# Worth doing appeal if Home Office has not made proper HMRC checks?



## bobbytender (Aug 16, 2014)

I have a query for a friend who applied and was refused based on income threshold.

The funny thing is that they provided an upto date P60 which clearly evidenced the earnings, yet they did not bother to look at this, even though they informed on the email whilst the application was on hold!

whats the best scenario for this? To appeal or re apply?

They have made a clear error by not even doing a proper HMRC check, its quite incredible to be honest!

My friend knows she is 100% correct on her income and proof, she is astonished the UK Home Office hasn't recognised the HMRC tax man's proof of earnings!


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

There is more to meeting the financial requirement than what the P60 says. Income each month and in the 6 months prior to applying count. So does having proof the job is to continue or having evidence of savings etc depending on what category they applied under. 

So, if they should appeal. Cant say without knowing lots more details.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl (Mar 17, 2012)

They want to see payslips detailing £1550/month or more in each and every month of the 6 months directly preceding the application date.

If one of those payslips shows a balance of even 1p (£0.01) below the £1550 monthly minimum, _they can *and will* refuse the application,_ regardless of the fact that a subsequent month may show a balance that would more than make up for the 1p shortfall. 

What the ECO will do is look at all 6 months worth of payslips and take the lowest of those and multiply by 12 to get the yearly average... naturally, if the lowest monthly payslip is <£1550, then the application will fail the income threshold test, regardless of what figure the P60 might show.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

To help you friend, we need to know details of what she has provided (payslips, bank statement, which category, type of employment, what she wrote in Appendix 2 etc) and the verbatim account of the refusal letter (omitting personal details like names etc).


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> They want to see payslips detailing £1550/month or more in each and every month of the 6 months directly preceding the application date.
> 
> If one of those payslips shows a balance of even 1p (£0.01) below the £1550 monthly minimum, _they can *and will* refuse the application,_ regardless of the fact that a subsequent month may show a balance that would more than make up for the 1p shortfall.
> 
> What the ECO will do is look at all 6 months worth of payslips and take the lowest of those and multiply by 12 to get the yearly average... naturally, if the lowest monthly payslip is <£1550, then the application will fail the income threshold test, regardless of what figure the P60 might show.


Just for my own information, are you referring to salaried employment? 

It is my understanding that for hourly paid employment they average the whole of the 6 mos earnings (before tax) - so it would not necessarily have to be exactly 1550.00 a month or above, correct? I can see where what you have said above applies to salaried employment (ie: earning the same amount every paycheck / every month) but not for hourly paid who might earn more or less from week to week, especially if they are using the formula they describe on the UKBA website (see copied from UKBA below) 

_Where the person is in non-salaried employment the level of gross annual employment income relied upon in the application will be the annual equivalent of the person’s average gross monthly income from non-salaried employment
in the 6 months prior to the date of application (where that employment was held throughout that period). To calculate this annualised average for non-salaried employment in Category A the following calculation should be used:
(Total gross income from employment held throughout the 6 month period, divided by 6) multiplied by 12=Income from non-salaried employment that can be
counted towards the financial requirement. _


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Yes, and it gets more complicated if you are in salaried job but get bonus in certain months. The way it's worked out is first you take the lowest basic pay in 6 months and multiply by 12. Then you average out bonuses received in 6 months and multiply by 12. Your total income is the sum of the two amounts.


----------



## Annie212 (Apr 30, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Yes, and it gets more complicated when you are in salaried job but get bonus in certain months. The way it's worked out is first you take the lowest basic pay in 6 months and multiply by 12. Then you average out bonuses received in 6 months, multiply by 12 and add to the first. Your total income is the sum of the two.


I can see where it would get complicated. This seems to be a stumbling block for so many. I think people read the minimum requirement and if they are making more than that on an annual basis then they believe they are safe. What they do not realize is, as Westcoastcanadiangirl has pointed out, if even one of those payslips in that previous 6 months is below the required amount, it rejects the whole thing. It is very fragile. It some respects, the hourly wage was easier to figure out.


----------



## bobbytender (Aug 16, 2014)

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> They want to see payslips detailing £1550/month or more in each and every month of the 6 months directly preceding the application date.
> 
> If one of those payslips shows a balance of even 1p (£0.01) below the £1550 monthly minimum, _they can *and will* refuse the application,_ regardless of the fact that a subsequent month may show a balance that would more than make up for the 1p shortfall.
> 
> What the ECO will do is look at all 6 months worth of payslips and take the lowest of those and multiply by 12 to get the yearly average... naturally, if the lowest monthly payslip is <£1550, then the application will fail the income threshold test, regardless of what figure the P60 might show.


So basically what you are saying is that the Home Office is disregarding what the HMRC says?

Is the Home Office allowed to act above the law when it comes to the HMRC?

If the HMRC records show that full tax, national insurance and whatever has been paid, what gives the Home Office authority to not believe the HMRC?

In essence what you are saying is that the Home Office is just looking at bank statements and wage slips, and refuses to believe or recognise anything from HMRC?

If the HMRC records and P60 shows that the Income threshold has been surpassed, how does the Home Office not recognise this fact?

Also, from what I have read, if the Home Office does not recognise cash payments made to employees (even if their employer has made sure tax has been paid),

then what they are saying is that cash payments are basically useless. If your employer has paid you in cash, there is no law which states you have to put this into a bank account. You are allowed to do what the hell you want with your money. You've paid your taxes to the government so therefore there is nothing illegal or wrong.

Isn't their discrimination of cash payments having to go into a bank account against the law? 

The law says that if tax has been paid and an employer has issued you a wage slip and this is verified by HMRC tax records, whether your employer has paid you with cheque, cash or bank payment, this is completely legal.
There is no requirement to put your wages into a bank account. You may want to spend money straight away or only put some into a bank account.

Does the Home Office have the authority to go above the law?
In a court of law, their argument can not stand, as its not illegal to be paid in cash or cheque if you have paid all your taxes correctly.

In essence, according to what they say, basically cash is worthless? If that is the case, practically 99% of small business are not valid in the home office's eyes, whereas in the HMRC tax man eyes, they are.

What kind of system is this? It seems shambolic that the Home Office can act above the HMRC.

They can't have it both ways. If they don't recognise cash payments unless they are shown going into a bank, then that is clearly discrimination and clearly has no legal basis to stand on.
I struggle to see how they can overule a HMRC Tax record by virtue of a P60.

Its very shady what they have put in their rules it seems. It seems the Home Office has created its own laws, without any legal basis whatsoever!
Very shady stuff!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Home Office acts under a different set of rules, and if you don't meet the requirement made under them, your application will fail. Immigration Rules have the force of law, as they are made under Acts of Parliament and presented to the Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, though they don't need to be individually approved to be effective. HMRC works under their own set of rules made under the Finance Act. That's all. So it's quite possible for something to be permissible under the Finance Act but not under the Immigration Act.


----------



## bobbytender (Aug 16, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Home Office acts under a different set of rules, and if you don't meet the requirement made under them, your application will fail. Immigration Rules have the force of law, as they are made under Acts of Parliament and presented to the Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, though they don't need to be individually approved to be effective. HMRC works under their own set of rules made under the Finance Act. That's all. So it's quite possible for something to be permissible under the Finance Act but not under the Immigration Act.


Thanks Joppa, clears things up for me!


----------



## zakmuh (Aug 18, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Yes, and it gets more complicated if you are in salaried job but get bonus in certain months. The way it's worked out is first you take the lowest basic pay in 6 months and multiply by 12. Then you average out bonuses received in 6 months and multiply by 12. Your total income is the sum of the two amounts.


Hi Joppa,

In my case, I get paid £1700 (net) monthly and its mentioned in the employer's letter. For the first month I got paid £900 as I started my job on the 17th. £900 is NOT my basic salary. I was told this wouldn't be an issue as it's paid for 17th-30th and I would've got paid full pay £1700, if I had started on the 1st.

Could you confirm this please.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

What you must to do is to only submit payslips for 6 consecutive months showing a minimum of £1,550 gross. If you include the first payslip as part of your submission, your application will fail as they won't take into account that you didn't work the full month.


----------



## zakmuh (Aug 18, 2014)

Thanks a lot


----------

