# Visa denied--any thoughts?



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

"Your application falls to be refused under the Rules because you do not meet the income threshold requirement under Appendix FM or related evidential requirements under FM-SE. You have stated on your application form that you wish to rely on your sponsor's earnings from salaried employment and income from property rental. You have stated that your sponsor is employed by <snip> earnings £ 11,929.66 per annum. Appendix FM-SE states you need to provide wage slips and bank statements covering 6 months prior to the sate of application and a letter from your sponsor's employer confirming the terms of their employment and their salary. You have provided all the required documents to corroborate your sponsor's earnings from employment. As evidence of your sponsor's income from rental you have provided a tenancy agreement, mortgage statement and bank statements showing receipt of payment for rental. The rental income payments received demonstrate that this would cover your sponsor's mortgage payment, however it does not demonstrate any income. 

You sponsor is not exempt from financial requirements as defined paragraph E-ECP 3.3. You have failed to provide the specified documents of your sponsor's other sources of income. These documents are specified in Immigration Rules in Appendix FM-SE and must be provided. I therefore refuse your application under paragraph EC-P.1.1 (d) of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. (E-ECP

English requirement is met.

Suitability requirement is met.

Eligibility for entry clearance is met"



The gross rental income is £1,500 and the monthly mortgage payment is £1,550.

Based on the definition of gross income, I do not understand why my application was refused?

Any thoughts or suggestion? I am thinking of appealing


----------



## AmyD (Jan 12, 2013)

She needs to be earning £18,600 per year, and it doesn't sound like she did, even with the rental income.


----------



## Kwame O (Apr 24, 2014)

AmyD said:


> She needs to be earning £18,600 per year, and it doesn't sound like she did, even with the rental income.


 You mean if someone receives £1,500 a month( for 9 months) plus 11,929 salary for 6 months they dont meet it?

The issue is on how the ECO interpreted gross rental income.


----------



## AmyD (Jan 12, 2013)

My guess: the original writer's sponsor was living in the house where he/she was collecting rent, which will not count as rental income.


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Kwame O said:


> You mean if someone receives £1,500 a month( for 9 months) plus 11,929 salary for 6 months they dont meet it?
> 
> The issue is on how the ECO interpreted gross rental income.


I am a little confused on this myself as well. The gross income (salary + property income) looks like it's fine regardless of whether or not the 1500 covers a mortgage payment. You have bills to pay. My husband makes over the min but he pays bills. It is not free and clear money. 

Hopefully one of the moderators can explain this better. This appears that it was again a subjective call on the ECO's part and not adhering to the formula they state on their website. but I am sure I am just missing something. Annie


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

AmyD said:


> My guess: the original writer's sponsor was living in the house where he/she was collecting rent, which will not count as rental income.


Ah sorry Amy. I posted my question at the same time you responded.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Annie212 said:


> I am a little confused on this myself as well. The gross income (salary + property income) looks like it's fine regardless of whether or not the 1500 covers a mortgage payment. You have bills to pay. My husband makes over the min but he pays bills. It is not free and clear money.
> 
> Hopefully one of the moderators can explain this better. This appears that it was again a subjective call on the ECO's part and not adhering to the formula they state on their website. but I am sure I am just missing something. Annie


The sponsor does not live in the rented house. I submitted a lease agreement from the flat they have been living in for the past 7 years.


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Colombia said:


> The sponsor does not live in the rented house. I submitted a lease agreement from the flat they have been living in for the past 7 years.


Well, that calls everything into question, doesn't it? Hopefully someone on here knows what happened or can give you advice on grounds for an appeal.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Joppa and Nyclon: are any thoughts or opinions?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

If the rent received is the same as the mortgage she may have technically received income from the property but not profit which formed part of her own yearly income suitable under the rules to class as her income. 

She is making no income from it once she pays out costs, any other type of self employment business would go bust in such circumstances.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

_shel said:


> If the rent received is the same as the mortgage she may have technically received income from the property but not profit which formed part of her own yearly income suitable under the rules to class as her income.
> 
> She is making no income from it once she pays out costs, any other type of self employment business would go bust in such circumstances.


Yes but income is different from profit. And the rules only require applicants to show gross rental income and not profit. Besides, rental income is taxable. You do not need to earn profit before you pay tax. As long as you receive rental income, you must file taxes on it and the amount of taxes you pay will depend on whether you make a loss or profit: deductibles.

Anyway, are you suggesting that because the rent received is the same as the mortgage payment, it is not income?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

No I am not suggesting that but the immigration rules might say that, wouldnt surprise me they have some other unusual rules re banking wages etc.


----------



## Crawford (Jan 23, 2011)

*Income before tax* required for spouse visa is 18,600 GBP per annum.

Sponsor earns from paid work 11,992.00 GBP per annum gross

Therefore needs *additional income before tax * to make up shortfall.

Provides evidence of rental income:

Rental income is 1,500 per month. Mortgage for property is 1,550 per month

There is no income, indeed there is a loss of 50 GBP per month.

There is no *additional income before tax* to add to the 11,992.00


What's the problem?

Plus according to the rules one must present 12months of rental income with the application.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

_shel said:


> No I am not suggesting that but the immigration rules might say that, wouldnt surprise me they have some other unusual rules re banking wages etc.


Unless they have other hidden rules about the financial requirement, I do not see any net rental income. All I see is gross rental income. I think the ECO mischaracterize the rental income as net income.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...337420/Annex_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement.pdf


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Crawford said:


> *Income before tax* required for spouse visa is 18,600 GBP per annum.
> 
> Sponsor earns from paid work 11,992.00 GBP per annum gross
> 
> ...


The problem is how gross rental income was interpreted. Gross rental income means any amount received before deductions, management fees, taxes, council tax, insurance etc are paid. Net is the amount left after all those expenses (this where you know if there was a loss or profit.)

Loss and profit is not the same as income. How would you characterize the money received from the tenant if you are saying its not income.

The rule says 12 months rental income but it also gives an example that even if you have been renting the property for 3 months, you can use that 3 months rent received. See paragraph 6.1.4 on page 3.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...337420/Annex_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement.pdf


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Crawford said:


> *Income before tax* required for spouse visa is 18,600 GBP per annum.
> 
> Sponsor earns from paid work 11,992.00 GBP per annum gross
> 
> ...


Hi Crawford 

The problem for me would be if it is taxed as income, then it is income. What it is used for is an entirely different matter or should be. 

Take away the mortgage payment for a moment and add the sums. Both are taxed as INCOME. Then it is income. Now, pay your bills from your income. As far as I have read, and I know they did not ask us under Cat A what bills we pay, why then are they concerned with how much their mortgage is? 

If you are making 18,600.00 but paying 1500.00 in rent, how then is that any different? As I understand it, property income is allowed in this type of application. I don't believe there is a stipulation that says it has to be over and above the mortgage payment or a profit of any kind? Or does it? If the rules state that the income from property has to be over and above the mortgage payment, then they are asking for profit and not just income. And hopefully it is worded as such. Any profit from property income, over and above the mortgage payment, can be counted toward the threshold. 

This is just for my own knowledge but I still think this was a very subjective decision based on information that is presented here and a very slippery slope on the part of the ECO. They looked at the mortgage payment and I am not entirely sure they are supposed to consider that. I could be and probably am, very wrong. 

Now, if the rules say you need to provide proof of X amount of months and the applicant did not, okay - fair enough. The applicant did not understand the requirement. But it sounds to me like they did understand the requirement. Not trying to argue, just trying to understand. Income is income and if property income that is taxed as income is allowed to make up the shortfall then they should count it and ignore what bills the applicant has to pay out of his or her income. Otherwise, everyone would need to be making way more than 18,600 to have a free and clear threshold with no bills taken out of it.


----------



## Crawford (Jan 23, 2011)

Yes, I think I would have to agree with you.

From reading further documents it would appear that gross rental income is accepted regardless of mortgage payment, management fees etc.

Which is one way is rather bizarre. 

If you take the current poster they earn less than 12K a year, receive rent for an apartment which immediately goes towards paying the mortgage, thereby providing no additional income for living purposes.

To obtain a spouse visa one is supposed to have a minimum of 18,600 gross per annum to live on and yet the poster will only have 12K ; however by including the rental they could qualify for a spouse visa?


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Crawford said:


> Yes, I think I would have to agree with you.
> 
> From reading further documents it would appear that gross rental income is accepted regardless of mortgage payment, management fees etc.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know (laughing). I read the rules too and I think this poster is right. I think they made a mistake. 

I understand what the ECO was getting at but I don't think, at least the way the rules are worded, that they can make a decision based on that. They wrote the rules, we didn't. So yeah, I can honestly say that if it were me, I would be speaking to someone about an appeal and / or an MP because I think they made a bad call on this. 

I even read the requirements on the 12 months and isn't that contradictory. Did you see that? I have to read that again because I am not getting that part either. Says 12 months but then says you don't have to own it for 12 months, only 3 months which I am not sure what that means exactly. (Laughing).


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Crawford said:


> Yes, I think I would have to agree with you.
> 
> From reading further documents it would appear that gross rental income is accepted regardless of mortgage payment, management fees etc.
> 
> ...


The rule does not say that you must have a minimum of 18,600 gross per annum to live on. It simply states that you must earn atleast 18,600. Infact, the rule further states that once you meet the 18,600 you do need to show any additional income. What you are saying is akin to arguing that If I earn 10,000 a month from employment and uses the whole 10,000 to pay my son's school fees or pay a debt on a loan, I do not have income.


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

And Columbia 
Please accept my apologies, I am in no way laughing at this situation when I wrote this. It is very serious. I am just laughing about the rules and how twisted they are. They really make it difficult for any sane person to understand. 

I do not know what the moderators think of this, but if this is the response you have gotten from the UKVI, I would be having my spouse take this up with the MP and anyone else I could. I think based on what you have stated here, that this was not calculated correctly at all. 

Just my opinion 

Cheers Annie


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Annie212 said:


> Yes, I know (laughing). I read the rules too and I think this poster is right. I think they made a mistake.
> 
> I understand what the ECO was getting at but I don't think, at least the way the rules are worded, that they can make a decision based on that. They wrote the rules, we didn't. So yeah, I can honestly say that if it were me, I would be speaking to someone about an appeal and / or an MP because I think they made a bad call on this.
> 
> I even read the requirements on the 12 months and isn't that contradictory. Did you see that? I have to read that again because I am not getting that part either. Says 12 months but then says you don't have to own it for 12 months, only 3 months which I am not sure what that means exactly. (Laughing).


It means that if you have owned the property for whether 10 months, 2 months, 5, 6 months or 9 months, you can use it as income as long as it was within 12 months before the application. Example if you started renting the property on August 22, 2014, you can only use income received from the property from August 22, 2014 to August 22, 2015. Basically, it means you can only use a one year (12-months) property income. So if you have been renting for the last 5 years, you only use last 12 months property rent towards the financial requirement.


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Colombia said:


> The rule does not say that you must have a minimum of 18,600 gross per annum to live on. It simply states that you must earn atleast 18,600. Infact, the rule further states that once you meet the 18,600 you do need to show any additional income. What you are saying is akin to arguing that If I earn 10,000 a month from employment and uses the whole 10,000 to pay my son's school fees or pay a debt on a loan, I do not have income.


Agreed. What it does is insure that your UK spouse is not entitled to any form of financial support while they are responsible for supporting you. If you are making a certain amount and then have property income, regardless of what bills you have to pay or how much money you have left over, your spouse would not be entitled to collect financial support from the government anyway. So again, I think you are right in this but all I can tell you is my opinion from what we are reading here and I am far from being an expert on any of this. I am struggling through this process like everyone else. I think Crawford and I both have read the rules and yeah, I think you need to speak to someone and speak LOUDLY. 

Best of luck, Columbia and I hope you have a speedy resolution to this issue.


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Colombia said:


> It means that if you have owned the property for whether 10 months, 2 months, 5, 6 months or 9 months, you can use it as income as long as it was within 12 months before the application. Example if you started renting the property on August 22, 2014, you can only use income received from the property from August 22, 2014 to August 22, 2015. Basically, it means you can only use a one year (12-months) property income. So if you have been renting for the last 5 years, you only use last 12 months property rent towards the financial requirement.


Ah .. okay that makes sense. And I take it that the amount collected from the rent added to your spouse's income worked out to meet the minimum? I am sure you did that due diligence so at that, I have no idea why they would not see that.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Probably you have been denied unjustly, but I think what happened was that ECO was confused about evidential requirement for property income. So look at all the documents you have submitted, and see if they show a clear evidence of income meeting the requirement. The amount of mortgage you pay is irrelevant - it's only the gross rental income that counts. It would be different if your rental is regarded as business (self-employment) - this would be the case if you had several rental properties and you are taxed as self-employed. 
If you re-present your evidence and ask them to reconsider (administrative review rather than full appeal), I think you stand a chance, but nothing is guaranteed of course.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Probably you have been denied unjustly, but I think what happened was that ECO was confused about evidential requirement for property income. So look at all the documents you have submitted, and see if they show a clear evidence of income meeting the requirement. The amount of mortgage you pay is irrelevant - it's only the gross rental income that counts. It would be different if your rental is regarded as business (self-employment) - this would be the case if you had several rental properties and you are taxed as self-employed.
> If you re-present your evidence and ask them to reconsider (administrative review rather than full appeal), I think you stand a chance, but nothing is guaranteed of course.


Thank you Joppa. I have re-assess all the evidence and if the gross property income is included I should meet the 18,600. On the refusal letter it states that English language requirement is met, Suitability requirement is met EC-P.1.1(c), eligibility requirement is met EC-P.1.1 (d). 

The ECO admitted that I have submitted all the evidence (wage slips and bank statement covering 6 months, employment contract, letter from employer) required under Appendix FM-SE to meet the employment income under Cat A.

However, like it was stated in the refusal letter, the ECO seem to suggest that because the rental income covers the mortgage payment, it is not an income. I submitted all the evidences required for showing rental property income ( mortgage statement, bank statement and tenancy agreement.)

How long would the appeal take? Do you think its best if I appeal or re-apply?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I don't accept their argument about mortgage payment and rental income (if that's what they are saying; the refusal letter doesn't say so, does it?) How much you pay in mortgage payment is irrelevant to your rental income. You don't even have to tell them how much you pay in mortgage.

If you appeal, usually within a month or so there is review by ECM, and if they overturn the decision, you stand a chance of getting your visa fairly soon afterwards. Re-application is quicker but you have to pay the full fees again.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Joppa said:


> I don't accept their argument about mortgage payment and rental income (if that's what they are saying; the refusal letter doesn't say so, does it?) How much you pay in mortgage payment is irrelevant to your rental income. You don't even have to tell them how much you pay in mortgage.
> 
> If you appeal, usually within a month or so there is review by ECM, and if they overturn the decision, you stand a chance of getting your visa fairly soon afterwards. Re-application is quicker but you have to pay the full fees again.


This word for word their refusal letter:

"Your application falls to be refused under the Rules because you do not meet the income threshold requirement under Appendix FM or related evidential requirements under FM-SE. You have stated on your application form that you wish to rely on your sponsor's earnings from salaried employment and income from property rental. You have stated that your sponsor is employed by <snip> earnings £ 11,929.66 per annum. Appendix FM-SE states you need to provide wage slips and bank statements covering 6 months prior to the sate of application and a letter from your sponsor's employer confirming the terms of their employment and their salary. You have provided all the required documents to corroborate your sponsor's earnings from employment. As evidence of your sponsor's income from rental you have provided a tenancy agreement, mortgage statement and bank statements showing receipt of payment for rental. The rental income payments received demonstrate that this would cover your sponsor's mortgage payment, however it does not demonstrate any income.

You sponsor is not exempt from financial requirements as defined paragraph E-ECP 3.3. You have failed to provide the specified documents of your sponsor's other sources of income. These documents are specified in Immigration Rules in Appendix FM-SE and must be provided. I therefore refuse your application under paragraph EC-P.1.1 (d) of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. (E-ECP

English requirement is met. 

Suitability requirement is met. EC-P.1.1(d)

Eligibility for entry clearance is met. EC-P.1.1(c)"


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

That's bull. Nowhere does it state in guidance that for a mortgaged rental property, rental minus mortgage represents income you can put towards financial requirement. It's gross rental income without any deductions that you can put towards the requirement. This is the whole basis of financial requirement - the money you get, not how much is left at the end of the day. I think they made a cockup and you should challenge their decision.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Thank you Joppa. 

In my appeal, do I have to only talk about the reason for the refusal. In my case, it was only one reason. And although they stated that I met other requirements, they did not state that I meet the accommodation requirement. Do you think I should talk about it or its not necessary as long as it was not the reason for the refusal.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

No. Just challenge their decison to disallow rental income. Nothing else.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

Joppa said:


> That's bull. Nowhere does it state in guidance that for a mortgaged rental property, rental minus mortgage represents income you can put towards financial requirement. It's gross rental income without any deductions that you can put towards the requirement. This is the whole basis of financial requirement - the money you get, not how much is left at the end of the day. I think they made a cockup and you should challenge their decision.


I used some of your words in my appeal.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

I don't think the refusal was fair, according to the requirements, but what I think happened is the following:

The 18600 requirement is supposed to tie you over the entire month, whether one rents, pays a mortgage or similar. If the owner of the house being rented does not live in the house and has to rent elsewhere, than probably, according to UKVI, that's perfectly fine, as long as he/she earns 18600 from other sources. However, in this case, as far as I understand, the owner earns some 11000 pounds and has to pay his rent out of that money. He is basically paying for two residences, one through mortgage and the other by paying rent. 

So, if he was living in the house which he is renting, I think the income from rent would be accepted, as all the income received is "pure" income (there is no rent he has to pay to live elsewhere) and any mortgage that goes out of it is acceptable. But because he doesn't and has to pay rent elsewhere, the income from the rented house is ignored since it's offset by mortgage.

I still however think, that legally speaking, there are no grounds for refusal - as someone said, we didn't write the rules. Total income *is* over 18600 and whether one chooses to use it to rent one house, or five houses or whatever is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> I don't think the refusal was fair, according to the requirements, but what I think happened is the following:
> 
> The 18600 requirement is supposed to tie you over the entire month, whether one rents, pays a mortgage or similar. If the owner of the house being rented does not live in the house and has to rent elsewhere, than probably, according to UKVI, that's perfectly fine, as long as he/she earns 18600 from other sources. However, in this case, as far as I understand, the owner earns some 11000 pounds and has to pay his rent out of that money. He is basically paying for two residences, one through mortgage and the other by paying rent.
> 
> ...


Sponsor does not live in the house from which rental income is received. The Sponsor lives in a different flat. He has been living with the mom in this three bed room flat for 7 years. And we did submit a lease agreement evidencing that that the mom has offered accommodation and is where we will be staying and thats where the sponsor has been staying for the past 7 years. 

The rule allows applicant to use rental income to meet the short fall of 18,600. It does not state you can use property income as long as you earn 18,600 from other sources.

The rule state that the sponsor must not be living in the same property that rental income is being received. In our case, the Sponsor does not live in the property from which rental income is received. They have always lived in their current accommodation since they moved to london in 2007.


----------



## Colombia (Jun 9, 2014)

I have attached the *REFUSAL LETTER *so members can see the exact wording/reason for refusal.

These are the steps I intend to use:

*(1). Attach the refusal letter to an email and send it to Sheffield to politely ask them to reconsider the rental income 

(2) Exercise my right of Appeal

(3) My wife will go and talk to her MP about the refusal letter. *



I will pursue these all these 3 fronts *simultaneously* and hopefully I get *a quicker and favorable resolution*. 

Again, all thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Thank you in advance for your inputs.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

I don't really have the necessary experience in this but as the case was presented, I really don't think you should have been refused. I find it a bit annoying that people bend over backwards to meet the requirements and then often have to splash out on the lawyers fees as well. Good luck is all I can say...


----------

