Today I have seen a client about her father, who joined her from Ethiopia last year.

He does not have a passport but he does have a Visa which states that he has Indefinate leave to enter the U.K. Nowhere on this visa is there any stamp to say that he is excluded from public funds.

I am not experienced in this but I had been under the impression that family reunions from outside the E.U were only allowed if they would be supported in the U.K. without recourse to public funds.

My question is this: can anyone please tell me if Indefinate leave to enter the U.K is the same as Indefinate leave to remain, and can you provide any references to back this up?

I don't know for sure but a google search using the search terms "indefinite leave to enter" AND Visa bring a few results suggesting that leave to enter is a different concept from leave to remain and seems to be what it says - permission only to enter the country.

My understanding from other welfare rights cases I have dealt with is that Indefinite Leave to Enter is the same as ILR, only the former is given at the point of entry whereas the latter is given by the home office in the UK. However I am not an immigration expert.

I would say watch out for any sponsorship agreement that may have been made to facilitate the relatives entry - even if they have ILE or ILR, a sponsorship agreement ( depending on the wording ) may mean no entitlement to benefit.

bits and pieces in guidance linked from these rightsnet news stories -

• Benefits & refugee family reunion: New DWP guidance
  
• Benefits for those subject to immigration control: New HB guidance

You could try the JCWI (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants). The have a consultancy service from 10-1 Mon-Fri on 08456 021020.

Hi

Having read your post I would imagine that the father had come to the UK under a 5 year sponsorship agreement under which the sponsor must agree to support and accommodate without recourse to public funds. This covers the main means tested bens such as IS or PC/HB/CTB but there are certain benefits that arent covered including DLA/AA.
The only way out of a sponsorship agreement is death of sponsor(s). It looks confusing on passport as it does state Indefinite leave to enter but the rules re above benefits still apply.

And once they have lived in this country for 5 yars without resorting to public funds, the restrictions lapses and they can calim anything they like.
The general principle is that a person with indefinite leave to remain (and keep coming back) is only a person subject to immigration control if there is a condition attached to the leave to enter/remain; and the only likely one is the 5-year ban on having recourse to public funds.

Thanks to everyone for all these replies, for the record I've assisted her with a claim for Attendance Allowance, but advised her not to claim meanse tested benefits like I.S, H.B, C.T.B till the five years has elapsed.

Thanks again

Our experience has always been that the prohibition on access to public funding is restricted to situations where the sponsor specifically gives a written undertaking to financially support the other person. In the absence of such an undertaking there is no prohibition on applying for IS, JSA, PC or whatever. I should add that we have run and won this argument a number of times with the local DWP office. You need to get hold of a copy of the sponsorship agreement and undertaking and then point out to the DWP that in the absence of the undertaking the person has ILE or ILR and the right to apply for benefits.

You should also suggest that the DWP liaise with the Home Office or Immigration Directorate.

cf page1341/2 CPAG 2008/2009

If there is a restriction on public funds, be aware that attendance allowance is one of the benefits that count as public funds - see section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Tue 27-May-08 09:31 AM by shawn

tangential to the query (if there is no public funds restriction), but -

re 'If there is a restriction on public funds, be aware that attendance allowance is one of the benefits that count as public funds - see section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999' ...

... see the rightsnet news story Benefits and recourse to public funds: Government introduces new rules (3 March 2005) -

'A person shall not be regarded as having recourse to public funds if he is a person who is not excluded from specified benefits under section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by virtue of regulations made under sub-sections (3) and (4) of that section or section 42 of the Tax Credits Act 2002.'

the critical issue is the status of the daughter... presume she has ILR... if she was accepted as a refugee under 1951 act then she can bring in her close family members and they have immediate access to all benefits.... IF on the other hand she was accepted on ELR, and not as a refugee, or has ILR for some other reason...then she must support him and the visa would state no recouse to public funds.....It is highly unlikely to be a 5 year sponsor arrangement as these do not apply to close family members

But it could be a maintenance undertaking.