Ukraine

Hi,

I am part of planning group preparing for the arrival a number of Ukrainian children with cancer and their families who are being flown to UK Hospitals shortly.

From what I can see they will be coming under the humanitarian sponsored route, possibly a LA appears to be the sponsor. I cant see any other route in which they might fit under the Immigration rule concessions.

I can see some vague information that these families are able to claim benefits and work. - I am not sure about access to Housing.  Does anyone know of any details? eg will there be past presence rules?, I am presuming no habitual residence test will apply?

Hi Nick

I’ve just spoken to our housing solicitor and she thinks they’ll be fine if they’ve got recourse to public funds.

This sounds like an immensely important project.

There is an article published in Housing Matters yesterday which may be of assistance:
https://www.nhas.org.uk/news/article/homeless-help-for-people-affected-by-the-war-in-ukraine

The position in relation to social housing and homelessness assistance eligibility is broadly equivalent to the position in relation to the main income-replacement benefits - i.e. there is a need to establish a right to reside and habitual residence.

Habitual residence in fact operates in the same way as it does in welfare benefits law.

There is not presently an exception to the need to be habitually resident in fact covering this situation. However, an exception was created in relation to the collapse of the Afghan government and one imagines that a similar exception will be introduced in legislation for those fleeing the war in Ukraine.

I would take the view that someone fleeing the war who is intending to establish themselves in the UK can, in any event, assert habitual residence here virtually from the point of arrival on first principles in any case given that the facts on the ground preclude them from returning. It would be extraordinary if a Council were to refuse homelessness assistance for this reason.

The need for a right to reside is approached slightly differently. A person from abroad must fall within one of a list of classes in order to be eligible for assistance. At present, neither the family scheme nor the sponsorship scheme are part of the immigration rules. Someone granted leave under these schemes (which should not contain an NRPF condition) would therefore appear to have been granted exceptional leave outside of the rules and would consequently have an eligibility under Class B.

Once the schemes have found a place in the immigration rules, Class B will no longer cover further applicants and it will be necessary for a further class to be introduced. Again, this happened for Afghan arrivals (Class L) and we can expect that there will be a new “Class M” created shortly to cover this group.

Which is a long way round of saying that I too think:

Dan Manville - 11 March 2022 02:43 PM

they’ll be fine if they’ve got recourse to public funds.

Thank you Elliott and Dan

Of course HRT shouldn’t apply - I have used some case law about fleeing war before but for a child who would have died without medical treatment in the country of residence.

I guess the past presence, local connection rules for allocations , social housing will apply though

Think my post wasn’t well written, sorry - I wanted to know about housing but also benefits - can anyone see any issues with UC, CB etc- DLA would seem still affected by past presence 6 months? I am assuming they claim UC from day 1?

Nick

There is no ‘past presence’ test in housing to my knowledge. Local connection could be a factor in individual allocations schemes. It should not be a factor for homelessness provision as the applicant would not have a local connection elsewhere so as to be referred to the area of connection.

UC/ChB etc. - the analysis is basically the same as above. They would have a right to reside unless they are NRPF for some reason. There is no need to amend the benefit regs to achieve this result because the benefit regs do not use the same system of ‘classes’ of eligible applicants. They would need to be habitually resident in fact until an exemption is introduced however this is unlikely to be a practical barrier for the same reasons.

DLA/PIP - there is currently no exemption from the past presence test in these cases. Once again, using the Afghan scheme as a model, it would be anticipated that an exemption will be introduced (see ADM Memo 14/21)..

It appears that the regulations I had suggested may be forthcoming are being laid today.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/immediate-benefit-support-for-those-fleeing-the-invasion-in-ukraine

Regulations out for both housing and benefits:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/339/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/344/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/346/made

The broad effect of these amendments is to exempt people fleeing from Ukraine from the HRT and PPT entirely, using much the same approach as was taken with Afghan nationals last year.