The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[sandch]

Hey Mike, do they have anything that comes even close to the expression "link detached"? I just love that one as it perfectly encapsulates the essence of the real estate industry in Britain. That and "architect-designed" (to distinguish it from the ones they contracted the vicar to do) - oh, and "much sought after".

 

Come to think of it the list is endless.

 

The smilies on this site are pretty awful. Whatever happened to subtle?

 

All the best folks.

 

Steve

[Les Avalook]

 

The smilies on this site are pretty awful. Whatever happened to subtle?

 

All the best folks.

 

Steve

 

You have to remember Steve this is the Poms In Oz site, it's pretty brutal out there.:shocked::goofy::swoon::GEEK::frown::cry:

[MikenSueNW3]

Hey Mike, do they have anything that comes even close to the expression "link detached"? I just love that one as it perfectly encapsulates the essence of the real estate industry in Britain. That and "architect-designed" (to distinguish it from the ones they contracted the vicar to do) - oh, and "much sought after".

 

Come to think of it the list is endless.

 

The smilies on this site are pretty awful. Whatever happened to subtle?

 

All the best folks.

 

Steve

 

Hmm, yes, Steve.

 

In Sydney, where (at least in the posher parts) some relationship to the Harbour is de rigeur, my favourites include "absolute waterfront" (what is "un-absolute" waterfront, I wonder), "dress circle" (for anything on high ground, preferably with a view), and "habour glimpses" (one down from "harbour views").

 

I once saw an agent's board outside a tumbledown wreck of a bungalow proclaiming: "Renovate or detonate!"

 

Mike

[Guest Gollywobbler]

G'day Gill an'all

 

I'll have to think a bit more about the pros and cons of "unit" living, and post a considered reply in a day or two. I think I'll also forward your post, Gill, on to an old mate, Pete Lander, who is a family solicitor on Sydney's North Shore. He has years of experience in these things (including representing some "little old ladies" in a retirement home whose owners conveniently went bust leaving the residents owed a lot of money – a version of what Aussies sometimes call a "bottom-of-the-harbour" scheme, when a company is stripped of its assets then "sinks" or goes bust owing a lot to creditors – so it pays to beware in every kind of situation).

 

Pete would, I think, only ever live in a house. But he has acted for many unit-buyers, including ourselves. I'll see if he comes up with anything, but meanwhile make a few mental notes with a view to posting some thoughts and suggestions myself soon.

 

Meanwhile, however, I think I should correct you (if I may) on the use of the term "unit". When I was first went to Oz in the mid-60s, the word was applied to all sorts of things from a car – "That's a nice unit you're driving, Mike" – to a house. But now (at least among our acquaintances, who are mostly in the Sydney area) it seems to apply exclusively to a flat (abbreviated from the earlier term "home unit").

 

The sort of estate house I think you are referring to, Gill – generally semi-detached (or semi-attached, as Aussies seem to say) or terraced – is known as a "town-house" or "town-home". (Dontcha love estate agents' jargon? – perhaps its meant to sound more cosy, or simply to cover for the fact that it might not be, strictly speaking, a house but is rather more than a flat; what we'd call a maisonette or duplex, perhaps?)

 

What these and flats generally have in common is that they are not sold with outright freehold title. (Actually, Australia has a system called Torrens Title, which you as a solicitor would probably understand better than I, Gill.) I can only speak for New South Wales – and I believe there are some variations in other states – but there flats and town houses are generally held by either strata title (the great majority; which I believe has something in common with the recently-introduced commonhold here in the UK), company title (a bit like shared freehold where the flat-owners are all sharehlders in a company) and very rarely (I'm told particularly in the Manly area, where the Catholic Church owns/owned a lot of land and property) leasehold title. (This last is, of course, by far the most common in the UK, but in Australia is mostly restricted to commercial premises.)

 

A great advantage of strata title (at least, as I say, in NSW) is that what the "owners' corporation" – of which all flat-owners are members – can and/or must do is strictly controlled by law. As everywhere, however, there are well- and badly-managed blocks, since day-to-day matters are in the hands of an elected committee and the strata managers (usually a commercial firm – licensed by the state government – who collect strata fees [= service charges], pay communal bills, produce annual accounts, arrange for repairs, organise AGMs, and so on).

 

There are good and bad committees and strata managers – they're only human – so I (and I'm sure any good solicitor) would advise anyone planning to buy a flat to try to talk to other residents and ask how the place is run. Ask to see accounts, and check how healthy is the sinking fund (which is built up to pay for major repairs/redecorations, and is subject to quite strict controls and audits).

 

I started this post meaning to be quite brief, but have been banging on, as my OH would say! I'll try to be more succinct – think bullet points, Mike! – next time.

 

All the best, mike

 

Hi Mike

 

Thanks very much for your explanation so far. I would be fascinated if you could be very kind and ask Pete Lander what this "unit" thing is really about?

 

I thought it was all to do with the services to the property. I didn't realise that the Title might be involved. Hence I've always thought, "If the only worry is the services, what are you worried about? If the services work, surely that will do?"

 

I've heard of "Torrens Title" but it does not happen in E&W. Here, we still use the old feudal system of title where even a freehold belongs to the Crown, but the Crown has lost its teeth so the Crown will never try to grab the land back for itself. So one gets the idea that a freehold is the best "quality" of title because only the Crown could possibly claim a better Title to the land and the Crown will never interfere, so there is no worry about that.

 

I've also heard of the new Commonhold but I have never seen one in practice and I don't know anyone who says that they have. Developers won't do it, so the idea bites the dust. It is nothing but an example of unnecessary interference by the civil servants acting for the last Labour Government. HIPS packs were their stupid idea as well. These "innovations" always sound great to a civil servant who has never actually dealt with a conveyancing transaction. In practice, their "innovations" don't work, which is why nobody else has ever suggested them in living memory. Commonhold was dtched in about 1798, I believe, and there was obviously a sound reason for ditching it.

 

If we are really going to get seriously stupid about it, what's wrong with a modernised version of Copyhold tenure as well? LOL! Instead of the Lord of the Manor interfering, you could have County Councils interfering instead.....

 

The two 1925 Acts were designed to get away from the old, mediaeval, feudal ideas and the 1925 Acts do work. They were very well-designed and the ideas that they introduced have become the norm. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," as they say! Government interference with land in E&W has not really worked since 1925, so why fiddle with it?

 

I suspect that it comes down to the interfering ideology of the last Government - egged on by Brussels, who seem to specialise in Interfering as far as I can see. Elf & Safety is an idea that was born in Brussels. Apparently an old dear should now do a Risk Assessment in order to figure out whether she should cross a road at a place called a Zebra Crossing. Should she rely on the traffic to stop, or should she traipse half a mile to the nearest set of proper traffic lights? What if she cannot walk that far? Elf & Safety probably says that she should stay at home in that case.

 

Ridiculous legislation, introduced by ridiculous people for ridiculous reasons, imho! Of course the Civil Service went along with it. Figuring out what the old dear ought to do about crossing a road is definitely worth a week in Bermuda. We would not want the old dear to get squashed by a bus, after all.....

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

.

[Guest Cakey]

I loved the title housing for contributory poverty visa holders! and couldnt stop laughing at all the remarks made by sandch les avalook mikeandsue and Gill.........please keep them coming!

 

Cakey

[Petals]

Unfortunately body corporates are only as good as the unit owners who live in them. Here in Victoria some work well for a while then owners pass on and others rent them out and things change very rapidly from a happy community to a not so happy community.

 

I have had a lot to do with them when I worked and would I live in Strata, no way.

 

Strata Titles Act is a good act but I say again if there are problems then the body corporate has to sue and everyone has to pay and sometimes people just do not have the money.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hey Mike, do they have anything that comes even close to the expression "link detached"? I just love that one as it perfectly encapsulates the essence of the real estate industry in Britain. That and "architect-designed" (to distinguish it from the ones they contracted the vicar to do) - oh, and "much sought after".

 

Come to think of it the list is endless.

 

The smilies on this site are pretty awful. Whatever happened to subtle?

 

All the best folks.

 

Steve

 

 

Hi Steve

 

The one that has always puzzled me is "deceptively spacious." What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

 

Punch magazine did a sort of A-Z of these expressions once. It went like this:

 

In need of some repair: Translation - Only the front wall is standing.

 

Close to public transport: Translation - Property is on top of the bus terminus.

 

Close to local amenities: Translation - Good view of the gas works from every window.

 

Well stocked garden: Translation - Overgrown jungle that has had no maintenance for at least 20 years.

 

Sea views: Translation - if you climb onto the roof and cling to the chimney, on a clear day you can just about catch a glimpse of the sea in the distance.

 

Magnificent view of the sea: Translation - The property is 10 ft from the edge of a cliff and the cliff is prone to landslides.

 

Beachfront property: Translation - A serious risk of flooding at high tide.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[jorgon]

Hello Jorgon .................

 

Well done for getting your visas and getting the validation bit out of the way!!

 

Do you have any plans to move to Oz permenently any time soon? If so, where to?

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill

 

The above was from your message 10 September 2008, so the answer to your question was "no". For personal reasons we delayed another couple of years - but now we are ready to go - we have accepted an offer for our house and it looks as though we are finally going to make it to Oz (Brisbane) by mid October 2010!

 

It's been a really long haul, and I am sure is the right decision. I recently came "out" at work and you should have seen the jealous looks on their faces.

 

No more strap hanging on the tube, no more sweaty armpits, no more muggy afternoons, no more glum faces, no more aggression on the road! The Gold Coast here I come with my board!

 

Is this true?

[yomvard]

Hi Gill,

Yes they do no like units although my future daughter in law had a lovely 2-bed from what I could see from the pictures. The main no-no seems to be body corporate units or houses as you are always having to pay out for service charges etc. bit like leasehold here I think. They seem to be very common and especially when a plot has been subdivided and a single story(bungalow) or double story( house)....getting the jargon already....is built on the divided garden. It seems harder to find and a lot more expensive if it is freehold. yes the other side of the Peninsula is much cheaper but not so pretty as Mornington and Mt. Eliza and there seems to be the spectre of the BP refinery which has spoilt the beaches and the views. However it seems that away from the beaches in Hasting it is a nice town. Have to explore around...maybe Somerville and South Frankston, which is also expensive, but hey we dont want a mansion.

regards

Sandy

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Gill

 

The above was from your message 10 September 2008, so the answer to your question was "no". For personal reasons we delayed another couple of years - but now we are ready to go - we have accepted an offer for our house and it looks as though we are finally going to make it to Oz (Brisbane) by mid October 2010!

 

It's been a really long haul, and I am sure is the right decision. I recently came "out" at work and you should have seen the jealous looks on their faces.

 

No more strap hanging on the tube, no more sweaty armpits, no more muggy afternoons, no more glum faces, no more aggression on the road! The Gold Coast here I come with my board!

 

Is this true?

 

Hellooo again Jorgon

 

With your surfboard??!! The way I hear it, the cost of living in Australia is soaring so poverty stricken cash cows (I mean Contributory Parents) are having to get jobs in Bunnings, my friend. Apparently Bunnings like "older employees" even if they are creaking around on Zimmer frames.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[MikenSueNW3]

Commonhold was dtched in about 1798, I believe, and there was obviously a sound reason for ditching it.

 

G'day Gill

 

I was thinking of the modern version of commonhold, introduced in 2002 as an alternative to leasehold. (I only know a little about this because neighbours and ourselves are in the process of wresting management of our conversion property in London from a useless landlord, using "Right to Manage" provisions of the 2002 Act.) But, as Wikipedia notes (Commonhold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), it seems little used.

 

Torrens Title basically seems to be the system of land-ownership registration, as now used here in E&W, but first "invented" (by Sir Robert Torrens) in South Australia in 1858. See Torrens title - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

(As in a number of other things, including universal suffrage, Oz showed the way.)

 

Mike

[MikenSueNW3]

Unfortunately body corporates are only as good as the unit owners who live in them. Here in Victoria some work well for a while then owners pass on and others rent them out and things change very rapidly from a happy community to a not so happy community.

 

I have had a lot to do with them when I worked and would I live in Strata, no way.

 

Strata Titles Act is a good act but I say again if there are problems then the body corporate has to sue and everyone has to pay and sometimes people just do not have the money.

 

G'day Petals

 

Absolutely true, but for many there is no affordable alternative to apartment living if they want to live in a particular area, and the NSW goverment for one is now encouraging the building of big apartment blocks even in outer suburban areas where once there were endless rows of small houses on their own "subdivisions". (The Blue Mountains mean that Sydney has a finite area to sprawl into, unlike say Melbourne.)

 

But that's why I suggest that inquiries into block-management should be part of the home-hunting process. I'd also suggest that small(ish) blocks – up to say 20 units – may be best, as it's possible to know all or most of one's neighbours, and the management task is not too great and impersonal. On the other hand, there is a reasonable-sized pool from which to draw committee members. In a very small block, it may all devolve on one person who is willing and able, and if that person moves or passes away...

 

One important point if anyone is thinking of buying a flat in a new development: To state the bleedin' obvious, there are good developers and bad. When Sue and I started hunting in Sydney (when, because we were non-resident, we were required by the Foreign Investment Review Board rules to buy brand-new), our mate Pete Lander warned us off one particular big developer. I'd better not mention their name to avoid being accused of libel, but it begins with an M and is not Mirvac (which is regarded as one of the better developers).

 

Another thing to watch out for is conditions in the Strata "scheme of management" that gives the developers undue and prolonged control over the management of the block – beyond the point when all or most of the units are sold – so that they can insist on their own in-house or subsidiary management company running things, at an inflated price.

 

So don't (as if anyone would) rush in, and do make lots of searching inquires from friends, relos, a good solicitor and so on.

 

Best, Mike

[MikenSueNW3]

Hellooo again Jorgon

 

With your surfboard??!! The way I hear it, the cost of living in Australia is soaring so poverty stricken cash cows (I mean Contributory Parents) are having to get jobs in Bunnings, my friend. Apparently Bunnings like "older employees" even if they are creaking around on Zimmer frames.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

G'day again Gill!

 

In my experience, the wrinklies in Bunnings know a great deal more about their stock, and how to use it, than the staff in my local Homebase!

 

Mike

[Guest Gollywobbler]

G'day Gill

 

I was thinking of the modern version of commonhold, introduced in 2002 as an alternative to leasehold. (I only know a little about this because neighbours and ourselves are in the process of wresting management of our conversion property in London from a useless landlord, using "Right to Manage" provisions of the 2002 Act.) But, as Wikipedia notes (Commonhold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), it seems little used.

 

Torrens Title basically seems to be the system of land-ownership registration, as now used here in E&W, but first "invented" (by Sir Robert Torrens) in South Australia in 1858. See Torrens title - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

(As in a number of other things, including universal suffrage, Oz showed the way.)

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

As I mentioned, I have heard of Torrens Title because apparently that is the system used in WA, where my sister lives. From the tiny amount that I have been told and have read in Wiki, it seems to be more similar to the Scottish and Spanish systems than the one in E&W - where nobody really guarantees anything and caveat emptor remains the overriding principle. I'm wondering whether Sir Robert Torrens was Scottish?

 

I've never heard of Strata Title before and I will have to look it up in Wiki to find out what it is.

 

Until I started asking on this thread, I didn't realise that ground rent and/or a service charge is usually payable with a unit. I had only been told about shared mains services and I have often wondered why those should be a cause for concern.

 

I do like Land Law because it is very ancient and very pure in E&W. I hate the new fangled law such as Employment Law which seems to be based on statutes written in gibberish (not that I know anything about Employment Law, really. I just know that I don't like the look of it.)

 

I was once privileged to be told to sell some land for one of the colleges at Oxford Uni. The Deeds duly arrived - one document going back to King Henry VIII and signed by him, with his seal on it. I've never handled such an ancient document before or since. The Deed of Bestowal via which the King granted the land to the College kicked off with the sentence, "By the ancient lights vested in his Most Royal Majesty King Henry VIII.... blah blah." It was written on parchment with a quill pen, as one would expect. It definitely said, "ancient lights", not "ancient rights." I thought, "What is or what was an 'ancient light?' The buyer's solicitor is bound to ask me about this and I haven't a clue what it means! What to do?"

 

I was working for Linklaters, which is one of the top firms of solicitors in the City of London and there were 70 solicitors who specialised in Land Law, including me. If Linklaters can't sort out that sort of query then nobody can. So I asked around the other solicitors. They all studied the Deed and agreed that it said, "ancient lights" but none of us knew what the term means/meant and there was nothing about it in any of the textbooks. Eventually I asked my boss (one of the Partners) what he thought? He said, "Just tell the other side that what it means does not matter. The College has had unchallenged possession of this land for over 400 years. It is probably just a bit of flowery preamble that was used by the royal court at the time and it probably doesn't mean anything. Even if it means something, what it means is irrelevant because the College can confirm that their right to possession and occupation has never been challenged. Honestly, that is enough and it will do!"

 

I was doubtful about whether the buyer's solicitor would accept such a feeble explanation and the chap at the College asked around, looked in their archives etc but couldn't explain it, so I sent a copy of the document to the Chief Land Registrar and asked whether he would grant Title Absolute (ie freehold) to a chunk carved out of this piece of land and this weird document? Somebody from the Land Registry phoned back. She said, "This is quite a common expression. It crops up quite a bit with Crown land. Nobody knows what it means but we always give it Title Absolute because of the fact that nobody has ever challenged the current owner's right to the land." So we got there in the end, albeit by means of a total lash-up, really!

 

The one thing that might have grabbed my attention enough to get me out to WA when I was in my 20s and 30s is the mines - but I was under the impression that the mines were just small museums nowadays, till I learned otherwise a couple of years ago. The mines mostly seem to have railways between the mine and the commercial port. Sorting out who owns the land along the route of the railway track and what rights attach to that land appeals to my sense of being Sherlock Gill! I think it must be fascinating to have to work it all out in real life. Nothing has ever happened on the commercial property skyline in Perth that anybody could call "exciting." I've cruised along the Swan River with the chap on the boat telling us who owned which house on the river bank. Almost without exception, the houses were hideous and so I spent the time wondering why anyone would buy one of them?! That sort of work is not cutting edge, exciting stuff but I think that the mines might well be.

 

Ah well! Even if I could turn the clock back by 20 or 30 years, there would still be the problem that I love sailing to France and the Channel Islands and I love all my friends in the UK as well. For me, I think Australia would be too much of a wrench.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

PS - Commonhold. I was told what it meant when I did a Law degree in the mid 1970s. The lecturer said that Commonhold tenure had been abandoned yonks ago but he did tell us what it had meant. From memory, I think that a lot of the land in the Middle Ages was "common land" - much like a parish common today or maybe the New Forest. I think that the idea was that if a commoner fenced off some of this land and kept chickens on it or whatever, eventually he would be able to claim Commonhold tenure to the land. This right would never be any cop against the Crown but it would be good cop against the local Lord of the Manor and even better cop against the neighhours, who could be told to naff off with their pigs and to keep the pigs somewhere else because this piece of land was occupied by the chickens belonging to Jones. I assume that Jones could also build himself a cottage if he wanted but I am not sure about that bit.

 

The right to call for the freehold of a block of flats has been around since the early 1980s. If 50% or more of the flats have been sold on long leases, the lessees can demand the freehold as well. Very few people have ever exercised the right. The reason is because the freeholder is responsible for the roof, the mains sewer and so on. Most tenants don't want the responsibility. You get stupid situations like a block of flats which are Retirement Homes (very lucrative in the UK because you only need 0.5 of a parking space per property, whereas with a housing estate you need 1.5 parking spaces and sometimes 2 of them per property. By building 'retirement complexes' you can load up the density per acre, which is where the profit lies for the developer.) So - eventually you have 30 old dears, all of them owning a long lease. In theory, 51% of them could call for the freehold. In practice, they won't do it and one can understand why.

 

The new Commonhold idea was a piece of rats invented by a civil servant. Apparently the developer can force the long lessees to accept the freehold? Why do that? The tenants won't be interested in the developer's wish for a profit out of the freehold reversion. Bloggs down the road buys ground rents and he will buy the freehold at auction or privately if you put it up for sale. As usual, these ideas seem very clever in Whitehall where nobody bothers to consider commercial reality - the one thing that they never know anything about!

[Guest ssjosan]

hi

this is my first post in poms, and that starts with a question,

i am applying for my parents visa application, is it possible to aplly for my dad in catagory cpv 173 and mother on 103 at the same time.

regards

Shaminder Singh

[Guest ssjosan]

hi Gill

i am new in poms so donot know where to start,

i am applying for my parents immigration, father will be on CPV 173 and mother on 103,

is it possible to aplly for both father mother on differnet catagory at same time and is it possible after apllying for 103 my mother can still come on visist visa.

thanks in advance

Shaminder Singh

[Guest Gollywobbler]

hi

this is my first post in poms, and that starts with a question,

i am applying for my parents visa application, is it possible to aplly for my dad in catagory cpv 173 and mother on 103 at the same time.

regards

Shaminder Singh

 

Hi Shaminder

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

I must apologise that this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent about the rights to land in Australia and the UK and how that bit all works. Nonetheless, with Parents becoming increasingly worried about how to afford homes for themselves in Australia. hopefully we can get to the bottom of the whole thing and find out what questions they ought to ask.

 

Turning to your query, I believe that the idea that you have in mind is possible. I also think that it is a canny idea.

 

The old rule was that one Parent could get a CPV. That Parent then applied for a Spouse visa for the other half of the couple. The law did not say that they couldn't do this, so a lot of them did it.

 

In 2009, the killjoy of a Minister decided that this was "an abuse of the system." So the new rule is that one Parent can get a CPV but s/he cannot sponsor the other one for a Spouse visa until 5 years have elapsed since the grant of the CPV.

 

Fine. So what stops Parent A from getting a CPV and then sponsoring his/her spouse for a Spouse visa in 5 years time? As far as I know, the only deterrent is the wishes of the family concerned.

 

If it were me, I would ask the Parents Visa Centre about this, via an e-mail to parents@immi.gov.au They reply very quickly and my own experience with my mother is that what the PVC say is accurate.

 

As far as I know, there is no rule against doing as you suggest. However a Parent 103 visa now takes at least 20 years to be processed. Why bother with paying for an application for that when the Spouse visa route would be available much sooner?

 

I don't know the answer to the question for sure. However I have not seen anything to suggest that the idea that I have described would not be possible.

 

That said, I think that there is an element of risk. The Government could say that a CPV holder can never sponsor his/her long standing spouse. For that reason, I think that I might be inclined to spend some money now in order to protect your mother.

 

DO ask the Parents Visa Centre about this, though, I suggest. And please let us know what they say?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[MikenSueNW3]

I'm wondering whether Sir Robert Torrens was Scottish?

...

Until I started asking on this thread, I didn't realise that ground rent and/or a service charge is usually payable with a unit. I had only been told about shared mains services and I have often wondered why those should be a cause for concern.

 

G'day Gill

 

Your whole post is fascinating – I could have been seduced by the Law if I hadn't been trained as a scientist (and then veered off into publishing)... (Though, now I think of it, a couple of my Cambridge science contemporaries did switch to law; one became a showbiz solicitor, the other a patent barrister. I'm sure they both earned far more than the rest of us!)

 

It seems Sir Robert Torrens was Irish – from Cork – not Scottish, and studied at TCD.

 

As for ground rent, sorry if I misled you – definietly not payable on Strata units. But the Body Corporate is responsible for common services (such as halls, lifts, car parks, insurance on the building, and so on), and may be involved in utilities. So there is the equivalent of service charges. In our unit in Cremorne (lower North Shore of Sydney), Sydney Water bills us direct only for sewerage charges. There is one (big) water meter for the whole block of 17 units, and the water charges are part of the quarterly strata fees (apportioned as below).

 

Incidentally, there is another term involved in strata management that you and others may not have encountered – "unit entitlement". It simply means the proportion of the total block expenses attributable to a particular unit; this is set out in the strata "scheme of management" or whatever it's called, and seems usually to be expressed in parts out of 1000. (In our case, 45 – so we pay 4.5% of the total.)

 

All the best, Mike

[Guest ssjosan]

thanks gill,

great to be on this site and hope fully with your advice able to get my parents soon in australia,

already send mail to parents@immi.gov.au will write you about the reply

[Sue Ashforth]

We applied for CPV (143) in April 2009, received acknowledgement on 14th April 2009 and on 6th August this year got our Case Officer assigned. It's all go from here on - they gave us 28 days in which to have our police checks, medicals and to arrange my daughter to go to Centrelink to sort out the Assurance of Support. This has only taken 15 months and is a couple of months earlier than we expected.

 

After this, we hope(!) to be paying our AoS in Sept/Oct, then the huge visa fee on Oct/Nov - we should get our visa in December. From the date of our medical (11th August), we expect to have to validate our visa by going to Australia by 10th August 2011. We're so excited, but there's loads of forms to fill in and we'd like to sell the house before we go. If we don't, we may have to 'hokiday' in Oz to get our visa validated, then come back to sell our home. Keep your chin up! Once you get your Case Officer, it's a mad rush!

 

Good luck - remember, patience is a virtue!!

[Guest ssjosan]

We applied for CPV (143) in April 2009, received acknowledgement on 14th April 2009 and on 6th August this year got our Case Officer assigned. It's all go from here on - they gave us 28 days in which to have our police checks, medicals and to arrange my daughter to go to Centrelink to sort out the Assurance of Support. This has only taken 15 months and is a couple of months earlier than we expected.

 

After this, we hope(!) to be paying our AoS in Sept/Oct, then the huge visa fee on Oct/Nov - we should get our visa in December. From the date of our medical (11th August), we expect to have to validate our visa by going to Australia by 10th August 2011. We're so excited, but there's loads of forms to fill in and we'd like to sell the house before we go. If we don't, we may have to 'hokiday' in Oz to get our visa validated, then come back to sell our home. Keep your chin up! Once you get your Case Officer, it's a mad rush!

 

Good luck - remember, patience is a virtue!!

thanks sue, and best of luck for ur new innings in OZ........,

i will start with my dad's cpv 173 this month and hopefully i will be able to do my mom's 103 application also at same time, if you have any idea please let me know.

regards

Shaminder

[king of duck]

Sandy,

 

I don't follow what you are saying. So far as I know (and I am happy to be corrected) Centrelink benefits are payable whether you are a permanent resident or a citizen, after a qualifying period of 2 years.

 

If you make any claims on eligible benefits CL will then seek to recover the claimed amount under the AoS, firstly from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia under the bank guarantee (which is provided in return for the $10k plus $4k paid prior to visa grant), and then directly from the Assurer.

 

As most of these benefits are means tested it is improbable that most migrating Brits will be in a position to make a successful claim.

 

Or am I missing something ...?

 

Best regards.

I have the similar question to Sandy's but regarding Age Pension. To recap this again, I understand that after granted with 143 visa, my mom won't be eligible for Age Pension for 10 years although her age is qualified. If she become a citizen within the 10 years, will it cancel the visa restrictions and give access to the system as an Australian?

Note that we don't come from UK

[Guest ssjosan]

hi Gill

one more question i am in Australia for last 5 months and still looking for job, is it possible i can apply for my father's visa application CPV 173 now without having any job.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I have the similar question to Sandy's but regarding Age Pension. To recap this again, I understand that after granted with 143 visa, my mom won't be eligible for Age Pension for 10 years although her age is qualified. If she become a citizen within the 10 years, will it cancel the visa restrictions and give access to the system as an Australian?

Note that we don't come from UK

 

Hi King of duck

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

After you have spent 2 years as a Permanent Resident, you get all the same tights to Benefits as any other Permanent Resident. Centrelink seems to administer all of the Commonwealth Benefits 'under one roof,' as it were (a vast improvement on the UK where there are loads of different Agencies for loads of different Benefits, meaning that the average person has to figure out which Agency needs to be contacted in order to get the forms for the Benefit that that particular Agency deals with.)

 

The Centrelink website is below:

 

Centrelink - assists people to become self-sufficient and supports those in need

 

A new Permanent Resident is excluded from claiming most Benefits during his/her first two years in Australia. S/he is excluded from claiming the Age Pernsion during his/her first 10 years as a Permanent Resident in Australia:

 

Age Pension

 

Any Permanent Resident can apply for Australian Citizenship after s/he has lived in Oz for 4 years. Yes,m the person becomes a full Australian Citizen and has full voting rights. The visa becomes irrelevant because Australian Citizens cannot hold visas for Australia.

 

However the former visa holder can still be subject to an Assurance of Support. Remember that the person who is the former visa holder is not a party to the Assurance of Support, The AoS has been given on his/her behalf by one or more people who are themselves Citizens or PRs at teh time of giving the AoS. Why should the grant of Citizenship to somebody else allow the person(s) who gave the AoS to wriggle out of their own obligations before the 10 years is up?

 

Let us say that the holder of a CPV 143 is 70 years old and the CPV 143 was granted when s/he was 64. Sp s/he has had PR for 6 years. S/he is entitled to apply for Citizenship if s/he has spent enough time in Australia. However there are 4 years left to go before s/he can claim the Age Pension, regardless of his/her Citizenship. This person is also hard up. So - what can this person do?

 

1. Hopefully s/he has obtained a Seniors Card as soon as h/she was able to do so:

 

Welcome to Seniors Card

 

2. If s/he is hard up, hopefully s/he has also obtained a Coomonwealth Seniors Health Card as soon as s/he has lived in Oz for 2 years:

 

Commonwealth Seniors Health Card

 

There is no come-back on the Assurer(s) if the person claims either or both of the two cards above.

 

3. The elderly migrant can also claim Specual Benefit after the first 2 years with PR has expired:

 

Special Benefit

 

 

Special Benefit can be claimed. It can merely also be recovered from the Bond initially and then from the Assuerer(s) personally if Centrelink have to pay out more than the amount held in the CPV Bond.

 

Assurance of Support

 

Assurance of Support

 

In practice the AoS has usually been provided by a member or members of the Parent's close family. The the Parent is hard up, it is quicker and easier simply to hive money to the Parent, or to lend the money privately, than to muck about with involving Centrelink most of the time. However it is possible that the Assurer has lost or given up his/her job since providing the AoS. There may be no choice but to apply for Special Benefit The Australian Government doesl not seek to allow a Permanent Resident to starve/ Centrelink support is available if necessary - the money will sim;y be clawed back at some future date. The Government view is that if you want a CPV, this is the deal.

 

I've moved your query into this thread because we are trying to keep everythingg relating to Parents and Contribubutory Parents in the same thread.

 

Have I answered your question adequately, please?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[king of duck]

Hi Gill,

 

Thanks for the welcome and your reply. I've read this forum since March and even printed some of your posts to show my mom and my sister in our family meeting in US. Big thanks to everyone here as well.

 

Your reply is crystal clear.

Thus, it will be around 12 years after we lodge 143 application that she can get Age Pension but she should be able to get Senior card after become PR for 2 year. Is that correct?

 

I also ran into the Q&A from yourlifechoices website which clarify your answer as well.

Q. Jamie

I am an Australian citizen currently residing in the Philippines. I worked in Sydney for almost nine years before I was reassigned to Manila in late 1996. I am now 63-years old and would like to know if I am entitled to the Age Pension when I turn 65. I am currently unemployed and retired from my previous job when I reached the age of 60.

A. Provided by Centrelink

To qualify for the Age Pension you must be an Australian resident and reside in Australia on the day that you lodge your claim. You also need to meet the 10-year qualifying Australian residence requirements, unless you are claiming under an International Social Security Agreement. There is currently no International Social Security Agreement with the Philippines.

The 10-year Australian residence requirement means you have been an Australian resident for a continuous period of at least 10 years, or for a number of periods which total more than 10 years, with one of the periods being at least five years.