Immigrationboards.com

Since Home Office has not made any announcement yet, does this mean there will be no increase in the ILR fees for 2017-2018.

It is understood that it is already extremely high and very unfair.

A colleague of mine will become eligible for ILR on 3 May 2017 and he intends to apply on 6 Apr 2017 i.e. 28 days in advance.

harshitguptaiitr wrote:Since Home Office has not made any announcement yet, does this mean there will be no increase in the ILR fees for 2017-2018.

It is understood that it is already extremely high and very unfair.

A colleague of mine will become eligible for ILR on 3 May 2017 and he intends to apply on 6 Apr 2017 i.e. 28 days in advance.

Not necessarily. Last year the proposed increase in fees was published on the 11th Jan 2016 and are applicable until March 2017.

Highly likely there will be an increase. Sometimes only published in February or at least 40 days before the implementation date.

If he is applying in person and books his appointment and pays the fees before 6th April, he will pay the current fees. Unless like last year, the fees increased on 18th March and not 6th April.

harshitguptaiitr wrote:It is understood that it is already extremely high and very unfair.

An alternative would be for the hard-pressed general tax paying public to subsidise - how would that be fair(er)?

And I have paid for 2 ILR already so I've paid my way.

CR001 wrote:at least 40 days before the implementation date.

That is the general rule for amendments to statutory instruments. The Immigration Rules, including fees, are statutory instruments and hence can be changed at any time, provided the changes are published 40 days in advance of them coming into force.

no notice yet around fees rise!

am fingers crossed for my premium ILR appointment on 28th feb and then children's JCAP/Registration promptly before they rip my pocket off again..

Are we expecting to see the fee rise notice soon?

The new tax year starts 7th April 2017 and if we count 40 days back, 27th February likely appears when they could put the fee rise notice online to be implemented 40 days later.

Just a vague thought!

noajthan wrote: An alternative would be for the hard-pressed general tax paying public to subsidise - how would that be fair(er)?

And I have paid for 2 ILR already so I've paid my way.

No one is asking for it to be subsidised, HO weren't loosing money when you paid peanuts for 2 ILRs.

So please do respect other members and their feeling.

no disrespect intended.

The only webpage I could find which is remotely related to the topic is:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?i ... =education

Where the debate in the Lords house is recorded

Apparently, we have to wait until the mid March to find out.

But usually the draft should be published way ahead of the parliment laying out.

Following that link, here is the relevant part:

As I mentioned, the immigration fees regulations, which are due to be laid in Parliament in mid-March and will come into force in April, will remain completely within the parameters agreed by Parliament and in line with the impact assessment published with the 2016 order.

This is from https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... )Order2017

So expect a fee rise soon...I wish they get a bit easy on ILRs...it is crazy amount now!

paradoxical wrote:Following that link, here is the relevant part:

As I mentioned, the immigration fees regulations, which are due to be laid in Parliament in mid-March and will come into force in April, will remain completely within the parameters agreed by Parliament and in line with the impact assessment published with the 2016 order.

This is from https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... )Order2017

So expect a fee rise soon...I wish they get a bit easy on ILRs...it is crazy amount now!

One thing we are sure is that it won't be more than £3250 per person.

paradoxical wrote:Following that link, here is the relevant part:

As I mentioned, the immigration fees regulations, which are due to be laid in Parliament in mid-March and will come into force in April, will remain completely within the parameters agreed by Parliament and in line with the impact assessment published with the 2016 order.

This is from https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... )Order2017

So expect a fee rise soon...I wish they get a bit easy on ILRs...it is crazy amount now!

I think it will be £2250.00 this year, based on the calculation as

2016-17 1875
2017-18 1875*1.2=2250
2018-19 2250*1.2=2700
2019-20 2700*1.2=3240

proposed maximum in 2019-2020 is £3250

chenzz wrote:
I think it will be £2250.00 this year, based on the calculation as

2016-17 1875
2017-18 1875*1.2=2250
2018-19 2250*1.2=2700
2019-20 2700*1.2=3240

proposed maximum in 2019-2020 is £3250

This is the prices I have been budgetting around, definately not £3250 .

They can also amend the maximum that they can charge..I think I do remember much less "maximum" allowed and they have been bumped up progressively..

paradoxical wrote:They can also amend the maximum that they can charge..I think I do remember much less "maximum" allowed and they have been bumped up progressively..

Yes, they could.

but according to the parliament webpage you quoted, "The draft order will make minor technical changes to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which remains in place and which continues to set out the overall framework and maximum amounts that can be charged for immigration and nationality functions, as agreed by Parliament last year.".

It's clearly they are not changing the maximum amount projected for 2019-20 this time.

sifanaeem wrote:

noajthan wrote: An alternative would be for the hard-pressed general tax paying public to subsidise - how would that be fair(er)?

And I have paid for 2 ILR already so I've paid my way.

No one is asking for it to be subsidised, HO weren't loosing money when you paid peanuts for 2 ILRs.

So please do respect other members and their feeling.

no disrespect intended.

Maybe the high cost (which I need to pay myself soon) is not about cost of HO but rather for self selection to make it harder to get ILR?

Maybe the high cost (which I need to pay myself soon) is not about cost of HO but rather for self selection to make it harder to get ILR?
Did you think that the high fee was due to the high cost of HO?? Prepare for the shock then:
The cost of various visa categories is actually published by the Home Office and based on that document, the cost of an ILR to the Home Office is £434. So charging £1875 (and most likely will cross £2000 in April) is about 5 times more than the cost!!!! (the document is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Table.pdf)
Now what is ethical and what is unethical is discussion for another day, but I do not think that any known ethical framework in today's world can rationalise charging five times more than the actual cost...be it a product business, or a service business , public or private...
I think they charge money because they can...They know that people will still go for it, so they do!
They do keep the other categories like work/visitor/education visas within a certain limit as they think it benefits their country..(According to them, the guiding principle is " Government will ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services enable the UK to retain its position as an attractive destination for work, study and visits." )As for granting ILR/settlement, they don't see as much benefit perhaps..either way, the guiding principle does not include "fairness"/"ethical" as we know it..

paradoxical wrote:Maybe the high cost (which I need to pay myself soon) is not about cost of HO but rather for self selection to make it harder to get ILR?
Did you think that the high fee was due to the high cost of HO?? Prepare for the shock then:
The cost of various visa categories is actually published by the Home Office and based on that document, the cost of an ILR to the Home Office is £434. So charging £1875 (and most likely will cross £2000 in April) is about 5 times more than the cost!!!! (the document is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Table.pdf)
Now what is ethical and what is unethical is discussion for another day, but I do not think that any known ethical framework in today's world can rationalise charging five times more than the actual cost...be it a product business, or a service business , public or private...
I think they charge money because they can...They know that people will still go for it, so they do!
They do keep the other categories like work/visitor/education visas within a certain limit as they think it benefits their country..(According to them, the guiding principle is " Government will ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services enable the UK to retain its position as an attractive destination for work, study and visits." )As for granting ILR/settlement, they don't see as much benefit perhaps..either way, the guiding principle does not include "fairness"/"ethical" as we know it..

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said it is NOT to cover the admin costs rather to have self selection so that it is -harder- to become ILR. (those who don't have to think twice for paying £10K for a average family are maybe more wanted?)

Ethical? Of course a country is allowed an immigration policy to decide who should come and who should not (of course policy should be according to human rights and not limit one specific ethnicity/religion etc). Is the system still thoroughly abused? Come over to the Entrepreneur forum and see for yourself

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said it is NOT to cover the admin costs rather to have self selection so that it is -harder- to become ILR. (those who don't have to think twice for paying £10K for a average family are maybe more wanted?)

Of course I read it..And I know you said that it is NOT to cover the cost. But I wanted to point the difference out to show that it should not even cross our mind that the high fee has anything to do with cost (the difference is so massive that it does not even warrant mentioning that the high fee is not due to admin cost but something else).

Ethical? Of course a country is allowed an immigration policy to decide who should come and who should not (of course policy should be according to human rights and not limit one specific ethnicity/religion etc). Is the system still thoroughly abused? Come over to the Entrepreneur forum and see for yourself
A country is indeed allowed and that is why nobody is challenging them in court. As for system being abused, I condemn that and a country should be framing policies such that people who abuse are found/apprehended/punished...(but that should not be linked to charging such high fees)
At the same time, I think that charging 5 times can't be justified by any known ethical framework.

I said it is NOT to cover the admin costs rather to have self selection so that it is -harder- to become ILR. (those who don't have to think twice for paying £10K for a average family are maybe more wanted?)
Possibly. According to Home Office though, the massive increase in settlement applications is because such groups benefit the most (whatever that means).

paradoxical wrote:Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said it is NOT to cover the admin costs rather to have self selection so that it is -harder- to become ILR. (those who don't have to think twice for paying £10K for a average family are maybe more wanted?)

Of course I read it..And I know you said that it is NOT to cover the cost. But I wanted to point the difference out to show that it should not even cross our mind that the high fee has anything to do with cost (the difference is so massive that it does not even warrant mentioning that the high fee is not due to admin cost but something else).

Ethical? Of course a country is allowed an immigration policy to decide who should come and who should not (of course policy should be according to human rights and not limit one specific ethnicity/religion etc). Is the system still thoroughly abused? Come over to the Entrepreneur forum and see for yourself
A country is indeed allowed and that is why nobody is challenging them in court. As for system being abused, I condemn that and a country should be framing policies such that people who abuse are found/apprehended/punished...(but that should not be linked to charging such high fees)
At the same time, I think that charging 5 times can't be justified by any known ethical framework.

I said it is NOT to cover the admin costs rather to have self selection so that it is -harder- to become ILR. (those who don't have to think twice for paying £10K for a average family are maybe more wanted?)
Possibly. According to Home Office though, the massive increase in settlement applications is because such groups benefit the most (whatever that means).

Makes no sense what you are saying. First you acknowledge that the fee is not related to the admin costs and you agree that a country can have an immigration policy of its choosing. Then you say it is not ethical because the fee is too high related to the admin costs (but you already acknowledged there is no connection...)

Makes no sense what you are saying. First you acknowledge that the fee is not related to the admin costs and you agree that a country can have an immigration policy of its choosing. Then you say it is not ethical because the fee is too high related to the admin costs (but you already acknowledged there is no connection...)

Maybe you are getting confused because you are mixing "lawful" and "ethical". Here is my stance in a nutshell:


The high fee for ILR is lawful but unethical.

It is lawful because there is no law of the country that is being violated by charging the current fee.
It is unethical because the charge is five times more than the actual cost, something that can't possibly be justified by any known ethical framework in today's world.

paradoxical wrote:Makes no sense what you are saying. First you acknowledge that the fee is not related to the admin costs and you agree that a country can have an immigration policy of its choosing. Then you say it is not ethical because the fee is too high related to the admin costs (but you already acknowledged there is no connection...)

Maybe you are getting confused because you are mixing "lawful" and "ethical". Here is my stance in a nutshell:


The high fee for ILR is lawful but unethical.

It is lawful because there is no law of the country that is being violated by charging the current fee.
It is unethical because the charge is five times more than the actual cost, something that can't possibly be justified by any known ethical framework in today's world.

Do you agree that a country can decide its immigration policy? Do you agree that high fees keeps to some extent the 'undesirables' of that policy?

Also you are completely looking at cost wrong. the cost to UK is not the Admin fee of a caseworker. Once you get ILR the UK is committing to a lifetime of supporting all of the family if needed (so at least start the commitment to people that don't need the support?)

Do you agree that a country can decide its immigration policy?
I already said I do.
Do you agree that high fees keeps to some extent the 'undesirables' of that policy?
I agree but that is coming at the price of also affecting those who are not "undesirables" (assuming that by undesirables you mean those who abuse the system)

Also you are completely looking at cost wrong. the cost to UK is not the Admin fee of a caseworker. Once you get ILR the UK is committing to a lifetime of supporting all of the family if needed (so at least start the commitment to people that don't need the support?)
This will take us into a long discussion and I am sure that you can provide good arguments for justifying the high cost. I can provide counter arguments. As for family supporting if needed, that pool of money comes from tax payers money (to which I contribute significantly like all those who work here). The reality of the high fee is not to contribute to that pool to help families in future, but to run the Home Office without any taxpayers money. So far so good, and if they could have charged people as much as it costs them, then that purpose would have been served. But this is where the "unethical" part for me starts. They charge people disproportionately. Some people are charged upto 5 times more because someone else is charged much less than the cost. So the "cost" is a relevant point when we talk about ethics.

So I'd say, let's agree to disagree here

paradoxical wrote:Do you agree that a country can decide its immigration policy?
I already said I do.
Do you agree that high fees keeps to some extent the 'undesirables' of that policy?
I agree but that is coming at the price of also affecting those who are not "undesirables" (assuming that by undesirables you mean those who abuse the system)

Also you are completely looking at cost wrong. the cost to UK is not the Admin fee of a caseworker. Once you get ILR the UK is committing to a lifetime of supporting all of the family if needed (so at least start the commitment to people that don't need the support?)
This will take us into a long discussion and I am sure that you can provide good arguments for justifying the high cost. I can provide counter arguments. As for family supporting if needed, that pool of money comes from tax payers money (to which I contribute significantly like all those who work here). The reality of the high fee is not to contribute to that pool to help families in future, but to run the Home Office without any taxpayers money. So far so good, and if they could have charged people as much as it costs them, then that purpose would have been served. But this is where the "unethical" part for me starts. They charge people disproportionately. Some people are charged upto 5 times more because someone else is charged much less than the cost. So the "cost" is a relevant point when we talk about ethics.

So I'd say, let's agree to disagree here

I think the main mistake you are making is the assumption that the 'visa administration' should be self sustaining and this is all. (and yes if the UK wants to attract tourists and students but not charge them a high fee then that is another reason for high ILR fees)

Actually the high cost should be used to make people thing a lot if really worth them to go for ILR. that is what self selection means

I think the main mistake you are making is the assumption that the 'visa administration' should be self sustaining and this is all.
That is the justification that the Home Office is using for the increasingly high fee, the objective being to make it self-sustaining and without relying on tax-payers money (and to that extent I completely agree)

(and yes if the UK wants to attract tourists and students but not charge them a high fee then that is another reason for high ILR fees)
Work through the table of costs from the Home Office and you should be able to conclude that, that is not the reason.

Actually the high cost should be used to make people thing a lot if really worth them to go for ILR. that is what self selection means
This is a flawed argument, and using this argument, there is no limit to what can be charged. At some point if the rules change and an additional requirement is to donate one kidney before getting ILR (since a person can still live with one kidney), your argument will still hold (i.e. people should be made to think a lot if it is really worth getting an ILR) and that just shows that the argument you presented puts no bound on what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.
In order to be eligible for ILR, one has to live for 5 years and pay taxes and earn a decent amount of money (and hence pay decent amount of taxes) or live legally for 10 years (which is a significant time of one's life). If after that, a person picks a form, fills it and pays a "reasonable" fee (which should be ~£500), that still is quite a long process and a person must have thought a lot if it is worth it or not etc. But to charge someone of the order of 5 times more (which can amount to ~10,000 for an average family) is simply brutal. To put the 10,000 in perspective, think of the recent Brexit debate. The politicians were trying to convince people on either side by making arguments like how a family will be ~80 pounds better off/120 pounds worse off etc. THAT is the amount which many politicians deemed to be a decent amount to change someone's opinion. And here, we are talking about charging a family with ~10,000 to get ILR, the amount of money that an average person might save over several years....simply preposterous