13 December 2012 A number of changes to the Immigration Rules come into effect today (13 December 2012). These changes will affect non-European Economic Area nationals applying to enter or remain in the UK. The changes include: Non substantive changes to all PBS tiers. Establishing a more robust and clear criminality framework against which immigration applications will be assessed. Amendments to clarify the absences from the UK that are allowed during the continuous residence period for settlement for Tier 1 (General), Tier 2 and pre-points based system work routes (for example work permits, self-employment and business person). Minor changes to the child and parent routes to make them as clear and comprehensive as possible and changes to simplify the operation of the income threshold for sponsoring family migrants. We have also updated our application forms and guidance, please see our application form news item for further information. Further information, including the Statements of Changes to the Immigration rules (HC 760 and HC820), and the Explanatory Memorandum can be found in the news story published on 22 November 2012. Source:- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2012/december/17-rules
The way these 'simplified changes' have been worded is, IMHO, poorly done to the point of being ambigious. Here's what's stated for salaried employment:- Here's what paragraph 13 (a & b) states (in part) There's no change to the existing basic principles of the current financial requirement principles, and the thresholds all remain the same. Now, whether or not the wording has been carefully crafted to disguise any inferred operational changes relating specifically to a choice in the options as to income review between Category A or Category B in terms of 6 month assessment or 12 month assessment, remains to be seen. Perhaps there's some clues in the new Application Forms or the new Guides. Interestingly there's no change to the Partner Visa application form VAF4A How does everyone else 'read' this ?
The way I read it, considering the cost to the applicant, the wording ought to be more easily readable to Joe Average.