sorry chaps, feel very poorly today with very nasty coff so not my usual chirpy happy self but howdo anyway !

have cl. with thai wife who will satisfy the 2 year residency rules on 29/11/08. however :
cl. / woman married in thailand, is their marriage legal in u.k ?
if not will this affect their benefit entitlement in u.k after 2 years ?
unsure on what visa cl. wife entered u.k, will this make difference ?
should cl. declare her presence in his residence to i.s, h.b / c.t.b, and d.l.a ?
i feel he should because a person should also notify all relevant benefit offices of a change in their circs, although, so long as cl. does not try to claim benefit for wife, this should not have any affect on :
his benefits.
her right to remain in u.k now.

help ! hope this all makes sense ?

pete

Sorry to hear about your coff! Well done for working on when feeling poorly!! Hope you a bit chirpier today. Anyway here are some thoughts on most of your questions.

Does it matter, for the benefits you mention, if their marriage is legal? They are still partners living together, aren’t they? So as far as benefit system is concerned they are a couple.

I expect it will matter what visa she entered U.K. on. I would suggest this is a priority question. Once you know the type establishing her status re benefits should be fairly straight forward. I agree with your last assumption. Any claim for IS, Hb etc should include reference to his partner but whether he includes her as part of his claim for such benefits depends on her visa status etc.

Allan.

thanx allan and feeling much better today ta v. much !

will get wifes visa status and (probably) get back to you for further ponderations on this matter ? ? ?

have a tip-top day,

pete

Just for info, the broadminded English family law system recognises any monogamous marriage that was legal in the country where it was entered into. Indeed, up to a point it even recognises legal polygamous marriages from countries where that is legal.

You want her to have come in as a spouse on a two year visa on which she would have no recourse to public funds. Before that expires she needs to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Once she's got that there's no problem with benefits. And it does matter if they are married because she can't get indefinite leave to remain - and thus claim benefits - as an unmarried partner.

All this assumes that husband is either British or has indefinite leave himself. I think he must be if he is on IS otherwise horrid right to reside questions would have arisen.

Morning All, Thought it was possible to get indefinite leave, in a case like this, to remain for a partner. E.G. where any previous marriage had ended and the present relationship had existed for at least 2 years.

Allan.

you folk do know how to make a poorly chappy happy you know

and hello everyone.
to a. your q. ariadne2 (nice to share thoughts again) she did come in on a 2 year visa as a spouse, and for once (no way ! i hear you lot say) i feel i got the answer to this myself. hoorah !

although, on a footnote, should the cl. inform all relevant benefit offices of her presence in his residence, even though this has no effect on cl. means tested benefits ?

on a final footnote, and this is a big'n ...
the cpag big book of benefits is somewhat confusing on this matter but i think the wife could not claim carers allowance if we assist the cl. to get d.l.a mid. rate care because it is a benefit which is classed as a public fund, and although she is a family member of an eea national, her imm. status overides that ?

once again, thanx all and have a jolly ggod evening.

pete

Assuming he's British, for her to have European law rights as his wife I think they would have had to arrived in the UK together from somewhere else within the EEA as they would have had to be exercising a Treaty right of free movment. They would then get in under reverse dicrimination rules which would treat national of other EU countries more favourably than British citizens. And I'm not sure how taht fits in with rights of abode as she clearly is "subject to immigration control" having a limited visa and a no public funds conditions. And CA is definitely public funds.