High Court judgment, November 2024 

21/11/24

Another NRPF High Court judgment handed down on 21 November 2024 (a week after the hearing on 13th/14th Nov).

You can find the full judgment here.

It’s a mixed bag. The judgment and related policy guidance updates may make the Change of Conditions application process more difficult, particularly for applicants who are reliant on third party support.

The good news is that the court declared the Home Office’s system for deciding ‘Change of Conditions’ applications unlawful, finding that it breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the Home Office “does not have an adequate system in place to reduce, to a reasonable and proportionate minimum, the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.” This echoes the Court of Appeal judgment from April 2024 which stated that processing times of 2 to 4 months do not “sit properly with dealing with an application from someone who is at immediate risk of falling into such a state of extreme destitution that their rights under article 3 are about to be breached”. This will hopefully prompt some change to decision-making timeframes and make it easier to speed up processing of individual applications, depending on the applicant’s circumstances (although a PAP or JR may unfortunately still be necessary). You can read more on that element of the judgment here:

What the judgment means for the claimants:

  • SAG - no quashing order, but the family had already been granted recourse to public funds prior to the hearing.

  • BPB - won on both grounds, based on the individual decision. The HO were ordered to reconsider the decision within 7 days of the judgment, and the family were subsequently granted recourse to public funds on 28/11/24.

  • LG - claim dismissed on both grounds. We will consider how we can support LG to submit a fresh CoC application and her other options. 

What the judgment means for Change of Conditions casework:

  • The Home Office updated its policy guidance on 19/11/24 to include a section called ‘The applicant is financially supported by a third party’ (see summary of the updates/changes here). The updated guidance increases the onus on applicants to explain and evidence why third party support is insufficient or will end.

  • The judgment neither clearly endorses nor objects to the practice of sending ‘requests for further information’ (RFIs); we think this process could be improved substantially but the judgment doesn’t reflect this despite some of the arguments having been aimed at addressing it.

  • A previous judgment had stated: ‘it would generally be in the best interests of the child for there to be access, if necessary, to public funds’. This current judgment makes clear that - to the extent that arguments are based on the welfare of children - applicants need to show why lifting the NRPF condition would be in a child’s best interests (i.e. what difference it would make). We note that the government’s current strategy to target child poverty may be helpful in doing so, as it clearly highlights: ‘Growing up in poverty not only affects children’s wellbeing and opportunities during childhood but also the opportunities and experiences they have throughout their lives’ including in terms of health outcomes and educational attainment, with ‘wider economic and social costs for us all’. A letter from a children’s professional (e.g. a school support worker) re the child(ren)’s struggles/needs may also assist.

  • If you are an advisor or organisation making Change of Conditions applications, we would welcome a conversation about the casework implications of the judgement - please contact us if we are not already in touch.

  • You can read more about the judgment and its implications here.

Home Office unlawfully refused to grant access to public funds to destitute mother 

6/10/23

Earlier this year, the Home Office refused to consider lifting the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition from the claimant’s leave to remain as the erstwhile dependent of a student, claiming they could not do so because of the type of leave to remain she had. The claimant challenged that decision, and on 6 October 2023 the High Court declared that the Home Office had been wrong to consider that it could not remove the condition from this type of leave.

The judgment can be found here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2023/2476

For information about what this might mean for you in practice, please click here.

Disabled, bereaved, mother forces Home Office to change discriminatory 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) policy

March 2023

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.

For the fifth time: Home Office's 'no recourse to public funds' policy declared unlawful yet again.

20/6/22

More details about the latest ruling can be found here: https://dpglaw.co.uk/home-offices-nrpf-policy-found-unlawful-for-the-third-time-in-as-many-years/

Home Office's punitive 'no recourse to public funds' policy declared unlawful for the second time in a year.

29/4/21

High Court today rules that the 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) policy is driving families with children into destitution and breaches the government's legal duty to safeguard children's welfare.

A 5-year-old boy and his Zimbabwean-born mother have won their High Court challenge to the Home Office’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy, which denies families like theirs access to the welfare safety net.

In a substantial judgment, Lady Justice Laing and Mr Justice Lane found that the policy is unlawful because it disregards the government's statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and must be overhauled.

The Immigration Rules (which set out the NRPF policy) are expected to be amended as a result, meaning more children with low-earning migrant parents will be allowed access to essential state support, like Child Benefit and Universal Credit.

Mother and son in the case are not being named, and can only be identified as VW and ST, respectively.

VW is a former key worker, who lost her job during the pandemic as she had no one to look after her son, and fears that without state support they would be left destitute. She is a South African national and came to this country in 2004, and has been granted leave to remain in the UK. Her son is a British citizen. She was homeless at times during her pregnancy, but she and her son are now living in suitable accommodation close to ST's school.

In response to the court's judgment, VW said:

'I have been living with the fear of being punished for needing to have recourse to public funds, and I am glad it is now all over. I hope that other children will not have to grow up in poverty, as my child had to at times, simply because his mum is not British.'

The case is the second successful challenge against the Home Office's punitive NRPF policy since lockdown. It follows last year's judgment of the Divisional Court in R (W) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1299 (Admin) where the Court found that the NRPF policy was unlawful due to its failure to prevent people falling into destitution, in breach of their right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).

The Unity Project supported the case through detailed evidence and research. We hope that this ruling brings about substantial change. We will continue to support people who are affected by the NRPF policy, highlight the policy’s devastating and discriminatory impact, and make the case for why it should be ended entirely.

VW's solicitor, DPG partner Adam Hundt - who also brought the earlier successful challenge to the NRPF policy - says:

'We hope the government will now listen to the courts and scrap this damaging and unnecessary policy completely, rather than continuing to tinker with the Immigration Rules in an attempt to make it marginally less punitive. This is a good result which will benefit many low-income families. However, we are disappointed that the court did not find that NRPF is unlawfully discriminatory, despite being provided with a wealth of evidence that the policy is racist because it disproportionately affects Black British children.'

I am a parent with NRPF - what does this mean for me?

  • If you are a parent with NRPF, this ruling means that the Home Office should carefully consider how the NRPF condition affects your children when you apply for Leave to Remain, or when you make a Change of Conditions application.

  • The Home Office should not give a parent NRPF if having NRPF would be harmful to their children (and it is always harmful to children in our experience). If this applies to you, you might be eligible to make a Change of Conditions application to remove the NRPF condition.

  • You can contact us for advice (we have written a detailed advice note for applicants/advisors).

  • [update Oct 2021 - the policy has now been updated to reflect the ruling]

More information

The full judgment (ST & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1085 (Admin)) is available here.

You can read more here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/fresh-blow-to-no-recourse-to-public-funds-scheme/

For media enquiries, contact: Fiona Bawdon; fiona@impactsocialjustice.org
For advice and support in relation to the NRPF condition, including practical advice notes and template letters, contact us at The Unity Project.

Home Office's punitive 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) policy faces further challenge in the high court.

17/3/21

A football-loving 5-year-old boy is this week taking the Home Office to court, arguing that NRPF discriminates on grounds of race, by denying families like his access to the welfare safety net, and is putting children at risk of destitution.

The boy was born in the UK, and is being supported in the legal challenge by his Zimbabwean-born mother, who came to the UK in 2004 and has leave to remain here.

Mother and son are not being named, and can only be identified as VW and ST, respectively.

The case is being heard in the high court on 17 and 18 March, with Deighton Pierce Glynn acting for the family. The challenge is being supported by The Unity Project, a charity which works with people in desperate financial difficulties because of NRPF.

Lawyers for the family will argue that the Home Office's NRPF policy is unlawful because it denies children with migrant parents protection from homelessness, hunger, and destitution; and breaches the Equality Act 2010, by discriminating against black British children, treating them less favourably than their white counterparts.

In papers filed with the court, the Home Secretary accepts that 80% of migrants subjected to NRPF are Asian or African, and also admits that her department does not collect data in relation to the race of those affected by the policy.

ST and VW's lawyers will tell the court that, by failing to monitor the impact of NRPF on people of colour, the Home Secretary is in breach of her legal duty to promote equality; and is failing to assess 'the differential impacts of the policy on British children of foreign parents, on non-white British children and on single mothers and their children'.

Adam Hundt, partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, says:

'This policy is creating an underclass of black British children, which is outrageous. The only reason ST, the 5-year-old boy in this case, is being treated differently from his white friends is because his mum came to the UK from somewhere else. We are asking the court for the policy to be quashed and for a public inquiry into NRPF.'

This is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the government's NRPF policy, which was rolled out in 2012 as part of the hostile environment. In May 2020, in the case of 'W', an 8-year-old British boy, who had been street homeless with his mother, won his case against the Home Office over NRPF. The judges ruled in the case that the NRPF policy must be changed so that people are given access to public funds before they fall into destitution, rather than only being eligible once they have actually become destitute. Since then, the Home Office has made only small changes to the way it imposes NRPF, meaning many families have been left in poverty during the pandemic - highlighting the need for further legal challenges to be brought.

The Unity Project helps people through the complex process of applying to the Home Office to have NRPF lifted and be given access to state support which is available to other low-income families.

Caz Hattam, co-founder of The Unity Project, says:

'The government says NRPF is intended to promote integration, but instead it is making existing inequality and discrimination worse, particularly for black children born in the UK. Many of the people we assist are keyworkers, often doing social care or cleaning jobs, and paying taxes and national insurance, like everyone else - but they are denied the same vital state support as other families. Despite the earlier successful legal challenge to NRPF, the policy continues to mean that children are growing up in the UK without a home or enough to eat. If the government really cares about integration, it should scrap this policy.’

About the case:

VW was a keyworker prior to the pandemic, supporting teenagers and young adults. However, she was forced to stop working last year after being unable to find childcare for her son when his school hours were cut during lockdown. She was homeless at times during her pregnancy, but the family are now happily settled in suitable accommodation, close to ST's school. VW describes her son as 'a very shy boy, who has just started to come out of his shell. He enjoys football, which I like, and computer games, which I don't like so much.'

The judgement is not expected immediately, and it may be a couple of months before we have a decision. We will update this page as soon as it is published.

For media enquiries, contact: Fiona Bawdon; fiona@impactsocialjustice.org
For advice and support in relation to the NRPF condition, contact The Unity Project.

New policy guidance published

5/6/20

In May 2020, the High Court ruled that part of the NRPF policy breaches human rights.

The full judgment was given on 21st May and is available here.

We have recorded a 90 minute video-webinar discussing the judgment here. 

As a result of the court ruling, the government updated its policy guidance on 29th May.

  • The new policy is here.

  • You can see a side-by-side comparison of the new guidance (updated 3.6.20) and a previous version of the guidance (10.12.19) here.

  • One of the main changes is that it now makes clear people can apply for recourse to public funds if they are ‘likely to become destitute’ (i.e. before any financial difficulties or crisis, rather than having to wait until they are already in that situation).

  • There is an article from Free Movement outlining this and other changes here. Please contact us if you would like any more detail.

We will continue to monitor what difference this policy change is making through our casework, and we expect to bring further legal challenges if things don’t become much better very soon. Meanwhile, we continue to work with other organisations and affected individuals to lobby the government to scrap or at least in the meantime improve the NRPF policy.

If you are affected by the court ruling, please click here to read more about what this might mean for you.

High Court ruling over ‘no recourse to public funds’ delivers further blow to Home Office’s discredited hostile environment policy.

7/5/20

An 8-year-old British boy – supported by his migrant mother – has today won a ruling that the policy denying families like his access to the welfare safety net is unlawful.

The decision by senior judges is expected to provide a lifeline to people unable to work during the Covid-19 pandemic who are currently blocked from accessing essential state support.

The judges in the case heard that the boy, known in court as W, has lived his entire life in extreme poverty because his mother’s wages as a carer are not enough for her to keep her son properly housed and fed. 

Under the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) policy introduced in 2012 by then Home Secretary Theresa May, W’s migrant mother is blocked from receiving the same state support that helps other low-earning parents to survive, including child and housing benefits, or tax credits. 

The court heard that the 8-year-old had moved school five times and been street homeless with his mother, due to the Home Office’s refusal to allow them access to the social security safety net. The judges were also told that J, as his mother was known in court, had been driven into debt and suffered from serious anxiety. 

The judges ruled that the NRPF policy breaches the Human Rights Act, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. A detailed order is expected to follow, which will set out the steps the Home Office needs to take to comply with the judges’ ruling.

Since 2012, a ‘NRPF condition’ has been routinely imposed on all migrants granted the legal right to live and work in the UK (‘limited leave to remain’) on the basis of strong family ties to this country. 

The high court challenge was supported by The Unity Project, a charity set up three years ago to support families facing destitution as a result of NRPF.

Project co-ordinator Caz Hattam says:

“Even before the pandemic, this policy was trapping working families in the most abject poverty, forcing them into debt, and unsafe, insecure housing. Since the Covid-19 outbreak, their situations have become even more dire and urgent. We provided extensive evidence of how children’s lives are being blighted by this policy, and we welcome the judges’ recognition that their families must be given access to the welfare safety net to prevent them from falling into destitution. We will continue to support those affected until we see real changes to the policy.”

Adam Hundt, partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, the law firm bringing the case, says:

“We and many others have been telling the Home Office for years that this policy is causing immeasurable, irreversible damage to so many people, but particularly children like our client. The Home Office refused to listen and ignored all the evidence they were shown, so it has now been left to the courts to confront the truth, which is that the policy breaches human rights law.” 

If you have NRPF and want more information about what this means for you, please contact us.

Home Office faces high court challenge over legality of ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy

5/5/20

On Wednesday 6 May, an 8-year-old British boy – supported by his mother -  will take the UK Home Office to court over its policy of denying families like his access to the welfare safety net.

The ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy, as it is known, was introduced in 2012 as part of the ‘hostile environment’, and has led to thousands of children growing up in abject poverty, because their migrant mothers are denied the same state support that other low-income families can claim.

The family bringing the challenge – who are not being named – are supported by The Unity Project, a charity set up three years ago to support those facing destitution as a result of NRPF.  

Project co-ordinator Caz Hattam says:

'Since The Unity Project was set up three years ago, we've seen how the policy traps families in poverty. People are forced into debt as they try to keep themselves afloat, and left living in overcrowded, unsafe and insecure housing. The people we work with are mainly single mums with young children, doing low paid but essential jobs, like carework and cleaning. The covid-19 outbreak has only made their situations more urgent and desperate.’

This week’s high court case is just the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by public law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG) over NRPF. MPs and children’s and other charities have also added their voices to calls for it to be scrapped.  

Since 2012, a ‘NRPF condition’ has been imposed on all migrants granted the legal right to live and work in the UK on the basis of having strong ties to this country. In 2014, legal action by DPG forced the Home Office to allow those facing destitution to apply for a ‘change of conditions’ to allow them access to welfare support. In another concession earlier this month, the government was ordered by the court to comply with its duties under the Equality Act by publishing an updated ‘Policy Equality Statement’ to look at the impact of NRPF on people with ‘protected characteristics’. These characteristics include things such as disability, which means that people are unable to work enough hours to support themselves without additional help from the state. 

Despite these important concessions, NRPF continues to trap families in dire poverty, and a long-promised review of the policy by the Home Office published in April 2020 has led to no significant changes. 

DPG partner Adam Hundt says:

‘For too long the Home Office has avoided scrutiny of its policy by preventing cases from coming before the Court.  We have shown the Home Office the grotesque suffering its policy causes, but it is now clear that they simply do not care about the lives they are destroying.   We hope that the Court will now finally act to ensure no further families suffer in this way.’ 

Project 17, a charity which supports migrant families facing poverty, is intervening in the case, and is represented by Public Law Project.  

Project 17 director Abi Brunswick says:

"The no recourse to public funds condition is responsible for creating homelessness and severe poverty among thousands of households. It disproportionately affects people who are already discriminated against because of their race, nationality and gender.
We are intervening in this case to demonstrate that support provided by local authorities under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 is not a sufficient safety net to protect families excluded from mainstream benefits and social housing. Section 17 support is incredibly difficult for families to access, and those who do manage to often receive support that fails to meet their basic living needs. 
We believe that everyone needs access to public funds, and our research shows that the suffering caused by the NRPF condition is even more acute as a result of the pandemic."

Home Office agrees a rethink of 'no recourse to public funds' policy in light of coronavirus, following today's high court legal challenge

3/4/20

Today's high court case, supported by The Unity Project and brought by a single mother with young children, had sought an urgent suspension of 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF), to allow those who are now unable to work because of covid19 to have immediate access to welfare support.

The judges left the policy in place, but ordered that a full hearing on its legality should be heard urgently - setting a court date for four weeks' time (6,7 May). The hearing will finally put an end to many months of delay by the Home Office, which has repeatedly sought to dismiss or postpone the case, leaving thousands of families living in poverty.

At the hearing, the Home Office made a series of important concessions, including accepting for the first time that the legal challenge to NRPF raises 'serious issues', which should be looked at by the court urgently. It has also issued revised guidance to staff instructing them to 'provide sympathetic and expeditious decision making' during the pandemic when dealing with applicants seeking to have their NRPF condition lifted. 

The law firm acting in the case, Deighton Pierce Glynn, have been pressing the Home Office for over a year to comply with its legal duty to produce a Policy Equality Statement on the impact of NRPF. Following today's hearing, the government has now been given a deadline of 21 April to comply, or the judges warned the May hearing will go ahead without it.

DPG partner Adam Hundt says:

'It's disappointing that the judges did not agree to immediately suspend the "no recourse to public funds" policy. We know April will be a long and bleak month for families who have lost some or all of their income because of the outbreak, and who were already in desperate straits. However, we welcome the expedited hearing, which puts us in a strong position to challenge the policy as a whole, and end the discrimination and damage it causes.'

The Unity Project coordinator Caz Hattam says:

'We have had assurances from the Home Office before that they will deal with applications to lift the "no recourse to public funds" condition quickly and compassionately, but that has never been our experience. Quite the opposite. We have no reason to expect this time will be different. However, we urge anyone in this situation to apply for a change of conditions as soon as possible, and let us know how they get on. We will be amassing evidence to show the court that the whole scheme is inhumane and needs to be dismantled.'

In April 2020 we featured on BBC News as part of our work to help end NRPF.

Adam Hundt, a lawyer working on the High Court case to suspend NRPF, discusses the impact of the policy.

Zeenab shares her experiences of NRPF.

 The Unity Project backs urgent call for 'no recourse to public funds' policy to be lifted during pandemic

3/4/20

The Unity Project is backing an emergency high court hearing today calling for immediate suspension of the Home Office's brutal 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF), which is denying tens of thousands of working families access to the welfare safety net during the coronavirus outbreak.

The NRPF policy was introduced in 2012, and has led to thousands of children growing up in abject poverty, as their migrant mothers are blocked from receiving the same state support that other low-income families can claim, including child benefit, tax credits, or free school meals.

TUP co-ordinator Caz Hattam says: 

'Since The Unity Project was set up three years ago, we've seen how the policy causes intense poverty even at the best of times. With coronavirus, the situation for the families we work with has become even more desperate. They are mainly single mums with young children doing low paid jobs, and now are facing the impossible choice of keeping working during the outbreak, putting themselves and others at risk, or stopping work, and having no means of paying rent or feeding their children.' 

Today's legal challenge is being brought by the leading human rights law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn on behalf of a single mother with young children. The barrister in the case is Alex Goodman from Landmark Chambers. TUP is supporting the case by providing extensive evidence to the court of the destitution caused by the NRPF policy, and how the process where individuals can apply to the Home Office for the condition to be lifted is hopelessly flawed.

TUP has seen countless cases where the Home Office has wrongly turned down applicants or demanded unrealistic and unnecessary amounts of evidence that NRPF has left them in destitution. In one case, the Home Office accepted a woman was sleeping on a sofa in an unconverted garage, but refused to lift her NRPF condition, as she had not included in her application a letter from anyone in officialdom to confirm such accommodation was unsuitable. 

During the current pandemic, TUP has had to arrange emergency food deliveries to families who are still waiting for the Home Office to process their 'change of conditions' applications. Among the 20 applicants waiting to hear back are the mother of a young son, who usually works 50 hours a week in health care, who is now self-isolating. She is on medication for high blood pressure due to stress, and her condition makes her more vulnerable to coronavirus.

In another case, a pregnant woman with two children is living with the family of her ex-partner, who had told her to leave before the lockdown. She is unable to self-isolate, as the government advises during pregnancy, because other members of the household are not isolating. In another, a mother and her two autistic children are living in one room, where it is impossible for them to get the stimulation they need. She has no income and was being temporarily supported by a friend, but the friend has now lost work, too.

Since 2012, the Home Office has had a blanket policy of applying a 'no recourse to public funds condition' to anyone granted 'limited leave to remain' on the basis of family ties to the UK. The policy was intended to 'promote integration', but has resulted in children of these families, often black British children, being pushed to the margins of society, penalising them because of their mothers’ immigration status. 

Adam Hundt, the partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, who is leading the legal challenge says:

'These are the mothers of British children who have been working, paying tax and national insurance, and they are left with literally nothing and relying on charity. We want an immediate suspension of the 'no recourse to public funds' policy so these families can access basic welfare support during the crisis.'

In research published by The Unity Project last year, it found that 85% of those applying to have NRPF lifted are women, nearly all single mothers; 90% of them have British children; 95% of the children are black. Even before the pandemic, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed couldn't afford a hot meal for their children every day; over half had been forced to sleep on the floor or a chair at times; 6% had been street homeless; over 90% of their children never get a birthday cake.

If today's court action succeeds, it will mean the NRPF is immediately suspended, ahead of the full court action being brought by The Unity Project, which will argue that the policy should be permanently scrapped because it discriminates against women and ethnic minorities. 

For media enquiries, please contact Fiona Bawdon: fiona@impactsocialjustice.org



Other sources of advice

We only assist with Change of Conditions applications for people with NRPF, but you may need advice on other issues. Please click here for a list of organisations and groups which provide further support and advice for people with NRPF.