× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Covid-19 issues  →  Thread

Coronavirus and Recourse to public funds

Sue ABF
forum member

ACU - Runnymede and Spelthorne Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 17 May 2019

As far as I can see there have been no announcements yet on whether recourse to public funds will be suspended- please let me know if this has changed ? Also does anyone know what status the self employed package has with regards to public funds- may be a bit obscure but have a case in that situation.  would Local Authority additional funds be a possibility ? Any advice gratefully received !

Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 769

Joined: 16 June 2010

If your client’‘s immigration status is that they have leave to remain but on condition that they do not have recourse to public funds then, as you know, they are generally, excluded from accessing benefits because of that.

However, for something to count as a “public fund” it needs to be defined as such in the Immigration Rules- rule 6 does this - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-introduction#intro6

They would need to add the self employed payment there to make accessing it a public fund and have not done so. I doubt that they will.

I think at present you can advise that it seems likely if your client meets the conditions they will get the payment.

Nothing to help him/her at the moment though- social services if there are kids I guess.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

From Deighton Pierce Glynn:

On Friday 3 April 2020 the High Court will decide whether to suspend the Home Office’s ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ policy so that people affected by it, who work under zero-hour contracts – have a social security safety net if they have to stop working to self-isolate

More:  https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-to-consider-suspending-nrpf-policy

DebbieS
forum member

Reading Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 41

Joined: 17 November 2015

I had high hopes for this but sadly it was not to be:

https://www.unity-project.org.uk/suspend-nrpf

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Home Affairs Committee and Work and Pensions Committee have written a joint letter to Therese Coffey and Priti Patel calling for support for those with NRPF

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

DebbieS - 06 April 2020 10:04 AM

I had high hopes for this but sadly it was not to be:

https://www.unity-project.org.uk/suspend-nrpf

Some hope ....

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.

Anyone seen the revised guidance ... nothing here yet:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds—2/public-funds
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds

 

DebbieS
forum member

Reading Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 41

Joined: 17 November 2015

The only significant change since Friday is that you can now apply to have the NRPF restriction lifted online, previously it was a paper application. It’s only available to certain categories and the relevant page still reads:

“No service standards apply to the assessment of whether the applicant qualifies for a change of condition code, but caseworkers will make reasonable efforts to decide such requests promptly, especially those involving a child or an applicant who is street homeless, disabled or otherwise in vulnerable circumstances.”

But this is worth knowing:

https://dpglaw.co.uk/free-school-meals-extended-to-thousands-more-children/

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

New briefing from House of Commons library includes details of recent legal action -

This briefing summarises who is subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) visa condition and how it is applied. It also identifies what state support and concessions might be available for migrants with NRPF during the coronavirus crisis. It does not cover migrants’ entitlements to NHS healthcare, or the position of European Economic Area nationals.

Sue ABF
forum member

ACU - Runnymede and Spelthorne Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 17 May 2019

Thanks for all the information, my client is speaking to her MP.

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Michael Gove confirms today that public funds restriction is under review - responding to an oral question in the Commons from Stephen Timms

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

more from Deighton Pierce Glynn -

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 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.

https://dpglaw.co.uk/home-office-faces-high-court-challenge-over-legality-of-no-recourse-to-public-funds-policy/

The Public Law Project is also supporting the project as part of its work addressing systemic unfairness during the COVID-19 outbreak.

[ Edited: 7 May 2020 at 12:16 pm by Stuart ]
shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Wow:

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

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 judges in the case heard that the boy, whose identity is protected by an anonymity order and is therefore known only as W, has had to endure extreme poverty for most of his life.

Under the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) policy introduced in 2012 by then Home Secretary Theresa May, W’s 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 been forced to move 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 Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. A detailed judgment and order will follow, which will set out the steps the Home Office needs to take to comply with the judges’ ruling.

More: https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-ruling-over-no-recourse-to-public-funds-delivers-further-blow-to-home-offices-discredited-hostile-environment-policy/

DebbieS
forum member

Reading Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 41

Joined: 17 November 2015

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

Doesn’t give much information about the process - maybe this will come later? For instance should the claimant claim UC explaining that otherwise they will be destitute or alternatively should they make an unlike application for the restriction to be lifted and wait for a decision before making the claim?  Ruth

DebbieS
forum member

Reading Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 41

Joined: 17 November 2015

I can’t see that there will be a change to the current process: make the application, get a new residence permit then apply for UC. That of course is a much simplified sequence of events: one of the last things I did before our office closed (March 23rd) was prepare an application to lift the NRPF restriction (I am OISC level 2). It was approved on 30th April so they can come through quite quickly.

And don[t forget, the application is only available to those on certain routes to settlement.

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

I also noticed on the government website that an application to lift the restriction on No recourse to public funds, for people on the “five year settlement route” would put them onto a “ten year settlement route”. Don’t know enough about immigration law to understand this or how many people it would affect,  but it sounds as if it would disadvantage some clients - yet another reason not to take this step without immigration advice.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Anyone have any views as to what this judgment means in relation to homelessness applications? In the process of updating our factsheet where we currently say in terms of eligibility for assistance with homelessness:

Other groups who are ineligible for assistance include:  non-EEA nationals whose leave to remain is time limited or subject to a condition that they do not claim ‘public funds’ including local authority housing assistance.

There’s precious little I’ve been able to find as to whether the judgment fundamentally affects the duties of a local authority to engage with someone with NRPF.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Hi Paul,

The decision has no effect on the actual operation of homelessness eligibility or benefit entitlement. What it impacts is the way that the Home Office deals with applications for the NRPF condition to be removed (or not applied in the first place) - specifically in that an imminent risk of destitution rather than actual destitution ought to be grounds for the removal of the condition.

For benefit purposes, if the Home Office removes the claimant’s NRPF condition, this is of itself sufficient to get over the initial hurdle for entitlement because a person with leave to remain which is not NRPF is not a PSIC for benefit purposes and has a right to reside.

Confusingly, a non-EEA person with leave to remain is still a PSIC for homelessness eligibility purposes and can only be eligible if they are on a list of classes of eligible person: https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/homelessness_applications/eligibility_non-eeaeu_nationals/eligible_for_assistance

If the Home Office removes the NRPF condition, this may result in eligibility for homelessness assistance (e.g. if the person has Article 8 leave) but it won’t always because there are classes of limited leave which are not on the list.

Even if a person is ineligible, the council may still need to consider other duties e.g. under the Care Act and Children Act. They may also be accommodated on an extra-statutory basis during the current crisis.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

That’s brilliant Elliot, thanks so much for this, incredibly helpful as always.