A legal challenge brought by a 55-year old stroke survivor with the help of Deighton Pierce Glynn has forced the Home Office to accept it has been unlawfully denying disabled people access to the welfare safety net when they are unable to work to support themselves.
The Home Office’s NRPF policy – which denies some migrants the right to state support – should now be changed to ensure it complies with disability discrimination laws.
The case, which had been due to reach the high court on 21 February, was brought by Romoke Kehinde Ali. She was repeatedly denied access to welfare support by the Home Office, despite suffering a severe stroke in April 2022 which left her unable to continue working as a care assistant. A second case, brought by the parents of a disabled child whose care needs limited the number of hours they could work, was also conceded by the Home Office at the same time. The family, who were supported by the charity RAMFEL, will now be able to claim disability living allowance to help them stay afloat financially and take care of their child.
In 2018, Romoke’s son Abraham Badru was shot dead outside their home in east London, and the story of his still unsolved murder is told in a BBC podcast, Please Protect Abraham.
Romoke, who was supported in the challenge by us at The Unity Project, believes the shock and stress of her son’s killing was a factor in causing her stroke, which has left her with walking difficulties, blind in one eye, and without the use of her left arm. Before her stroke, Romoke worked as a care assistant, but after being taken ill and refused state benefits, she was left with no source of income, relying on support from family and her church to survive. Following the Home Office accepting it had acted unlawfully, she will now be eligible for welfare benefits.
Romoke says:
‘I don’t know what I would have done without this decision. Everything has been so stressful for me, but this has given me hope.’
Adam Hundt, the DPG partner acting in both cases, says:
‘Our clients needed recourse to public funds because they could not earn enough to support themselves as a result of their or their family members’ disabilities. When they applied for their NRPF condition to be lifted so they could access the state support they needed, the Home Office failed to take these disabilities into account, which they should have done by law. Instead, they responded by demanding exhaustive evidence of destitution – evidence which is very difficult for anyone to provide, and even more so for someone who is disabled or caring for someone disabled.’
An order approved by the court and agreed by the Home Office states that part of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and its accompanying guidance are ‘unlawful for their failure to instruct caseworkers adequately in relation to exceptional circumstances and/or disability as grounds for potentially requiring recourse to public funds to be granted to applicants, who may not be destitute or imminently destitute’.
The case was covered by Sky News on 4 March 2023:
Migrants: ‘No recourse to public funds’ policy ruled unlawful, for the fifth time (broadcast)
‘Why am I suffering like this?’: Mum of shooting victim among those affected by unlawful ‘hostile environment’ policy (print)
Until now, the Home Office has not collected disability data from people applying to have their NRPF condition lifted. However, of the hundreds of applications for NRPF to be lifted in which we’ve assisted since 2017, around half involved some kind of disability; with health conditions including mental illness, cancer, strokes, blindness/reduced eyesight, and HIV.
This is the fifth time in as many years that elements of the Home Office’s NRPF policy have been found to be unlawful, as a result of legal challenges brought by DPG with our support.
More information
-
There is a link to a more detailed case note here.
-
For advice and support in relation to the NRPF condition, including practical advice notes and template letters, contact us at The Unity Project.
- Please note that this was bolstered by a further consent order in the case of DXP in December 2024.
- In this later consent order, the Home Office agreed to amend relevant policy, within six months, absent special circumstances, to reflect the statement that:
- ‘the [Secretary of State] retains a discretion not to impose or to lift the NRPF condition on the grounds that although the applicant is not destitute (or imminently destitute), the effect of their disability may create exceptional circumstances that require them to be permitted to have recourse to public funds. Accordingly, any representations to this effect made by applicants regarding disability will be given careful consideration by the Defendant’s caseworkers’.
- The policy guidance was subsequently updated on 16/4/25 to state:
- ‘There is discretion to lift or not to impose the NRPF condition on the grounds that, although the applicant is not destitute (or imminently destitute), they have exceptional circumstances which require them to be permitted access to public funds. This may include circumstances resulting from disability. Accordingly, you must give careful consideration to any representations to this effect made by applicants.’
- ‘Where you decide the applicant is not destitute or at imminent risk of destitution, you must go on to consider whether the effect of the disability creates exceptional circumstances which mean the applicant requires access to public funds.’
- In this later consent order, the Home Office agreed to amend relevant policy, within six months, absent special circumstances, to reflect the statement that: