Claiming Benefit while my wife is still on FLR (M)

[longresisdence]

Hi everyone need some help!

i got my ILR 3 months ago and my 2 sons who born in UK got BC and soon i am applying British passports for them but my wife still on FLR (m) and will apply for ILR next year.
can i am entitle for any benefit like child tax credit/ child benefit? i am the only person work full time and my wife look-after kids. my financial situation is bit low as using credit card and loan from last few year till now to get my my home k itchen running and never claim benefit while on limited leave but now cannot afford as things are getting out of control. just wonder if i go for any benefit will my wife application for ILR will can affect or not on bases of if i claim any benefit?

thanks

[innocentdevil]

no it won't effect her ILR.

[zubair_hr]

no it won't effect her ILR.

Hi just wanted to check if the rules are still the same re CTC, CB and WTC.

I am on ILR and my wife has recently joined me in the UK on 2 years Spouse Visa with 'No recourse to public funds'.

If we both are going to claim any of the above benefits, would they have any impact on my wife's ILR application in near future??

Appreciate your support

Thank you
Zubair

[wiggsy]

CB, CTC, and WTC is not considered a public fund where one person is entitled to them, and the other is not... the person not entitled is considered as entitled if one of the couple is entitled.

other forms of public funds will go against the applicant IE: INCOME RELATED: IS, JSA, ESA...
all couples have to claim jointly... even if you claim a single rate, it is considered as both being in reciept of the cash.

[zubair_hr]

CB, CTC, and WTC is not considered a public fund where one person is entitled to them, and the other is not... the person not entitled is considered as entitled if one of the couple is entitled.

other forms of public funds will go against the applicant IE: INCOME RELATED: IS, JSA, ESA...
all couples have to claim jointly... even if you claim a single rate, it is considered as both being in reciept of the cash.

Thanks for the response, is there any link that I can check to confirm coz I don't want to mess about with my wife's ILR just for the sake of additional money.

Also, what do we mean 'by person under Immigration Control'. Does 2 years probationary period in spouse visa means that the person under Immigration control???

[Khall75]

I recently got my ILR and applying for my wife FLR m next week. If I apply for housing benefit is it going to affect my wife ILR which is due in July? Help plz

[wiggsy]

I recently got my ILR and applying for my wife FLR m next week. If I apply for housing benefit is it going to affect my wife ILR which is due in July? Help plz

only if she is applying from outside of the uk (rule 6c of the immigration rules...) or you recieve more money for her precense...

@zubair
http://www.bridgesprogrammes.org.uk/ima ... _funds.pdf

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary
(this is the most important one)

on page 17
-------------
This page tells you about exceptions to claiming public funds that may apply because of the nationality of a person’s family member.
A person subject to immigration control is not considered as accessing public funds if it is their partner who is receiving the funds that they are entitled to.
Child and working tax credits are claimed jointly by couples. If only one member of a couple is subject to immigration control, then for tax credits purposes, neither are treated as being subject to immigration control.
A person subject to immigration control can claim certain public funds when they have a right to reside in the UK if they live with a family member who is:
 a British citizen, or
 a national of a country in the European Economic Area (EEA).
For more information on the funds that an EEA national can claim and a list of EEA countries, please see related link: Public funds that EEA nationals can claim.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary

- following on from the end of the quote above: see these two FOI requests... hopefully we can get a full list of benefits that wont affect immigration cases...

to DWP:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l ... ing-356279
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b ... ing-355907

to UKBA:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p ... ing-251837

to HMRC in regards to Universal Credits (which are replacing Tax Credits):
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u ... ing-355531

to HMRC in regards to state of Child Benefit for partner of British citizen (do their ni contributions get paid if they have no recourse):
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n ... who_has_no

[jamteer]

Hi..
I am a British citizen who is married to a non EU/EEA citizen and on her passport she has the message indorsed with "no resources to public funds" on a spouse Visa.
Currently she is on the old rules and we shall be making an application for SET (M) ILR in March 2014 we have a baby together who is British.
We currently claim CTC/CB and WTC but I'm the main applicant. To date i have not claimed anything else because there was no need to. However, my hours at work have been dropped and i am thinking of making an application for Housing Benefit.
My understanding is that as long as the application is made in my name then fine. However, after contacted my local council to get more information they advised that i will have to make a joint claim which is fine but the overall payment will be more because of my wife being on the application ever though i emphasised that she has "no resources to public funds". The advised that the addition in £££ cannot be removed or disregarded.
Hence, my question is, it feels like a trap! will me going ahead affect her ILR application?
If NOT, then why is it on the new SET (M) application from 04/2013 there is a new finances table section which must be filled in along with entering the exact amounts claimed rather than just Ticked like in previous applications.
Kindly looking forward to your response(s)...

[John]

I continue to be of the opinion that the form is badly designed. The problem is that whilst the benefits mentioned on the form are mentioned in the Public Funds definition in para 6 of the Immigration Rules, they appear to be ignoring the effect of the three small paras that follow.

For example, a joint claim for Tax Credits, para 6B effectively removes such Tax Credits from the Public Funds definition. Appreciate that the table only needs to be completed if Q8.6 has been answered "Yes".

[Amber]

Hi..
I am a British citizen who is married to a non EU/EEA citizen and on her passport she has the message indorsed with "no resources to public funds" on a spouse Visa.
Currently she is on the old rules and we shall be making an application for SET (M) ILR in March 2014 we have a baby together who is British.
We currently claim CTC/CB and WTC but I'm the main applicant. To date i have not claimed anything else because there was no need to. However, my hours at work have been dropped and i am thinking of making an application for Housing Benefit.
My understanding is that as long as the application is made in my name then fine. However, after contacted my local council to get more information they advised that i will have to make a joint claim which is fine but the overall payment will be more because of my wife being on the application ever though i emphasised that she has "no resources to public funds". The advised that the addition in £££ cannot be removed or disregarded.
Hence, my question is, it feels like a trap! will me going ahead affect her ILR application?
If NOT, then why is it on the new SET (M) application from 04/2013 there is a new finances table section which must be filled in along with entering the exact amounts claimed rather than just Ticked like in previous applications.
Kindly looking forward to your response(s)...

You have to be careful claiming housing benefit as there is no provision to pay benefit at a single person rate. Housing benefit and council tax benefit are paid at a couple rate unlike income support and ibjsa who would only award a singe Person rate where one in a couple is subject to immigration control. It is possible that a claim could be viewed as a recourse to public funds. It's difficult to say, and not sure if worth taking the risk.

[John]

For HB, and indeed also CTB, para 6A of the Immigration Rules is in play. Therefore any increase in the amount being claimed, because the non-EEA person is living there would be a problem.

However as the benefit would be the same for a couple with X child(ren), as for a single person with X child(ren), it is the case that as long as the family unit includes at least one child, it is the case that there is no increase in the HB & CTB payable because the non-EEA person is living there.

[Amber]

For HB, and indeed also CTB, para 6A of the Immigration Rules is in play. Therefore any increase in the amount being claimed, because the non-EEA person is living there would be a problem.

However as the benefit would be the same for a couple with X child(ren), as for a single person with X child(ren), it is the case that as long as the family unit includes at least one child, it is the case that there is no increase in the HB & CTB payable because the non-EEA person is living there.

A lone parent/single parent applicable amount is less than that of a couple.

[crb]

i recently went to discuss HB with my Greenwich Council, and they said that although my wife's name will be on application, they will calculate the benefit for a single parent and child only, which will be less than if my wife were also considered......

[Amber]

i recently went to discuss HB with my Greenwich Council, and they said that although my wife's name will be on application, they will calculate the benefit for a single parent and child only, which will be less than if my wife were also considered......

That's good to hear though there is generally no provision for that. If the local authority are willing to give the applicable amount for a single person rather than a couple then the claim will not affect future visa applications. However, you need to check the calculation and ensure that it's been done correctly, your local cab will check it for you.

[jamteer]

Thanks for all your replies. Its well appreciated.

Good point D4109125, since this is the fact of the matter with my council. No provisions for paying single adult with a child even though the partner is living with you.

Bases on what i have read in different forums this all depends on the local council you speak to. Some have said that their local councils just paid for 1 adult on a joint claim and others said that both adults had to be calculated.

Nevertheless, the tricky bit for me now is that let's just say i DONT claim HB, so ultimately the "No resources to public funds" have not been breached. However, due to the considerable drop in working hours i still continue to pay everything and be stretched out in terms of finances.

As a result, wouldn't i fail the maintenance requirement, because the remaining money after paying accommodation costs (rent and CT) will be less than what a family would be on income support?

Its seems like a catch 22 situation!

[Amber]

Thanks for all your replies. Its well appreciated.

Good point D4109125, since this is the fact of the matter with my council. No provisions for paying single adult with a child even though the partner is living with you.

Bases on what i have read in different forums this all depends on the local council you speak to. Some have said that their local councils just paid for 1 adult on a joint claim and others said that both adults had to be calculated.

Nevertheless, the tricky bit for me now is that let's just say i DONT claim HB, so ultimately the "No resources to public funds" have not been breached. However, due to the considerable drop in working hours i still continue to pay everything and be stretched out in terms of finances.

As a result, wouldn't i fail the maintenance requirement, because the remaining money after paying accommodation costs (rent and CT) will be less than what a family would be on income support?

Its seems like a catch 22 situation!

Report the drop in income to the HMRC and see if you can get more tax credits.

[wangxiaosara]

I continue to be of the opinion that the form is badly designed. The problem is that whilst the benefits mentioned on the form are mentioned in the Public Funds definition in para 6 of the Immigration Rules, they appear to be ignoring the effect of the three small paras that follow.

For example, a joint claim for Tax Credits, para 6B effectively removes such Tax Credits from the Public Funds definition. Appreciate that the table only needs to be completed if Q8.6 has been answered "Yes".

Hi John,

Hope you can help me with this. I am currently on FLR (M), due to apply ILR in late July this year. My husband and I have 2 children who are both British citizens. My husband is claiming child benefit by himself and we are claiming tax credit jointly.

My question is that in the new set (m) form Q8.6"are you and your partner receiving any public funds?" If consider that para 6b removes tax credits from the public funds definition, then for Q8.6 my answer should be yes, but for the table below that question, I should only give the relative amount for the child benefit my husband is claiming, is this correct?

[John]

The same para 6B also, in your circumstances, also removes Child Benefit from the Public Funds definition, in my opinion.

I am busy now, but soon shall post again on how to deal with the new badly-designed form, as compared to the previous badly-designed form!

[wangxiaosara]

The same para 6B also, in your circumstances, also removes Child Benefit from the Public Funds definition, in my opinion.

I am busy now, but soon shall post again on how to deal with the new badly-designed form, as compared to the previous badly-designed form!

John, thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, according to para 6b, my answer to Q8.6 should be "no".

I agree with you that the form is really badly designed. I just hope by answering "no" to this question is not going to lead the UKBA to consider that we are lying to them as for the fact, my husband and I are receiving some benefits even though these benefits under immigration rules are not considered as being recouse to public funds.

[Amber]

The same para 6B also, in your circumstances, also removes Child Benefit from the Public Funds definition, in my opinion.

I am busy now, but soon shall post again on how to deal with the new badly-designed form, as compared to the previous badly-designed form!

John, thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, according to para 6b, my answer to Q8.6 should be "no".

I agree with you that the form is really badly designed. I just hope by answering "no" to this question is not going to lead the UKBA to consider that we are lying to them as for the fact, my husband and I are receiving some benefits even though these benefits under immigration rules are not considered as being recouse to public funds.

I fail to see why ticking yes to "are you or your partner claiming public funds" would be an issue as the partner can legitimately claim. I would then put the amounts you receive in child benefit and tax credits under the partner column. This should pose no issue whatsoever.

[vinny]

See also rules before 9th july 2012.

[wangxiaosara]

The same para 6B also, in your circumstances, also removes Child Benefit from the Public Funds definition, in my opinion.

I am busy now, but soon shall post again on how to deal with the new badly-designed form, as compared to the previous badly-designed form!

John, thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, according to para 6b, my answer to Q8.6 should be "no".

I agree with you that the form is really badly designed. I just hope by answering "no" to this question is not going to lead the UKBA to consider that we are lying to them as for the fact, my husband and I are receiving some benefits even though these benefits under immigration rules are not considered as being recouse to public funds.

I fail to see why ticking yes to "are you or your partner claiming public funds" would be an issue as the partner can legitimately claim. I would then put the amounts you receive in child benefit and tax credits under the partner column. This should pose no issue whatsoever.

I am getting frustrated trying to answer these questions in this new form. The thing that bothers me is the question on the following page. "Complete the following table indicating the sources and levels....." If I answer the question 8.6 as yes and giving the relevant amount that we are receiving each month, then we have to put down that as "income source" in the table on the following page of the form. This will lead to the problem that my partner and I are relying on these public funds to maintain ourselves. And the critria of the rules clearly pointed out that "both of you can support yourselves and any dependants without needing public funds".

[Amber]

The same para 6B also, in your circumstances, also removes Child Benefit from the Public Funds definition, in my opinion.

I am busy now, but soon shall post again on how to deal with the new badly-designed form, as compared to the previous badly-designed form!

John, thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, according to para 6b, my answer to Q8.6 should be "no".

I agree with you that the form is really badly designed. I just hope by answering "no" to this question is not going to lead the UKBA to consider that we are lying to them as for the fact, my husband and I are receiving some benefits even though these benefits under immigration rules are not considered as being recouse to public funds.

I fail to see why ticking yes to "are you or your partner claiming public funds" would be an issue as the partner can legitimately claim. I would then put the amounts you receive in child benefit and tax credits under the partner column. This should pose no issue whatsoever.

I am getting frustrated trying to answer these questions in this new form. The thing that bothers me is the question on the following page. "Complete the following table indicating the sources and levels....." If I answer the question 8.6 as yes and giving the relevant amount that we are receiving each month, then we have to put down that as "income source" in the table on the following page of the form. This will lead to the problem that my partner and I are relying on these public funds to maintain ourselves. And the critria of the rules clearly pointed out that "both of you can support yourselves and any dependants without needing public funds".

Providing that you and or your partner have earnings at the level of income support or more then it will not matter how much benefit you are claiming. The tax credits have to legally be a joint award. I think you're worrying unnecessarily over this. Use the extra information box at the end to explain that the child benefit is being claimed by the settled person/bc and that the tax credits is a joint claim as that's the law.

[John]

D4109125, I agree, and think that is the method that should be used.

But it would be better if the form SET(M), specifically for spouses etc of a British Citizen, or at least someone "settled" in the UK, should actually reflect the Immigration Rules.

[Amber]

D4109125, I agree, and think that is the method that should be used.

But it would be better if the form SET(M), specifically for spouses etc of a British Citizen, or at least someone "settled" in the UK, should actually reflect the Immigration Rules.

Yes I agree as it creates unnecessary worry.