Case study of how a sudden change in circumstances became dangerous due to a family having NRPF
The case study that follows shows how a sudden change in circumstances led to a family becoming homeless, and how having no recourse to public funds (NRPF) made their experience all the more difficult. It was provided by The Unity Project, the charity that helped ‘Annie’ to make a * Change of Conditions application.
* Although the Change of Conditions application may look simple, the refusals given by the Home Office demonstrate how much evidence is expected, and how difficult it is to make without the support of an experienced caseworker.
Please note, ‘Annie’ is a fake name used to protect the person’s privacy. The social services teams that are mentioned in this case are in London.
Annie’s experience:
At the time of the incident that led to an extreme change in Annie’s circumstances, she had leave to remain with no recourse to public funds (NRPF). She was living with her now ex-partner, and her 2 children. Her ex-partner is the father of her youngest child.
In early 2018, after taking her children to school, Annie came home to find that she had been locked out by her ex-partner without any warning. She went to the police and was told that as she was not on the tenancy agreement her ex-partner had the right to do this. The police took Annie to her local council’s social services so that emergency accommodation could be arranged for her and her children.
Social services were incredibly hostile. Annie was shouted at and told to ‘go back home’ (meaning country of origin) and section 17 support was refused. The reason given was because Annie had ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NPRF) - NRPF is a condition whereby a person is unable to access many welfare benefits. Annie was told that she was lucky to have been accommodated by her ex-partner and advised to look for work - which Annie had already been doing extensively.
Annie’s children’s school agreed to look after her children until 6pm so that she could try to arrange somewhere for the family to sleep that night. At 6pm she still hadn’t found anywhere and had to pick up her children. They walked around their town centre in the rain until a friend agreed to accommodate them later that evening. None of the family were in sufficiently warm clothing and Annie has been locked out without a buggy so had to carry her youngest child. Annie’s youngest child was very ill due to a respiratory condition.
The friend who accommodated the family only agreed to allow them to stay if they left the house early in the morning when she went to work. This meant that Annie sat in a church all day with her youngest child whilst her friend was at work. Annie found a pram that someone had thrown away to use. At this time she could only afford biscuits and juice to sustain her children.
After 2 days a different friend who lived in a different local authority agreed to accommodate the family. This friend was living in a 2 bedroom flat with her partner and 4 children. When Annie moved in the number of people in this flat increased to 9.
Throughout this time the social services team were still refusing to accommodate the family, but were going to Annie’s eldest child’s school to interview her without warning. Both mother and child found this confusing and distressing. Social services contacted both fathers of Annie’s children, and suggested that she leave her children with the ex-partner who had locked them out a few days earlier. Annie was shocked as this was both not possible, and not in the best interests of her children.
Social services visited the second accommodation that Annie was staying at on 3 occasions without warning. They pressurized Annie’s friend to accommodate the family for 48 days. Annie was repeatedly advised to make a Change of Conditions application, but no support was offered to help the family make this application, or to accommodate them whilst it was being made. The family who were hosting were made so uncomfortable by their treatment by social services that they wanted Annie and her family to leave as soon as possible,
Haringey Migrant Support Centre (HMSC) had been supporting Annie throughout this time. Their solicitor approached the different local authority of where Annie had moved to for section 17 support. This social services team was very helpful and accommodated the family. Annie would not have known that she could ask the second council for support without the help offered by HMSC. This second and supportive social services team also referred the family to an early intervention officer due to their concern about her eldest child witnessing domestic violence.
HMSC also referred Annie to The Unity Project for help to make the Change of Conditions application to remove the NRPF condition from her visa, and arranged a clothing donation and access to food banks for the family.
Annie suffers from extreme back pain and the cost of childcare were barriers to her finding employment that she was able to maintain. If Annie’s application for recourse to public funds was refused and she was denied access to section 17 support she may have found herself with no other option than to try to return her abusive ex-partner.
Annie has a diploma in social work and has studied law. She knew that it was wrong that the first council were making their decision to withhold section 17 support based on her situation and not the needs of her children. Despite this she felt unable to challenge the council successfully on her own. Annie explained that if she had not been advised to ask the second council for help she would think that social services is a lie - not set up to help people, but existing to do the opposite.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The reasons given to refuse a destitute family’s Change of Conditions application
Please note that Grace is a fake name to protect the person’s privacy.
Grace’s experience is an example of a family living in extreme destitution and yet their Change of Conditions application - to remove the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) restriction - was refused. Her inadequate income and insecure accommodation are detailed below, as are the reasons for the refusal. 5 months after making her first application, and after much distress to her and her family, a second application was successful.
Grace’s experience
At the time of making the NRPF lift application (also called a Change of Conditions application) Grace was a single parent of a child who was in nursery and a baby who was less than 6 months old. Grace had been sofa surfing with her baby for just over a month and was unable to stay anywhere for longer than 3 days at a time. Some of the friends that she was staying with were work colleagues who were unaware of her situation and just thought that she would like to visit them.
Because of her precarious housing situation her eldest child had to live with her ex-partner. Grace could not be parted from her baby as her ex-partner would not have been able to care for a baby, and Grace was still breastfeeding. Grace was providing most of the childcare for her eldest child. She also helped with cooking, cleaning, shopping and taking her child out for leisure activities. This was because Grace’s ex-partner has a mental health condition that made it hard for him to do these things.
At the time of making her application for recourse to public funds Grace had an income of less than £900 a month. £580 of this was from her *statutory maternity pay, and the remaining amount was all the child support that her ex-partner could afford to help with. On this income, and with only £250 of savings, Grace was completely unable to secure and maintain rented accommodation and meet the other essential needs of her family.
Unfortunately Grace’s change of conditions application was refused almost a month after it was submitted. These were the reasons given:
‘We acknowledge your claim that you are homeless and currently living with various friends. However, this does not demonstrate that you do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it because you have not provided any evidence of having approached the local authority or homeless charities for assistance.
You have stated that you are unable to meet your essential living needs. However the breakdown of your monthly income and expenditure that you have provided indicates that you are able to meet your essential living needs through your current income. We note that your expenditure includes road tax, but you have advised us that you no longer pay this. Deducting this from your expenditure breakdown indicates that you are able to meet your essential living needs through your current income’.
Grace could not demonstrate the conditions of her living arrangements as she had no secure accommodation to evidence.
Grace was not aware of any homeless charities that she could approach or that her local authority could help.
Grace’s income and expenditure breakdown clearly showed that she had no way of affording to pay for adequate accommodation, which is an essential living need.
The cost of Grace’s road tax was £19.25. She paid this the month prior to submitting the change of conditions application which is why it was included in her breakdown.
After Grace’s Change of Conditions application was refused she approached social services for support before making another application to remove the NRPF condition. 5 months after making her first application for recourse to public funds Grace’s second application was successful. The process of applying for recourse to public funds was incredibly distressing for Grace at a time when she was the sole carer of a new baby and had been separated from her other child.
Footnote:
* Statutory maternity pay - This is a rare exception for people with NRPF. It is not classed as a public fund, but an individual needs to have paid enough National Insurance to be able to claim it: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--2/public-funds
Detailed Change of Conditions application, and the refusal letter it received
This post shares an anonymised CoC application. It is long and detailed, and attempts to address any questions that the Home Office might have. It was made under the supervision of an OISC registered solicitor.
The Applicant was refused having the NRPF condition lifted from her Visa, and the Home Office’s refusal letter is also shared here.
The refusal was overturned when a solicitor challenged the Home Office’s decision with a PAP (Pre-Action Protocol) letter.
This is an extract from a Home Office refusal letter sent to a family that made a change of conditions application. This application was made so that they could have the NRPF condition removed from their visas.
They are a family of 5 and on the date of the refusal letter they had 3 children aged 6, 9 and 16 years old. At the time they were sharing a bunk bed in a friends single bedroom flat. The friend sleeps on the sofa, the mother and 3 children share the bunk bed and the father sleeps at another friends house up to 5 nights a week so that the children can have space.
As they are sofa surfing they are unable to provide the evidence that the Home Office is asking for, and the application form does not make it clear that this level of evidence is needed.
This family received a fee waiver on their visas because they did not have the means to pay. However, despite having already proved that they were destitute the NRPF condition was still put on their visas.
