership with their own citizens, such as compulsory language and citizenship classes and higher fees.


----------



## emy2007 (Jan 20, 2013)

Thank you for your reply... so flr m will be £811 and £400 for premium service with the increases in April? 
Thanks again


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Up 25%.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

nyclon said:


> You can always move to their country.


Thanks for your suggestion.

I lived happily in their country for four years. The move back here was forced for personal and family reasons which I frankly do not need to disclose here to justify wanting to live in my home country while exercising a basic human right to go about spending my life with the person I love and founding a family.


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

emy2007 said:


> Thank you for your reply... so flr m will be £811 and £400 for premium service with the increases in April?
> Thanks again


The proposed increas for an in person appointment is from £400 to £500.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Yes, of course. But government is saying that simply because you can fall in love with anyone you choose, it doesn't mean they will have the automatic right to live and eventually settle in this country, and the government is empowered to set down conditions to be met and decide on applications for greater public good such as pressure on existing services, housing, education and race relations.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

Just because the government is empowered to do something doesn't mean it ought to.

My view, although it may not be shared by all, is that there should be a distinction between British born citizens bringing spouses and those who are immigrants themselves wanting to bring spouses/family in.

Incidentally, even though it is a small sample size, almost anybody I speak to without exception is amazed that I have to go through the same process. The stock response is one of shock and a reply along the lines of 'But you're British by birth, she's your wife - surely that's enough?'


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl (Mar 17, 2012)

kotch said:


> Thanks for your suggestion.
> 
> I lived happily in their country for four years. The move back here was forced for personal and family reasons which I frankly do not need to disclose here to justify wanting to live in my home country while exercising a basic human right to go about spending my life with the person I love and founding a family.


I feel your pain... even us Commonwealth types don't get a break when it comes to Home Office rules, which I think is unfair when compared to the ease that is offered to EU migrants especially when one considers that we (people from Commonwealth countries) have got stronger ties to the UK than your average EU migrant.

Her Majesty is on my home currency and her photograph hangs in all public (government run) schools. I even remember (circa 1978) singing "God Save the Queen" at school assemblies when I was a little girl.

Anyway, that's a discussion for another day and the "In or Out" Brexit vote (if the Conservatives actually put their money where their mouths are and let us go to the polls).


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

They have to, it's now set out in law that they must have a referendum.

However, as bizarre as it seems, from an immigration stand point I wil be voting to stay in the EU. It offers some degree of human rights protection. Without that umbrella Cameron and his cronies would have an absolute field day with invasion of privacy and immigration controls.

The only reason they have managed to circumvent the EU rules under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act regarding a right to Private and Family Life for British citizens is that they say it's in the national interest. At the same time they go on endlessly about family values and the importance of the institution of marriage.

Regarding Commonwealth countries I agree with you.

Ironically, in my current profession (I intend on getting into immigration work on the side) I am actually on the list of shortage skills. However, due to my profession it would be easier for me to get a visa for me and my spouse in most countries in the world than it is for my spouse to get a visa in my home country.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

All I am saying is that the government is elected to defend national interest (everyone else does) within our overall international obligation both to EU and to universal human rights (e.g. Syrian refugees). I don't think Brexit is in the national interest but only a short-termism with uncertain consequences with regard to inward investment, our international standing (both US and Japan said UK should stay in EU) and loss of benefits we have come to take for granted like freedom to travel, work and retire anywhere in EU.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

I don't think Brexit is in the national interest either - on that we agree. I don't think it will happen for a number of reasons but mainly because when it comes to the crunch, most people are fearful of change and the uncertainty it brings.

I'm a lefty so I agree with the idea of free movement and the idea of supporting and defending the human rights of those in need such as refugees and genuine asylum seekers. However when the rights of EU citizens to family settlement exceed those of myself and many like me in my home country I have a real problem with that, and justifiably so. It's frankly indefensible.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

That's precisely what the government is trying to renegotiate with EU partners, so that we retain more of our own decision-making powers, including immigration. Two things come to mind - ability to gain permanent residence and possibly citizenship after 5/6 years respectively as non-EEA family member without having to meet any specific requirements like language and finance, and family members to work without restrictions. UK is in fact quite generous in this respect and allows any family member of UK citizen to work, which is not the case in France with regard to their own citizen's non-EEA family members. So if you are a US citizen married to a French citizen and have French residence permit, it doesn't give you automatic right to work.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

Free movement is a founding principle of the EU and one which Cameron will be very unlikely to shift. The current Government have also allowed a situation to continue for four years where families are being torn apart, parents separated from children and spouses separated from each-other. All of this has devastating effects on individuals and is an abuse of their human rights and freedoms.

It is common knowledge that migrants make a net contribution to the UK economy so the decision to allow them to work is purely financial - not generosity toward them.

Comparing our situation to that in France bears no relevance. In Saudi Arabia they will cut off your head for certain transgressions of the law. That does not mean that those in another country who only receive 1000 lashes for the same crime are lucky.

Of course non of this addresses why one group of humans (the government) have the right to transgress the human rights of another group (British born citizens who marry outside of their own nationality). The argument that they are democratically elected is weak at best given the inadequacy of the current voting system.

The only requirement should be that spouses of Brit born citizens have no access to public funds until they reach citizenship stage. This does not need to be steeped in financial requirements with bundles of supporting evidence. It would just require people to produce a British passport or other national identity document when requesting benefits or access to other forms of public funds.

The burden of proof is the wrong way around currently, in all aspects of the immigration process.

Interestingly the only requirement for me to live in my spouse's home country was to fill in a 1 page form with a few questions on it and pay £100 for a visa that lasted 15 months at a time. Her country also has a huge influx of people trying to get in from neighbouring, poorer countries. For them the process is much more arduous unless they are married to a national of that country. Being married affords you a basic human right to co-habit and found a family, as per Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which our Government choose to completely ignore.

Having said that, we are venturing way off topic and this is probably a discussion that could go on forever and ever. I respect the points you make Joppa, and I respect your view. I suspect that we are just coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum on this and should probably agree to disagree!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

UK and Saudi Arabia are not in the same economic and increasingly political union called EU. EU membership in fact demands abolition of death penalty and all other degrading and inhumane punishments. I've mentioned the example of France just to illustrate when it comes to the right of own citizens to bring in non-EEA family members, that there is a variety of response and UK isn't the worst in this respect. 
I think we have exhausted this topic.


----------



## kotch (Jan 3, 2016)

Agreed.


----------

