contributory or not?

[Guest jenjoshnat]

Hi, just hoping to get someone else's point of view on our situation.

My in-laws came here 4 months ago on a tourist visa as they are helping me out with my eldest child who was diagnosed with High functioning Autism last year and Clinical Depression, and just recently i have had to pull him out of mainstream education and start home schooling, whilst here they visited a migration agent about their options for moving over, the options discussed were the on-shore contributory aged parent visa, which will cost around 55-60 thousand pounds, or the non contributory aged parent visa.

Now we have weighed up the pros and cons of these and this is our thoughts; with the contributory parent visa, it is processed much much quicker (12-18 months we are told), they would then hopefully get granted the visa if all goes well and get PR, and then be entitled to medicare etc.....but it is ALOT of money, and they have to sell their house to fund it.

But then if they did the non contributory visa, the waiting list as we are told is 20 years at the moment, well without being morbid, they might not be here in 20 years time as they are both 73 now, although a VERY healthy 73. We understand they would never have PR, or be entitled to medicare etc... but they would have private medical insurance anyway, plus they plan on living with us permanently too.

We just don't know whether its worth spending such a-lot of money, when they may get it for nothing in 20 years time if they are still healthy.

 

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Jen.

[Pumpkin]

My thought is I wouldn't want to live on a bridging visa for 20 years. I think a few things would drive me mad, probably the having to ask permission every time I want to leave the country would in particular.