Would you be able to live with your partner?

There is widespread news coverage today of the impact that the Government’s Immigration Rules are having on families. The issue is the financial obligations for family members including spouses and children, who want to live in the UK.

UK’s new visa rules ‘causing anguish’ for families from the BBC gives a good overview, as does the story of Kei Yamomoto in the BBC article UK families speak of visa rules pain.

Mr. Yamomoto’s situation is one I have seen repeatedly since July 2012 when the Government’s changes were implemented.

What is the problem?

For a British Citizen or a settled person to be able to bring their spouse to the UK, they must be earning at least £18,600 per year. Evidence shows that this immediately rules out almost half the population of the UK. Savings can be used instead but the minimum level is £62,500 and that must be held in a bank account for at least six months. How many people in the UK have this amount stashed away in a bank account?

The Home Office argue that investments can be used as well but only if they are liquidated. In other words, pull out your investments and put them in a bank account. So even if you have £62,500 invested, you have to lose interest on those investments if you want to rely on them. These amounts increase if there are non-British children involved.

Potentially these rules prevent even multi-millionaires from being able to sponsor their family members. Most financially savvy people with the amounts of money the Home Office require will have money invested in one form or another even if it is in property. In an economy where interest on savings accounts is barely worth the effort, most people want whatever money they have to work hard for them.

So that brings us to another scenario…hypothetical “Mr. Smith” is widowed and retired. He owns ten properties valued at £150,000 each, mortgage-free. He does not have tenants in any of those properties because he is renovating them and this could take twelve months. He earns £8,000 a year from a part-time job. He has £30,000 in investments tied up for two years. In one year he is effectively “worth” the best past of £2 million.

However, his American wife is unable to come to the UK because his properties and his investments (worth a combined £1.8 million) are worthless to the Home Office. Mr. Smith’s only viable option is to sells one of the properties, put the money in a savings account and leave his wife in the States for 6 months.

The whole scenario has to be repeated when Mrs. Smith has to apply to extend her visa in 2.5 years and again 2.5 years after that.

Imagine Mrs. Smith as a mother with two British children. What option does the family have? The children live with Mr. Smith and be deprived of their mother or live with Mrs. Smith in the States and be deprived of their father.

The future?

As the BBC Reports, Baroness Hamwee, chairwoman of the inquiry and Liberal Democrat home affairs lead in the House of Lords, said the parliamentary group had been “struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives”

When thinking of immigration, the future can never be certain. It has always been a political tool used by the Government of the day. The courts are already seeing increased appeals against negative decisions and my best guess is that the courts will play a huge and vital role in helping to shape the rules to actually be workable and to prevent families from being separated.

Would you be able to live with your partner?

+ Steven Grosvenor

To Tweet or not to Tweet

We have considered previously in thses posts about the way that the brave new world of social media and the law have occasionally collided and the consequences that this can bring.

We have recounted the story of the juror who contacted a defendant via facebook, thereby upsetting a rather large and expensive trial. We also commented on the question of how Twitter and the internet could render almost meaningless a super injunction, by making the name of people so widely known that there was little left for the injunction to cover.

More recently we have commented on the whole Lord McAlpine issue and the Twitter users who have got into hot water by having tweeted things about him.

Recent history suggests therefore that although many people are regular users of Twitter few are aware of the risks that careless usage can pose.

Sending a tweet or even retweeting someone else’s tweet is publishing that for all the world to see. That squarely brings you within the scope of the laws relating to defamation, as Lord McAlpine has demonstrated. Just ask Sally Bercow, who has today had it found that her tweeting about Lord McAlpine was libellous.

Contempt of Court is another possible minefield that the unwary can find themselves blundering into if they are not careful. I dare say that the juror who contacted the defendant in the drugs trial, via facebook did not anticipate that she would end up behind bars for Contempt of Court.

It is true to say therefore that what you might think of as a lighthearted moment between you and a friend can have ramifications that were not altogether anticipated.

As for Mrs Bercow, will she be suggesting to the Speaker that her contribution to family funds might be going elsewhere for a while? and will this curb her enthusiasm for Twitter?

We wait to see what happens.

Adrian Witt

Never Ever? Or Just Never?

Statistics have been recently released, showing the number of ‘never events’ that took place at NHS Trusts across England over the past four years. The BBC investigated the number of these ‘never events’, so called as their seriousness means that they should never happen in the first place.

Despite their moniker, there were 762 ‘never events’ between 2009 and 2012. The BBC have even produced a handy interactive guide where you can check your local Trust’s figures, and see what types of ‘never event’ have happened closer to home.

For the more local visitors to Waldrons’ blog, the Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust scored three, the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust had four and The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust managed a whopping ten ‘never events’. Less ‘never’, more ‘once every few months’ events?

Making up the ten ‘never events’ were five instances of foreign objects being left behind following surgery, two instances of surgery being completed on the wrong site, one failure to monitor and respond to oxygen saturation, an inappropriate administration of daily oral methotrexate and a maladministration of insulin.

NHS England has stated that the numbers are too high and has said that work is underway to improve the figures across the country. Reassuring news for those planning on an inpatient stay at the New Cross Hospital?

We will wait and see.

Joesph Norton

Will you ever see your family again?

Do you have non-British family living abroad? If so and you are planning for them to visit you in the near future, it may be wise for them to apply for their visas before 25^th June 2013. For this is the date that the UK Border Agency prevents access to the appeals system for family members refused a visit visa.

At the moment, if someone is refused a family visit visa for the UK, an appeal can be filed with the Tribunal. This all changes in June. If an application is refused from that point, a new application will need to be made.

Theresa May,
Preventing Access to Justice?

This initially sounds sensible with the Border Agency claiming that it is faster and more cost-effective than the appeals system (though the reason it takes eight months for an appeal is because the Visa Officer is given this length of time to provide a copy of the application!).

In reality, this will cause major difficulties for some people and could potentially prevent them from visiting UK-based family members indefinitely. I have received many enquiries over the years from stunned family members who have been refused visit visas and have had to appeal to the Tribunal, many ultimately being successful in their appeals.

On one occasion an individual was denied a visa purely due to a misunderstanding about his mother’s name. As it was, the issue was addressed at the Tribunal and a Judge had made a finding that there was a genuine misunderstanding between the applicant and the Visa Officer. His future applications were successful. Had he been unable to appeal, this issue would have arisen again in a new application with the Visa Officer still unwilling to accept that a misunderstanding had occurred.

Other cases include a grandmother visiting her family in the UK. She was refused visas repeatedly, each time having to appeal to the Tribunal and each time succeeding.

This is not evidence of a “soft” Tribunal. It is evidence of poor decision-making by Visa Officers which has then been reviewed by the Tribunal applying the law correctly.

Whilst I am not always a fan of the decisions of the Immigration & Asylum Chamber, it does have a purpose and it does provide an avenue of review. Without access to the Tribunal, there will be very little that an individual can do if they become the victim of an error or a misunderstanding.

My advice…apply as soon as possible so that you still have access to the Tribunal. If not, you may find yourself repeatedly applying for visas and repeatedly being refused.

Steven Grosvenor

A Care Worker’s Register. A good idea!

A recent survey of nearly 400 care workers revealed that the vast majority would welcome a system whereby they would need to be registered in order to work.

93% of the care workers, from hospitals, community organisations and care homes, voted in favour of compulsory registration. However, despite such a recommendation being included in the advice given to ministers following the Stafford Inquiry, the Government has refused to set up such a register.

Arguments used by the ministers include the amount of work and money needed to set up a register which would cover staff providing only basic needs such as washing and feeding. Ministers are instead looking at introducing a minimum standard of training together with a code of conduct. They also said that it would be unfair to expect lowly-paid care workers to pay for regular registration and renewal fees, although 67% of the care workers surveyed also went on to say that they would be prepared to pay for registration too.

The nature of the work may appear to be straightforward and basic to some, however it is also hugely important and vital to the patients involved. Having a register would help to introduce a more accessible system of accountability which many feel is currently lacking, particularly with the use of temporary, casual and agency workers becoming ever more prevalent.

Whether or not the Government listens to those involved is another matter.

 

Joseph Norton

BBC poll confirms no indication of mass influx of Romanian and Bulgarian Nationals

I blogged about this issue some time ago…the panic that the UK would be flooded with Romanian and Bulgarian nationals. For those who may not recall, the post can be found here.

BBC News has commissioned a poll, the conclusion of which is “No indication of huge Romanian-Bulgarian influx”. From reading the BBC News article, it is clear that this was a well thought out and thorough poll. For anyone who may be interested, the BBC article can be found here.

Steven Grosvenor

When a tweet can cost you £150,000

It is fairly common knowledge now that many employers turn to social media such as Facebook or Twitter to vet prospective candidates to fill vacancies. Most businesses now have a Social Media policy and, if you’re a business and you don’t, you may want to speak to Waldrons’ business service team who can guide you through the process.

The latest legal battle involving social media is the case of a typist from Milton Keynes who did freelance work for a Qatar-based businessman. She believed that she had not been paid and tweeted as such. The businessman has now filed a claim for libel, seeking £50,000 in damages. The claimant in this case also wants to add Twitter, as the publisher of the comment, as a defendant.

The legal arguments of Twitter being joined as a defendant are somewhat irrelevant for the purpose of this blog post. The important factor here is that an individual, who says “It was only a small amount of money that we argued over but because I was broke and stressed I took to Twitter and went on a bit of a rant.” is now being sued for £50,000 and her solicitor, in an article published in The Guardian, says that the legal costs could be in excess of £100,000.

This is not the first case and is unlikely to be the last based on comments made on social media. Just like writing an article in a newspaper or publishing a blog post, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Google Plus are all places that can fuel a civil claim or even criminal prosecution.

In December 2012, a juror was dismissed from a trial after tweeting ““Woooow I wasn’t expecting to be in a jury Deciding a paedophile’s fate, I’ve always wanted to **** up a paedophile & now I’m within the law!” The fact for this juror was that he wasn’t within the law, with the Attorney General indicating that he would be prosecuted.

In the US, a death row inmate has his murder conviction quashed because a juror was tweeting throughout the trial.

What is it with social media sites that make people say things that they might otherwise not say, for fear of making a faux pas or finding themselves in trouble? Perhaps it’s the ease with which it is available, with many Tweeters reaching for their phones and literally tweeting what comes into their mind, often when upset or angry – and possibly regretting it later. When your mind is racing at 125 miles per hour, try to hold that thought and bring it down to a standing start.

Whatever the reason, think before you tweet (or even retweet!), mull it over before you update your Facebook status –is this comment going to cost me £150,000?

Steven Grosvenor

If you were a client of Blakemores Solicitors immigration department…

The news of the closure of Blakemores Solicitors of Great Charles Street Queensway Birmingham has been a shock to the legal world and to clients alike. Blakemores was one of the largest providers of immigration advice in the West Midlands and many people will be worried about urgent deadlines and appeals over the coming weeks.

If you were a client of Blakemores and you are concerned about your immigration case then the first thing to do is not to panic! Your file will have been transferred to another firm appointed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. That firm is unlikely to be completing work for you but is essentially a “caretaker” of your file.

The second thing you need to do is to find a new lawyer to represent you. This is where Waldrons can assist. We have taken note of the unexpected closure of Blakemores Solicitors and have made provision to assist clients who need a new immigration lawyer to represent them. We can offer assistance through our International Services Department.

With offices in Dudley, Merry Hill, Walsall, Worcester, Tipton and Kingswinford it is likely that we will be close to where you live. Even if not, we have video conferencing facilities and can use Skype.

Waldrons does not hold a legal aid contract for immigration law and is therefore unable to help if you need free legal aid. However, we have a competitive fixed-fee structure for most cases and we are available to assist on an urgent basis if required. We will be able to assist with obtaining your file and then represent you in connection with your case.

You should seek advice urgently if you have an appeal hearing in the coming weeks or if you have a deadline to meet. The Tribunal and the UK Border Agency will usually be willing to extend time in circumstances like those affecting clients of Blakemores.

If you think we can help, please call us on 01384 811 811 and speak to Steven Grosvenor, our Head of International Services. Steven can also be reached by email at s.grosvenor@waldrons.co.uk

By Steven Grosvenor

Caution…Solicitor caught on camera!

We are launching our very own YouTube Channel and to give our regular readers a taster, here is our very own Adrian Witt discussing Personal Injury.

What do you think? An appearance on the Red Carpet at the Oscars? A cameo in the next James Bond movie?

Businesses risk reputation and financial loss

In a three-month period in 2012, the UK Border Agency issued civil penalties to businesses to the tune of £2.8 million. Almost half a million of that was in the Midlands and East Region of England. If the trend continued over twelve months, £1.6 million would be taken from the local economy.

Why were these penalties issued?

Every employer has a duty to comply with UK immigration legislation. The simple fact is that may employers unwittingly do not comply, either because of a lack of understanding of the complex rules or because the employer is not aware that they need to comply. In some cases, employers are fully compliant but they do not have the evidence to demonstrate compliance.

In each of these cases, the UK Border Agency visited the business premises, asked to see evidence of compliance and when there was no evidence, issued a Penalty Notice up to £10,000 per employee where compliance was not demonstrated. The onus is then on the employer to demonstrate, effectively retrospectively, that they have not breached UK immigration law. If full compliance can be demonstrated, the penalty will be cancelled but not after the business has been publicly named on the UK Border Agency’s website and most likely in the local media. If partial compliance can be demonstrated, the penalty may be reduced.

It can be disastrous for businesses when they are “named and shamed” as “unscrupulous employers” even in cases where they have done nothing wrong. This is particularly so for small to medium sized businesses with a local customer-base. A national or multi-national company may not suffer whereas such negative publicity could be catastrophic for a local business.

How Civil Penalties can be avoided

Businesses need to have a robust system in place to vet each employee before employing them and, in some cases, to conduct repeat checks. This must be done in a non-discriminatory way – if it appears that certain individuals or groups of individuals are focused upon then a claim could be made for race discrimination: the policy and practices must apply to all.

The difficulty many businesses encounter is a lack of understanding of who is entitled to work in the UK and under what circumstances. The added task for businesses is also to spot forged documents; if a ‘reasonable person’ would believe a document giving the right to work is a forgery then a penalty can still be imposed.

This, of course, all takes time, knowledge and expertise in an area perhaps where your business does not have the time or even the expertise.

By Steven Grosvenor

About the author

As Head of International Services at Waldrons Solicitors, Steven has eight years experience working in the field of immigration compliance. He can act as the equivalent of your in-house compliance service, deliver training to your business or HR department, and/or draft your policies for you. He is also well-versed in spotting forged documents and, if things go wrong, he can also assist with challenging civil penalties but he says that the old saying “prevention is better than cure” is always the case in immigration compliance. A small investment now could save tens of thousands of pounds in the future.

If you think you might benefit from discussing the needs of your business, Steven can be contacted on s.grosvenor@waldrons.co.uk or by telephone on 01384 811 873. He can also be contacted by Skype for video conferencing.