Registering at the Doctor

[slipsam]

My wife arrived in the UK a few weeks ago. A few days ago I attempted to register my wife with the local doctors surgery, the same one I am with. I was told that she could register by that it would be six months before she was entitled to free NHS treatment and that any visit to the docters, treatment, etc. would have to be private and we would have to be paid for.

Luckily she is fine and healthy at the moment but I was not aware of this restriction. Is this a new requirement or is there a chance they have got things wrong ?

[Tobias]

If your wife is here for a 'settled purpose' (and she holds a settlement visa rather than a visit visa) then what your GP has told you is incorrect.

Your wife is entitled to free NHS treatment from day one!

I remember posting in more detail on this subject a while back, perhaps a search would bring up the necessary info for you to argue your position with the GP.

[North]

My wife is here ion a 1 year FLR visa
Is she entitled to free NHS?
Cheers

[Tobias]

Yes!

[North]

Cheers Tobias
and i assume she is free to look for work?

[John]

North posted :-

My wife is here ion a 1 year FLR visa

Do you mean a 2-year visa?

i assume she is free to look for work?

If she is in the UK on a 2-year spouse visa, she is not just entitled to look for work ... she is entitled to work!

It is holders of a 6-month fiancé(e) visa that are not allowed to work in the UK .... well not until after the marriage has happened and the fiancé(e) visa has been converted into a spouse visa.

The NHS Registration problem! Don't take no for an answer! The reception person at the Doctor's Surgery cannot be expected to be an expert on this subject. Insist that the person is here on a Settlement visa and is entitled to be registered. If they still decline to register the person as a patient, ask for the details of the Primary Care Trust ... name, address, telephone number ... and do make contact with that PCT to get the issue resolved.

[North]

Thanks for that
She was here on a fiancee visa, we married and she now has been granted a 1 year Further Leave to Remain
At the end of 1 year, i assume we will be granted a further 2 year extension all being well, and then after that ILR

[John]

North, are you absolutely sure? The visa that has been issued, to convert from the fiancée visa, you used form FLR(M)?

Without disclosing details of any names thereon, can you post full details of what is printed on the visa? Start date? End date? Visa conditions? Any other pieces of information printed on the visa (except actual names)?

[alvin]

Originally posted by John:
North posted :-

My wife is here ion a 1 year FLR visa

Do you mean a 2-year visa?

i assume she is free to look for work?

If she is in the UK on a 2-year spouse visa, she is not just entitled to look for work ... she is entitled to work!

It is holders of a 6-month fiancé(e) visa that are not allowed to work in the UK .... well not until after the marriage has happened and the fiancé(e) visa has been converted into a spouse visa.

John,

From a legal stand-point I appreciate that my fiancee is not allowed to work - it states as much in her visa (or even look for work?) and if I am correct before our wedding in November, and also after the FLR application is issued.

However, why is it that the UK authorities adpot this stance? What is the rationale behind it and is this standard practice in the EU?

We are all too aware that as fiancee's, they have no re-course to public funds - which appears right and fair.
But why does the UK exclude someone who is due to settle, has a valid UK visa, (pays indirectly a % of council tax!) and wants to work, pay tax/NI etc. This also baffles me that (if I believe correctly) students studying in the UK can work up to 16 hours per week?

To be honest we could do with bringing some extra income in ahead of a wedding/party to fund, and my fiancee after 2 months here feels that she wants to contribute and cannot understand why she can not even look for work.

What would the consequences be IF my fiancee was lucky enough to find some form of employment - to
a) her
b) me
c) the employer knowingly/unknowingly took her on without NI number/FLR

Thanks in advance.
alvin

[Noi & Nick]

See reply here.

[John]

Alvin posted :-

However, why is it that the UK authorities adpot this stance? What is the rationale behind it and is this standard practice in the EU?

I don't know the answer to the question but would say ... does it matter what the reasoning is? The fact is that it is abundantly clear that holders of a fiancé(e) visa are not allowed to work ... until after the marriage has happened ... and indeed until after the fiancé(e) visa has been converted into a spouse visa in the UK.

You have chosen to go down the fiancée visa route ... rather than getting married in Thailand. Your choice, but doing
so has the following effects :-

• no work permitted until the person has their spouse visa in their passport
• an additional visa application ... cost £335 by post or £500 in person at a PEO ... not to mention the hassle of making that additional visa application

Which is why I shall continue to recommend serious consideration to getting married in Thailand ... or if people do wish to get married in the UK ... they do so with their eyes open ... to the two matters listed above.

[alvin]

John and Nick

Thanks for the replies/answers, and I doubt whether anyone else can add anything new/constructive given that 'rules are rules'.

I don't know whether this is something the UK stands out on a limb on, or whether other E.U countries/U.S adopt the same priciples.

Still, IMO the fiancee visa like for many others I assume, despite the hassle and cost would still be my favoured route (despite the unfortunate UK work restrictions).

Even though I love my fiancee, marrying her in Thailand after just 7 months, and just 2X2 week holidays, +1 very short hop over there would not have been enough for me (and her) to tie the knot so soon. She also wanted to marry in the UK, probably unaware, or forgot about the UK law regarding work pre marriage.

For Pranom and I, we felt the need to sample/experience real 'married-type' bliss, living, me working 9 to 5 (6.30 to 4 actually) in the U.K, without the spice/magic/holiday romance clouding our views.

So in other words, I suppose. ....you pay your money and take your choice.

alvin

[Tobias]

It sounds like a visit visa might have been more economical for you

[alvin]

I don't know why you think that. Please explain?

[John]

Tobias is of course easily able to answer for himself but in case he is not online at the moment, here is my attempt.

The cost of a visitor visa in Bangkok is a lot cheaper than the cost of the converting of a fiancée visa into a spouse visa in the UK.

That is, the alternative plan could have been ... she comes here on a visitor visa first ..... if that works out OK, the two of you go back to Thailand and get legally married .... then apply for a spouse visa in Thailand .... and once she gets back to the UK with that spouse visa she can of course work.

That is how I think the argument would go. The only financial bit of that which could produce a counter-argument is the cost of the airfares to go back to Thailand and get married there. But if the trip would have been made anyway then there would be no additional travelling costs.

[Tobias]

Two reasons:

1) A visit visa is much cheaper and apperas to be the correct visa for your stated purpose.

2) A fiancé(e) visa is a visa intended for those who have already decided to (and will) marry in the UK within 6 months of the grant of the visa. According to your post, one of (if not 'the') main reason for applying for the fiancé(e) visa is so that you can 'test the water'. The fiancé(e) visa is not a 'test-the-water' visa.

Just an observation.

[alvin]

I note your points, but I don't necessarily agree with you that I have been merely testing-the-water?

Getting married in LOS was not an option for us. Being 'engaged' to be married living together in the UK, like man and wife in the real world is and will lead to a wedding and so on and so forth, and still is the plan.

The point I was trying to make is that it is a struggle for us financially, and she wants to work now, but why such rigid, inflexible rules?

In fact, looking at it the other way getting marrried in LOS, then bringing her to the UK (blind) yes on a spouse visa, would have saved me £££ in the short-run, but potentially if she hated it here, where would that have got me?

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight...I may have done it differently.

alvin

[Noi & Nick]

As both John and Tobias have said, a fiance visa is not so you can live together for a bit to see if you are suited. It is issued for one reason only; so the holder can come to the UK, marry his/her sponsor and then apply for settlement. Indeed, to get the visa in the first place you have to show that you have made plans for when the marriage will take place.

The no work clause is not a major hassle for most, as the period between arrival in the UK, marriage and FLR tends to be short.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Noi & Nick:
Indeed, to get the visa in the first place you have to show that you have made plans for when the marriage will take place.

That is not correct.

The fiancé(e) visa is not a 'test-the-water' visa.

That may be correct from the legal point of view, but many do see the fiancé(e) visa as such an opportunity. Probably with more commitment than a visit visa.

The Home Office, rightly or wrongly according to you point of view, do put obstacles in place that prevent the more normal course for a relationship to develop, by keeping people apart unless they are able to obtain a visa of some description to be together. Sometimes it is necessary to play these rules to your advantage.

[Tobias]

One thing for certain Ray, if an applicant tells an ECO that the Fiancé(e) visa they are applying for is to 'test the water' then that visa application will be refused.