In the UK, no recourse to public funds (NRPF) means no access to almost all state support, including homelessness assistance and most welfare benefits. It applies to many migrants both with and without visas. This blog shows how NRPF affects people's lives. @wdNRPFmean
There is no single experience of NRPF: 8 case studies
When a person with āno recourse to public fundsā (NRPF) struggles to make ends meet they can quickly fall into extreme poverty.
There is no single experience of the poverty caused by NRPF, but those affected by it are more likely to be single parents or people who are unable to access secure employment for reasons including age, health issues and immigration status. Sofa-surfing and street homelessness are also very likely outcomes when a person with NRPF is unable to secure enough work.
Below are 8 brief and very different case studies gathered by Hackney Migrant Centre through their *free school meals advocacy for families with NRPF.Ā
*Currently a child can only receive free school meals if their parent/s or carer/s are receiving one of a list of benefits. This leaves children from households with NRPF ineligible for free school meals because their parents cannot claim the benefits that they need. NRPF causes the poverty that many children have to endure, and it also denies these children access to a reliable meal at school, and the ability to make the most of their education.
As these case studies are gathered from Hackney Migrant Centreās free school meals advocacy, they can only represent the hardship faced by NRPF households with children.
Anonymous Free School Meals Case Studies
Based on a small sample of the free school meals advocacy letters sent from Hackney Migrant Centre from August 2018 ā December 2018.Ā
Consent has been given for all of these case studies to be shared.
1. Ā Ā Ā Enfield
A single parent of 3 children who had separated from her ex-partner and moved out of the family home. She was unable to work enough hours to make ends meet due to her childcare commitments. As a result, she could not afford suitable accommodation and was staying in a family memberās garage which had not been converted into a living space. Her children had no choice but to stay living with their father despite the fact that he worked night shifts. Although the father provided housing he did not contribute towards the childrenās expenses.
Mother travelled back and forth from her accommodation to the fatherās to get the children ready for school and bed and to cook most of their meals. She was only able to work when her children were at school. Her income was therefore very small, and the cost of her childrenās school meals were causing the family greater financial hardship.
2. Ā Ā Lambeth
A single parent who was eligible to make an application to regularise her immigration status, but had been unable to afford a solicitor to help her to make it. This single parent was not legally entitled to work or access any state support.Ā
The parent had a child in primary school, and was unable to afford their school meals or access to an after-school club. The familyās only income was from their church and friends, and was at most Ā£120 each month. School meals were costing Ā£40 a month and after school club was Ā£5 a day. The child could not attend the afterschool club even though they would have really liked to, and paying for their school meals was costing 1/3 of the familyās whole income.
The child being able to eat a hot and filling meal at school each day was incredibly important to the parent which is why they prioritised paying for these meals. But in doing so the family are left with significantly less to meet their other essential needs including food, clothing and travel. Paying for school meals meant sacrificing elsewhere.
When Hackney Migrant Centre helped to write the free school meals advocacy letter they gave the family a one off emergency hardship grant of £20 that day as the family had no food left at home. Free school meals were requested 3 times between July 2017 and January 2019 with no success.
3. Ā Ā Haringey and Hackney
Family of 5 - 2 parents, 2 children in secondary school and 1 child in primary school. 4 months before HMC sent free school meals advocacy letters to the childrenās schools, an application was made to the Home Office for leave to remain for the family. At the time both parents were unable to work and unable to access state support. For this reason the family were relying on the support of friends, charities and food banks and were struggling to make ends meet.Ā
The secondary school was able to cover the cost of 2 of the childrenās meals, the primary school could not do the same.
Both parents now have leave to remain and are looking for work.
4. Ā Ā HackneyĀ
Family of 5 ā 2 parents and 3 children. 7 months before free school meals advocacy letter was sent the family had submitted an application to the Home Office for leave to remain. This application was refused but they were appealing the outcome. Whilst the appeal was happening both parents were not allowed to work and could not access state support.Ā
The family were living in social services provided section 17 accommodation as their children had been identified as being āin needā. Their only source of income, provided by the council, was less than Ā£25 per week per person. The family had been trying to pay for their childās school meals but it was exacerbating the familyās hardship. School had not responded to free school meals advocacy letter 2 months after it had been sent.
5. Ā Ā Hackney
Single parent family with 2 children. Mother was not allowed to work and the family had been relying on the charity of friends. This support was irregular, unreliable, and not enough to meet the familyās essential needs. They were depending on foodbanks, and were all having to skip meals often.
Not long before the free school meals advocacy letter was sent the mother had had a heart attack. Her ongoing health issues meant that she was unable to do any physical activities that could put strain on her heart. She had blacked-out on multiple occasions, and the friend who had been accommodating the family had asked them to leave. The friend was worried that something would happen to the mother and the family would become a burden that she would be unable to care for. For this reason, at the time of the free school meals advocacy letter the family were facing street homelessness. The headteacher invited the mother in to the school and refused to provide free school meals for the children.Ā
6. Ā Ā Lewisham
Family of 2 - A single parent with a British child in secondary school. The parent was not allowed to work and could not receive any benefits. At the time that the free school meals advocacy letter was sent to her sonās school, the family were staying with a friend in a small 2 bedroom flat. This flat was very overcrowded with 6 people sharing 2 rooms and 1 bathroom. Mother and teenage son were having to share a single bed. The family had been asked to leave, and they did not know where they will be able to sleep when this happens.
The family were eating whenever their friend cooked. When the friend didnāt cook they had to skip meals unless other friends were able to help. They had been relying on the support of friends for things like clothes and travel, but this support has been very little at Ā£150 a month at the very most.
When friends gave the mother money she used it to top up her sonās lunch prepayment card. When friends couldnāt help he skipped lunch. Son had been struggling to handle his stressful living situation, he was upset and had been behaving differently at school.
2 months after the free school meals advocacy letter detailing the familyās situation was sent the school had still not responded.
7. Ā Ā Lewisham (note: Lewisham council agreed to cover the cost of the 2 older childrens school meals, it was not their school)
HMC wrote free school meals advocacy letters on behalf of a single parent with 3 children who attended 2 different schools. The parent was unable to work or receive benefits and could not afford the cost of regularising their immigration status. The family were regularly skipping meals and could not afford basic essentials such as clothing and travel. At the time of writing to the schools the family were at risk of becoming street homeless.
One of the childrenās schools refused because they had many children in the same situation. The school said that their budget was so tight that they could not afford books for their library. Fortunately free school meals were arranged for the other 2 children.
8. Ā Ā Bromley
Family of 5 - 2 parents and 3 children one of which was a new baby. At the time that the free school meals letter was sent the family were living in council provided section 17 accommodation as the children had been identified as being āin needā. The whole family were surviving on Ā£100 each week which was provided by social services as both parents were not allowed to work.
The expense of a new baby made their situation particularly hard. The family owed the school around £25 due to school meals and were worried about their child being unable to go on school trips with their peers. Luckily, in this case the school was able to support the family with free school meals.
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Child with NRPF denied free school meals despite family of 4 living on £15 each week
Children whose parents have NRPF (āno recourse to public fundsā) cannot get free school meals regardless of how much they may need them.Ā
The free school meals advocacy letter shared below was sent to a school to make them aware of what one of their pupils were experiencing and why they needed free school meals. It details an extreme case of poverty and yet the school was unable to support the child for longer than 2 weeks.
Hackney Migrant Centre (HMC) wrote this letter on behalf of the family, and they have been recording all of their free school meals advocacy since August 2018. They hope to highlight the extent of the problem that children experiencing food poverty face when denied free school meals due to their parents or carers NRPF immigration status. HMCās work is done in support of NELMAās free school meals campaign. For more information about HMCās work around this issue contact [email protected]
More information about why this is happening:
When a family with NRPF falls on hard times they cannot access the welfare benefits that they need to survive. This leads to the most extreme poverty when families are both in and out of work.
NRPF affects people with the right to live and work in the UK, who pay the same rate of tax. It also affects people who are currently undocumented.Ā
People become undocumented for many reasons including: being unable to access good legal advice; being unable to afford huge immigration and legal fees; not knowing their rights; being in abusive relationships; unfair decision making from the Home Office.
People struggle to make ends meet whilst in work due to factors including: low wages; zero hours contracts; being unable to afford childcare to work enough hours; the high cost of living.
In the UK, on top of benefits there are also other forms of support that families can access to reduce the harm caused by poverty. These include free school meals, access to a free childcare allowance, and the healthy start vouchers. However, to qualify for this help you must be receiving certain benefits. For those who are denied benefits due to having NRPF, they and their children are also excluded from these other vital forms of support.
Regardless of a childās status, they are affected when their parents or carers have NRPF. There are many British children who are growing up in unimaginable poverty due to the withholding of welfare support to their parents.
Young children rarely know what their immigration status is or means. What they know is that the UK is their home and that they have the same hopes and dreams as their peers. Due to NRPF however, a generation will grow up to realise that they donāt have the same rights and protections because of the country that their parents came from.
Not Seen, Not Heard: Childrenās experiences of the hostile environment
Not Seen, Not Heard: Childrenās experiences of the hostile environment
A report by Project 17 published in February 2019
This report details the ways in which the Section 17 provision is being increasingly gatekept from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) who are facing destitution and homelessness. The report evidences that when Section 17 support is offered to families it is done so at a highly inadequate level, and that the process of getting this support is harmful to the vulnerable children who the council have a duty to protect.
āSection 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children āin needā in their area. This statutory provision has become an essential safety net for children whose parents are unable to access mainstream welfare support because of their (NRPF) immigration status.ā (Page 2)
The report focusses on the experiences of children whose families have needed Section 17 support. Their testimony provides a powerful insight into the hardship that children from families with NRPF face, and how their physical and emotional wellbeing are being harmed by NRPF, and by the treatment that they receive from local authorities.
Below the childrenās testimony you will find the reportās recommendations which are printed on pages 4-6.
Recommendations:
Local authorities
Assessments should be child-focused, fair, and transparent. They should be conducted by social workers, in line with statutory guidance. Childrenās views, wishes, and feelings should be solicited and given due regard in decision-making. In line with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of children should be the primary concern when staff are making decisions that may affect children.
Local authorities should be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of families approaching them for support and give parents ample opportunities to provide an explanation for inconsistencies or gaps in information. Local authority staff should treat families with dignity and respect.
Immigration and fraud officers should not be part of Child in Need assessments. They act as a deterrent to vulnerable families and therefore put children at greater risk of destitution.
NRPF Network Practice Guidance should be adopted by local authorities to ensure they are carrying out consistent, lawful assessments and making decisions in accordance with best practice.
Starting rates for financial support provided to families with NRPF under section 17 should never be lower than rates provided to destitute asylum-seeking families under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Financial support should be provided to the family as a whole and should be sufficient to meet the familyās needs. Information about how rates of financial support have been calculated should be accessible to families and social workers should make sure that families feel confident to raise issues about subsistence.
Local authorities should carry out checks on accommodation provided before families are moved into properties. Accommodation provided should be suitable for families and consideration should be given to the need for privacy, the location of a childās school and their community, the behavior of other residents, and access to basic facilities. Social workers should make sure that children have adequate privacy, space for homework, and feel safe in the accommodation.
Central Government
The Home Office should not apply the NRPF condition to individuals granted leave to remain on human rights grounds.
Local authorities should be sufficiently funded by central government to meet their duties under section 17.
Central government should consult and provide statutory guidance on the provision of accommodation under section 17.
Changes should be made to The Education Act 1996 to ensure children in families with NRPF are entitled to free school meals.
The governmentās 30 hours free childcare scheme should be made available to families with NRPF.
Legal aid should be reinstated for individuals applying for leave to remain on the basis of family or private life.
Immigration application fees for leave to remain on the basis of family or private life should be scrapped.
Project 17
To explore how we can be more effective at seeing and hearing the children and young people we work with.
Identifying further partnerships and funding opportunities to build on this work.
Developing a charter for local authorities to consider how they will work towards a child-friendly environment for families with no recourse to public funds.
Diane Abbott & Mayor of Hackney pledge support for campaign to secure free school meals for undocumented children
This article published in September 2018 byĀ Hackney Citizen, a local independent newspaper, explains how āHundreds of children in Hackney are in danger of routinely āgoing hungry at lunchtimeā due to their parentsā immigration statusā.Ā
This is because a family has to be claiming one ofĀ the passporting benefits to be eligible for free school meals. Families with NRPF cannot claim these benefits regardless of need; as a result their children also miss out on free school meals.
NELMA are currently campaigning around this issue.
Quotes from the article:
āhundreds of children in Hackney alone are being denied free school meals on the basis of their parentsā immigration status.
āThis either means that those children go hungry at lunchtime whilst their peers eat; or it means that their parents rack up hundreds or thousands of pounds worth of debt that they canāt afford to pay.
āThese are children whose families the UK government has already forced into destitution and poverty by denying their parents access to benefits, and in some cases denying them the right to work....
āIn response to coverage in the Guardian of the policy in May of this year, the Department for Education released a statement claiming that āno child is refused access to free school meals because of their immigration statusā.
āHowever, according to Coram Childrenās Legal Centre, in practice, children of parents with leave to remain in the UK but who are deemed to have no recourse to public funds (NRPF) are ineligible for the meals.ā
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 āAnnieā to make a *Ā Change of Conditions application.Ā
* 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, āAnnieā is a fake name used to protect the personās privacy. The social services teams that are mentioned in this case are in London.
Annieās experience:
At the time of the incident that led to an extreme change in Annieās 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 councilās 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 āgo back homeā (meaning country of origin) and section 17 support was refused. The reason given was because Annie had āno recourse to public fundsā (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.
Annieās childrenās 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 hadnāt 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. Annieās 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 Annieās eldest childās school to interview her without warning. Both mother and child found this confusing and distressing. Social services contacted both fathers of Annieās 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 Annieās 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. Ā 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 Annieās 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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Letter to the Home Office by a child whose parent has NRPF
This letter was written to accompany a Change of Conditions application - the application that people make to ask for the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) condition to be removed from their visa. The letter shows how difficult it had been for this single parent household to make ends meet, which resulted in a family of 4 facing eviction. It is clear how distressing this has been for the child who wrote the letter and no doubt their mother and 2 siblings as well.Ā
The family did receive recourse to public funds as a result of the application that this letter accompanied. They received help to make this application from The Unity Project, a small charity that helps people to make change of conditions applications for free. Unfortunately, as the change of conditions application can only be made once an individual or family finds themselves in destitution, it can be argued that even a positive outcome always arrives too late to safeguard people from experiencing the trauma of destitution.
The reasons given to refuse a destitute familyās Change of Conditions application
Please note that Grace is a fake name to protect the personās privacy.
Graceās 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.
Graceās 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 Graceās 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 Graceās change of conditions application was refused almost a month after it was submitted. These were the reasons given:
āWe 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 incomeā.
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.
Graceās 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 Graceās road tax was Ā£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 Graceās 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 Graceās 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:
*Ā 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
Episode 2 from The Childrenās Societyās āThe Talking Change Podcastā focusses on NRPF ā āWe investigate the daily struggle faced by families subject to No Recourse to Public Funds, a condition of their immigration status that prevents them from accessing any benefits or welfare support.ā
An informative 30 minute podcast featuring an interview with Rupinder Parhar (Policy Officer at The Childrenās Society). Rupinder explains the cost and difficulties involved in navigating the route to indefinite leave to remain, she also outlines some of the benefits and provisions denied to families with NRPF. Rupinder also speaks about The Childrenās Societyās experiences of the kinds of situations in which NRPF becomes particularly harmful.
There is an interview with a single parent of 3 children who has lived experience of NRPF. She speaks about how NRPF made it harder to leave her abusive ex-partner as she knew she would struggle financially on her own. She shares how she is currently struggling to make ends meet due to NRPF despite working up to 50 hours a week.
Councillor Sue Lukes, Islington councilās āMigrantsā Championā, explains how the burden of supporting someone with NRPF can impoverish whole families, even those with access to public funds. She speaks about how destitution can have long term effects on the physical and mental health of children as well as their family relationships. Sue also speaks about how the lack of funding from central government to local authorities means that councils do not have the resources to support families that have been negatively affected by central government policy.
The Childrenās Future Food Inquiry seeks to understandĀ āhow many children experience food insecurity* and how it impacts their livesā.Ā
* by āfood insecurityā we (the inquiry) mean: the inability to acquire or consume an adequate quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways, or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so
Hackney Migrant Centreās School Meals Advocate shares their answers to the inquiryās questions below. They explain how in their experience NRPF leads to children living in food poverty, particularly in relation to not being able to access free school meals.
The inquiry closes at the end of November 2018 and anyone can submit their experiences and thoughts by following this link:Ā http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/childrensfoodinquiry/
Please tell us whether you think children are able to access a sufficient quantity of food to prevent them going hungry?
No. I have met many families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) whose children are skipping meals, and/or have diets with limited fresh produce and no variety. There are children whose access to food is entirely dependent on the charity of friends or organisations. This charity is often insufficient and unreliable.
Please tell us what you think helps and/or hinders children from accessing a sufficient quantity of food
When families have no recourse to public funds (NRPF), due to the parents' or carers' immigration status, they cannot receive state support regardless of their need. This leaves families, both in and out of work, in extreme poverty. Poverty hinders accessing a sufficient quantity of food.
Schools do not receive funding to provide free school meals to children from families with NRPF from their local authority. In my experience, many schools do not have the money available from their own budgets to cover this cost for children to be able to eat for free. Therefore, many children without adequate access to food at home, are also being refused access to a reliable and filling meal each day at school.
Schools do want to help, but when they are in areas with many migrant families with NRPF, the demand can be too high and their budgets too small to help. Schools not having adequate funding hinders accessing a sufficient quantity of food.
Please use this space to tell us whether children are able to access enough healthy food to meet their nutritional needs
No. The children who I have met that are living in exceptional poverty, have limited diets whose regularity depends on the charity of friends. I have spoken to parents that can only afford to send their child to school with a bread and jam sandwich or a packet of crisps each day. I have spoken to families whose children have to skip meals.
When families cannot access housing because they have no recourse to public funds (NRPF) they are often forced to sofa surf. This means that they are living in temporary and unreliable accommodation with friends, families and sometimes strangers. Often, they sleep in living rooms and on sofas, and have to keep moving to stay out of the host family's way. When a family does not have their own space, the use of the household's kitchen becomes very difficult. Families often cannot store food or cook freely. Their meals will depend on if the friend wants to, or can afford to feed them. If the friend does not or cannot, they are forced to buy fast food from an already tiny budget, further exasperating their destitution. Fresh produce often needs a fridge and has a shorter shelf life. For families with little storage space and without access to a kitchen, fresh produce is impractical and expensive.
I have met many many families in this position, and this is a far too common experience for families with NRPF.
Please tell us what you think helps/hinders children from receiving enough healthy food to meet their nutritional needs
When a family has no recourse to public funds (NRPF) they cannot access state support regardless of how destitute they are. Ā This impoverishes families; it forces them to survive on tiny amounts of money and live in completely unsuitable conditions.
NRPF can therefore lead to food poverty. It means that in many cases there is not enough food, let alone a healthy variety of food.
When a family has NRPF they are not allowed to access free school meals for their children. This means that the children who are the least likely to be able to eat enough at home, also cannot rely on a filling and varied meal at school.
Please tell us if you are aware of children who are accessing food in socially unacceptable ways? Please include any ways of obtaining food that may cause embarrassment/shame for children and their families or that are not culturally appropriate
It is socially unacceptable that people are left with no other option than to ask friends to help them to feed their children.
It is socially unacceptable that children are racking up debt each time they eat a meal at school that they need but their family can't afford.
I have met a parent who had accrued £1000 of debt to her child's school because she was unable to pay for their school meals; that child was then punished by not being allowed to attend his end of secondary school prom. It is socially unacceptable to stigmatise children and parents in this way.
School should be a space where children can learn and play together as equals. If a child is from a family that is struggling financially, they must be able to eat the same meals as their friends at school. It is socially unacceptable for this to place a family further into destitution.
Please tell us about any policies or programmes that you think have helped to alleviate children's food poverty
I do not know of any government policies that have helped to alleviate children's food poverty for families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF).
Hackney council has recently pledged to raise the amount of subsistence that they give to all families receiving Section 17 support who have children in year 3 and above to cover their school meals - all children in years 1 and 2 already receive free school meals in England.
I have written to schools who have agreed to use money from their own budgets to cover the cost of a child's school meals when their family has NRPF. Although this makes a significantly positive impact on the welfare of a child, this is not a long-term solution.
When a school pays for a child's meals it has to take money from its budget that was meant for other things; many schools cannot afford to do this. It also means that the school cannot receive the pupil premium for these children.
The pupil premium is extra funding given to schools to allow them to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
'Itās designed to help disadvantaged pupils of all abilities perform better, and close the gap between them and their peers...
In the 2018 to 2019 financial year, schools will receive the following funding for each pupil registered as eligible for free school meals (FSM) at any point in the last 6 years:
Students are identified as needing pupil premium support if they receive free school meals. Children with NRPF cannot apply for free school meals because their parents aren't allowed to receive benefits regardless of how much they may need them. This means that often the poorest children in our society not only cannot access food at home and in school, but are also denied any extra support that the pupil premium offers as well.
Please tell us of any policies or programmes which you think should be introduced to help alleviate childrenās food poverty
I think schools should be adequately funded to be able to give free school meals to all children who need them. This must be regardless of their parentsā immigration status.
Any policy introduced must allow children from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) to access free school meals if they need them. This must also result in schools receiving the pupil premium for those children. This will allow children to access any extra support that they need, including being able to go to breakfast and after school clubs.
Whatever measure is put in place must be carefully considered. It must be sensitive, supportive and understanding. It cannot result in reporting to the Home Office. This is essential to safeguard the welfare of children.
Further submissions submitted by email to [email protected] on 30/11/2018:
To whom it may concern,
I am Hackney Migrant Centre's school meals advocate. My role has been to help families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) request that their children's schools support them with free school meals.
The families that I work with are experiencing extreme poverty but are unable to access benefits. As free school meals funding is calculated according to whether a child's parents are in receipt of benefits, there is a huge number of children who are excluded from this vital provision. My role has been to ask schools to use their own budgets to support these children. Schools are often unable to do this. More information about the impact of denying free school meals to families with NRPF can be found here: https://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/free-school-meals-dfe/
I would like to submit further evidence to your inquiry. I have attached a small selection of advocacy letters and refusals from schools. These documents demonstrate the need for free school meals for families with NRPF, and that when schools refuse to help it is because they do not have the funding to provide this support.
I have already answered the online questionnaire on 28/11/2018. I would like to make clear that when I referred to NRPF, I am referring to families with NRPF as a condition on their visas, and also undocumented migrant families.
I would also like to say that although Hackney council's commitment to fund school meals for children in Section 17 accommodation will make a significant difference to those families, there are still many families with NRPF who are living in poverty and who are not receiving section 17 support. This point is illustrated clearly by the fact that of the 41 children that I have written free school meals advocacy letters for, only 9 had been receiving Section 17 support.
I am very happy to answer any more questions so please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Critics say practice risks deterring destitute families from accessing support
Homeless and destitute families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) are able to access Section 17 support, as councils have a duty of care towards vulnerable children in need.
This article shares how having immigration officers embedded in councils has been used to deter people from accessing the Section 17 support they need.Ā
Quotes from article:
āLocal authorities have a clear obligation to safeguard the welfare of children. That support is a right, and we are concerned that families are afraid to access that right because of data-sharing with the Home Office,ā said Jennifer Ang, a human rights lawyer at JustRight Scotland...
Bethan Lant, head of casework at Praxis, said social workers who requested Home Office support in these assessments regularly threatened to separate families.
In a recording heard by the Guardian, a social worker tells an applicant with leave to remain that the Home Office worker present at the interview could deport her, in front of her daughter. āThe impression being given by officers is that if you need help you have to consider going back home, which is absolutely not the case,ā Lant said.
One Nigerian claimant told the Guardian that an immigration officer criticised her for sending her children to live with a family member while she was depressed. āThey said: āWhy would you abandon your kids? What kind of mother would do that?ā They made me feel like a criminal.
Campaigners say the practice of embedding immigration officers in local councils is harming vulnerable children. Chai Patel, legal policy director at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: āSection 17 support is designed to ensure that children and their families are not left destitute, homeless or starving. For the Home Office to use it to gather personal data on those families for immigration enforcement purposes is a gross perversion of the purpose of the law.ā
Amy Murtagh, the interim director of Project 17, said: āOur research has shown that the perceived threat of possible detention or deportation deters families from accessing support. As a result children are being left homeless, in situations of dire poverty or at risk of exploitation.ā
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
TheĀ āWhat Price Safe Motherhoodā report, was put together by Maternity Action in September 2018. It explores āthe impact on migrant women who faced charges for NHS maternity care during and after their pregnancies. It was carried out in response to growing concerns that women at risk of being charged for maternity care are delaying or avoiding care. It is based on in-depth interviews with sixteen women from eleven countries'.Ā
Mothers affected by NHS charging due to being undocumented will have no recourse to public funds. This means that people who are not entitled to work, and who are unable to access almost all state support, are being put in huge amounts of debt, at a time when they have no way of paying it off.Ā
All the experiences and information shared below are quoted from this report.Ā
Most of the women (interviewed for report) had no entitlement to any kind of benefit or financial support during their pregnancies because of their irregular immigration status, and so were often very poor, and even destitute.Ā
Refusal of careĀ
In spite of clear guidelines that all maternity care must be treated as immediately necessary and not be withheld if a woman is unable to pay, one woman was informed in writing half way through her pregnancy that her future appointments would be cancelled if she failed to pay the bill. Maternity Actionās advice service has reported several similar cases where both hospitals and GP practices have incorrectly refused treatment or GP registration because of a womanās lack of immigration status.Ā
The impact of charging on women
All the women interviewed described their initial reactions to receiving bills for their maternity care in terms of shock and bewilderment, especially as most of them had been unaware they had to pay, and none were in a position to do so.
Three women said that had they known earlier that they would be charged they would have had an abortion though in the event, did not do so. However, for most women, the invoices, accompanied by letters and phone calls requesting money and threatening to report them to the Home Office, or even telling them that they would never be able to regularise their stay, induced very high levels of anxiety and fear, affecting their physical as well as mental health. Some women spoke constantly of their fears of what might happen because they could not pay the bills they had received. Whether or not women were billed during or after their pregnancy, the demands for payment affected their willingness to see a midwife or doctor when they were not well, or even for routine appointments after they had given birth.
The following experiences were the ones taken from the report where the mothers were most likely to have had NRPF.
AyeshaĀ
Ayesha came to the UK in 2011 from West Africa to an arranged marriage. She had not met her future husband but he was ānice and caringā when she spoke to him on the phone. They stayed together for about 4 months but she fled from him because he turned out to be violent and abusive. At that time she could not speak English and knew nothing about the UK. She survived by helping out different women she met in her mosque who offered her shelter in return for help with housework and childcare. When she became pregnant a family took her in for a longer period but made it clear she would not be able to continue to stay once she had her child. She was afraid to go back to her country because she had run away from her husband, and she was also worried that her family would force her daughter to have FGM. She applied for asylum just before she was due to give birth.Ā
HelenaĀ
When Helena became pregnant she discovered that her partner was already married with a family and they separated. She was not eligible for any maternity pay or benefits and had to leave her rented room in shared accommodation as she was not allowed to have a baby there. She would have become homeless had not a friend in another city offered her a place to stay.
āI am afraid that if I go to the hospital they will charge me and Iām so afraid whatās gonna happen to me if I say that I donāt have money to pay for that. If they will detain me, or if ⦠after I have delivered the baby if Iām gonna stay at the hospital or in a detention centre or something like that.ā
BeatriceĀ
Beatrice had overstayed her student visa. When she became pregnant she was living with a man who refused to accept paternity of her child and threw her out. She then moved in with another man who turned out to be violent and abusive but she did not leave him because she had no other income and nowhere to go. Her father had been supporting her from her home country but disowned her because of the pregnancy. She was afraid to approach any authorities because āI was scared of being deported.ā She told her story to some āchurch peopleā who eventually paid a deposit for a room and she managed to leave her violent partner three weeks before her due date.Ā
MariamĀ
Mariam was a refused asylum seeker from West Africa who came to London after leaving asylum accommodation when her claim was refused. She came from a conservative background and had herself experienced FGM. The relationship in which she became pregnant was her first sexual relationship but her partner abandoned her as soon as she told him she was pregnant and she later discovered that he was in another relationship and already had two children. When Mariam became 29 pregnant she was living with a friend who was working but who then left the country, leaving Mariam unable to pay rent for the room and dependant on the kindness of other tenants. She later moved from place to place during much of the rest of her pregnancy.Ā
She was also desperately unhappy, unable to eat and crying all the time, and had thought of killing herself during her pregnancy. At the time of her interview her child was almost two but she had still not told her mother that she had a child because of the stigma that would attach to her. Hospital charges of nearly Ā£3000 were yet another blow, as Mariam believed that this debt would prevent her from making any successful immigration claim.Ā
āI lost 13kg (while I was pregnant) because I was sick. I couldnāt eat, and I have no one... I am on my own. Itās very hard⦠I was one week in hospital, on my own, no one visited me, no one helped me. Even the social (worker) was saying, this girl has been here one week today, but no one has come. Can you imagine? ā¦. I was sharing (a room) with one lady, sheās the one who knows how I cried, all those nights, crying. āStop cryingā she said. I cried night and day, night and day. She always told me, āListen, if you donāt stop it, they will take your child away.ā If you cry here, they say you donāt want the baby, or that you may hurt the baby. The midwife used to come in and say, āDo you think to hurt your baby, or something?ā I say, āNo. Itās not about that. Whatās happened already has happened, thereās nothing I can do about that. Itās just sad. Itās still sad when you have a child that none of your family can know about.āā
JuliaĀ
Julia was charged for her third pregnancy and then billed for the earlier ones as well. When asked about how charging affected her, she said:Ā
āWhen they told me (about charging) I was so panicked. I was so afraid they were going to stop attending to my children, especially P (with asthma) because she needs the help. And G. (the last child with kidney disease). I was so afraid because I didnāt know anything about itā¦.If I canāt afford the money and they wonāt attend to my children what was I going to do? I was afraid to lose my children.ā
Juliaās anxiety about her children also affected her own health, raising her blood pressure, until her solicitor assured her that her children would not be removed from her care, and she then calmed down. So far she has not been charged for her childrenās medical care.
IsabellaĀ
Isabella and her partner were able to pay their bill over the period of year but nevertheless she felt that the bills she received affected her whole family.Ā
āI donāt think my whole family needs to be treated like that. It is not just a bill to me, or not even the bill, the harassment I had to endure all those months because I couldnāt pay. So I was very stressed, and that affected the way I look after my children, it affected how confident I was to be able to have a different role in society, like work or study and other things, I basically stopped for a year or so, so I could pay this debt. I felt like I was in debt with the whole country! Maybe it was a big deal for me, and it wonāt be for other people but I was there, pretty much 10 hours a day with two small children while my husband was working extra hours a day to be able to pay this bill. Because we didnāt prepare for that.ā
āI donāt go to the GP at all, I never go to the GP. And at the moment I have been diagnosed with a degenerative illness and I struggle to make my appointments. It really left me completely, not angry, but I canāt trust a place like that. Sometimes I think I prefer to be sick⦠I donāt want to go there. My husband thinks I am crazy, but you never know. Maybe in two monthsā time they are going to send me another bill for something that I didnāt even have any idea about.ā
MeiĀ
Mei was a refused asylum seeker who moved to Home Office accommodation on section 4 support during her first pregnancy. A year after she gave birth she received bills for her maternity care. She went to the Red Cross for help and they asked the hospital to waive the charge and referred her to a debt advice service. The hospital agreed a small reduction in the bill from the date that the application for section 4 support was submitted. It also offered a six month suspension of ārecovery actionā for payment. When we interviewed her Mei was still in section 4 accommodation and had had another child and had not been charged for maternity care for the maternity care for her second child. The debt recovery suspension for the first pregnancy was still operative at the time of the interview but the debt had not been cancelled.
MariamĀ
Mariam (see Chapter 2) applied for section 4 support to which she should have been entitled.Ā
An applicant for s4 support must show that they are destitute or are likely to become destitute within 14 days. A person is ādestituteā if they do not have adequate accommodation or do not have enough money to meet essential living expenses for themselves and any dependants.(2) Section 4 recipients receive accommodation and a prepayment card useable in certain shops.Ā
However, due to an error by the adviser making the application, it was submitted as a section 95 4Ā application for which Mariam was not eligible.Ā
Only people still awaiting the outcome of an asylum claim or appeal are eligible for Section 95 support.
So her application was refused, with the result that she was denied accommodation and financial support from the Home Office in the last weeks of her pregnancy. But, without being a recipient of section 4 support, Mariam was also not exempt from charges for that part of her maternity care that it could have covered. After she gave birth, she received further advice from a migrant support charity and was granted the section 4 support to which she should have been entitled earlier. At the time of her interview her maternity care charges had not been cancelled.
Advice case A - The role of advocacy in clarifying patientsā immigration statusĀ
A, a non-EEA national who had overstayed her visa, contacted the Maternity Action advice service when she was 37 weeks pregnant. She was at risk of violence from her husband and his family if she returned to her home country and had not sought maternity care as she was afraid she would be deported. Following intervention from Maternity Actionās solicitor she was accepted by a GP and a hospital. She was also referred to an immigration adviser who helped her to claim asylum and she was granted refugee status a year later.Ā
JuliaĀ
Julia has had three children in the UK since 2008 and was never billed. After her last child was born in 2017 she separated from the childrenās father and became homeless. She sought accommodation and financial support (section 17 support) from her local social services when her baby was about five months old. An official from the Home Office was present at her social services assessment. She was contacted the following day by the hospital where she had given birth and told that the Home Office had contacted them and told them that she owed money for her maternity care, and soon after she received a bill for about Ā£6000. The following week she received a bill for about Ā£13000 that included her two previous births. Julia had not been billed for any of her three periods of maternity care.Ā
MaryĀ
Mary was homeless and sleeping in a church for a year before she and her son, then aged 5, obtained accommodation from social services. She received a standing order mandate from a debt agency to make repayments for her maternity care bill of nearly Ā£6000. She also received a 14 page form to set up a personal budget plan to repay her debt.Ā
BeatriceĀ
Beatrice found herself pregnant and giving birth with no immigration status, and no family member or close friend to support her.Ā
āItās just me alone with my child. And theyāre telling me you have to pay, when my child was four months. I almost went mad. I almost went crazy. Itās my first child. Iāve got no experience. And so the guyās calling me, you have to pay, you have to do this, when you start working, they take Ā£100 every month. ⦠And Iām like, so you donāt know what Iām going through! ⦠And I told him, stop calling me! Thereās no way Iām going to get the money. Itās not just that Iām alone with a child. The Home office is on my back [Crying] I canāt deal with it. Itās just crazy actually. Itās just really crazyā¦.because Iām still trying to get over the nightmare that this is happening and I have to deal with it all aloneā¦Ā
...When they were calling me and saying I have to pay, I have to do this, there was a point I felt like just dying. And my son was crying, Iām like, shut up! You know what I mean? I just screamed at him like, shut up! Itās just⦠It does have an impact (on the child) because I shouted at him when I wasnāt meant to. Because he was just a baby then, he was a crying baby. So the whole thing was just too much for me.ā
LeahĀ
Leah had previously heard about charging but she had no idea how much it would cost. It was not her most immediate problem as her circumstances were desperate. She was abandoned by her partner when she became pregnant and had nowhere to live and no money, so that a vague notion of having to pay for her care loomed less large than the immediate reality of destitution. The actual implications of charging seemed only to have hit her when the midwife told her to bring over Ā£2000 to her next appointment when she was 32 weeks pregnant, at which point she said she just cried.Ā
The midwife told her to contact social services but they said they couldnāt help her.
As a healthy pregnant woman without another child and no current immigration application, social services had no obligation to support Leah.
Ā Leah had no idea what to do next as she would not be able to stay in the shelter after the baby was born. Leah was interviewed when she was about 34 weeks pregnant. She said:Ā
āI feel lost right now. Right now Iām still confused I donāt have any documents. Then, with the charging (I feel) bad⦠If I hadnāt been 33 weeks (pregnant) I could have aborted it.ā
AnnaĀ
Annaās fears almost drove her to avoid her antenatal care altogether. She was charged in midpregnancy, and was very worried about where she would find nearly Ā£7000. She became very afraid to see the midwife at the hospital, despite suffering from constant headaches and other symptoms. She was even afraid to collect her maternity exemption certificate.Ā
āI just filled in the form but Iām scared to collect it I just filled it out and Iāve got it at home.ā She only went to her further antenatal appointments after being persuaded by a friend that she should go for the sake of the baby.Ā
āWhenever Iām going to the midwife Iām really scared to go. Iām not happy about going there now. Iām always scared. I donāt know whatās going to happen whenever I have an appointment with the midwife. I donāt know what Iām going to hear from them. Maybe they will stop me from getting care. In the hospital I was so scared.āĀ
Eventually the hospital did persuade her to come and have a scan but she was never again comfortable at the hospital. She eventually had her baby by C-section.
NatashaĀ
Natasha felt that the overseas charging office was sympathetic to her situation, but even so, as a result of the bills she faced, she did not return for follow up care. She was afraid to go back for a check-up or to find out what had caused this miscarriage and possibly a previous one.Ā
āMy baby was buried and I couldnāt even go. I was just so scared that I was going to go and they were going to come and detain me.Ā
I went to see my GP, I was still bleeding then. And then there was something still remaining so they had to take me to the theatre to do a D&C. And from then I havenāt had any examination to see anything, to see if it is all OK. At times my period is so painful, I feel cramps when I sit down, when I get up I can hardly walk sometimes. But the clots, a lot of clotsā¦. I am scared to go to the hospital because I donāt know how I will be able to pay on top of this bill. So I havenāt had any exams just to see if it is OK.Ā
Even to just to hear what caused the death of my baby, that is what I would really like to know. Just tell me what happened, so I know what caused the death, instead I am just thinking āāwas I stressed?āā, āāwas I not eating well?āā was it a time, that I was going on the stairs and I slipped? I donāt know what caused it. Or was it a medical problem? I donāt know.ā
OliviaĀ
Olivia refused to attend further antenatal appointments after she received her first bill. But her blood pressure increased and she couldnāt eat or sleep, and became very depressed an upset. Eventually she was admitted to hospital a day before her due date with very high blood pressure.Ā
At the time of the interview she said she was suffering a lot of pain all over her body and was unable to sleep, but āI canāt go to the hospital to get it checked because I am scared of getting more bills. I donāt have the money. My life is at risk at the moment but I just have to keep praying to God to help me.ā
Many of the individuals affected by charging are in the process of applying for leave to remain in the UK, but are subsequently left saddled with burdensome debts. The complexity of the rules about entitlement also mean that many people, particularly those from minority ethnic backgrounds, are caught up in the effects of charging even when they are fully entitled to free NHS services.Ā
It is clear that most of the women interviewed in this study will never be able to pay the sums demanded, and it is likely that the costs incurred in attempting recovery, will outweigh the actual costs incurred. But the price of charging vulnerable migrant women for maternity care is much higher, undermining the ethos and principles of a national health service created to meet clinical need regardless of an individualās ability to pay and inherently discriminating against women. Above all it has an immediate and long-term negative impact on the health of the women and families and is a significant further barrier to migrant womenās access to health services.
This video made by Maternity Action is based on the experiences of 3 women who were charged thousands of pounds by the NHS after having their babies.
NHS charging is a further barrier to the lives of people with NRPF. Not only does it put people - many of whom do not have the right to work - in enormous amounts of debt, it also makes people afraid of accessing essential healthcare.
Beatrice
āBeatrice came to the UK from West Africa to study in 2012. Her family and boyfriend disowned her when she fell pregnant. Then along with a difficult pregnancy, she suffered a series of setbacks. She thought that as she had a maternity card, maternity care would be free, but on the day her baby was born, she was sent a bill for thousands of pounds (Ā£6000), a bill she had no way of paying.ā
āIt was just me alone with my child and theyāre telling me I have to pay... I almost went crazyā.
Helena
āHelena came to the UK with a family sheād been a live-in nanny for in the Middle East. They mistreated her badly, withholding her passport, so she fled. She got another job and became pregnant, but was left by the father. Her landlord then threw her out when he knew she was having a baby.Ā
All these worries came on top of a very bad pregnancy. And despite having made a claim for asylum, on the grounds of modern slavery, she was billed for antenatal care, and told of more charges to come. So, at 34 weeks, she stopped going to her maternity care appointments.ā
āI was afraid that if I went to the hospital theyād charge me... I didnāt have any money to payā
āAnte-natal: Ā£1528
Delivery: £2935
Post-natal: Ā£372ā²
Josephine
Josephine a Spanish national, was working as a cleaner when she become pregnant. Despite having all the right papers, she was sent a bill for thousands of pounds after the birth. She was hounded for payment until an advisor write a letter on her behalf, saying that as an EU citizen, she didn't have to pay. Sheās heard nothing more, but she doesnāt know where she stands.
Josephine has ongoing health problems, but wonāt look for care as she no longer trusts the NHS. She feels isolated and alone with her bad health.ā
āThey told me I had a big debt from them... They said I had to pay Ā£4000ā².
This article published by Coram Childrenās Legal Centre explains how families with NRPF are denied the free school meals provision regardless of their financial situation. This also means that families with NRPF cannot get financial support for uniforms and help with transport costs.
The article also explains how this policy negatively affects schools: āA childās formal receipt of free school meals is what dictates whether or not a school receives the āPupil Premiumā for that child. The pupil premium is additional funding for publicly funded English schools, and is designed to help disadvantaged pupils of all abilities perform better, and to close the gap between them and their peers.ā
āA mother and two young kids have been refused support & left street homeless by @lb_southwark's NRPF team tonight. The family & one of our volunteers spent the whole day trying to get support only to be told 10 mins before the office closed that none would be provided.ā
Twitter thread posted by NELMA (North East London Migrant Action) on 17/09/18:
A mother and two young kids have been refused support & left street homeless by @lb_southwark's NRPF team tonight. The family & one of our volunteers spent the whole day trying to get support only to be told 10 mins before the office closed that none would be provided.
Decision made by @alexirvine77. We've seen Southwark's gatekeeping of s17 support from families with NRPF get worse and more hostile. These decisions to leave children street homeless are shameful. @peterjohn6 @helenhayes_
@lb_southwark has made it very clear that children living in families with no recourse to public funds do not matter to them. Rather than upholding their statutory duty to safeguard children in their area, they are failing some of the most vulnerable children in Southwark.
In the past we've seen @lb_southwark refuse support & wear a mother down so much so that she felt forced to enter into sex work.
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 Officeās refusal letter is also shared here.
The refusal was overturned when a solicitor challenged the Home Officeās decision with a PAP (Pre-Action Protocol) letter.
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Olivia Ndoti from the Women's Asylum Support Housing (WASH) project, came to Glasgow Caledonian University to talk to social work students about having No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF).
Olivia shares her first-hand experiences of being in the immigration system and its intersection with 'NRPF' and social work, as she struggled to receive the support that she and her child were entitled to.Ā
Oliviaās story is shared here:Ā https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/case-studies/no-recourse-public-funds-olivias-story
On 20 November 2017, social work students at Glasgow Caledonian University took part in a session that formed part of their Working with Law and Ethics module. It was entitled, No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF): Supporting Individuals and Understanding their Rights. Its primary focus was on children and families.
The morning provided input from a human rights lawyer, Jen Ang from JustRight Scotland, and Natalia Farmer, a PhD student completing ethnographic research on this topic. Both brought case study material into the session. Critically, however, the session also contained Olivia's story.
Information about why the course is making space for lived experience in their modules is shared hereĀ https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/case-studies/bringing-law-life-lived-experience
Having NRPF can lead vulnerable people to sex work
Case study from āMaking Change Happen: The impact of national policies on our clientsā lives⦠A report by Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network (LRMN)ā, published March 2018
'Kaleisha* is a 25 year old woman from Barbados*. Kaleisha came to LRMN in 2016 asking for advice as she has NRPF and four children she struggles to support. When she came to us, Kaleisha had stopped working as her accommodation was one hour and a half from her work, and childcare expenses became unaffordable. As a result she accrued debts of thousands of pounds. She received no support from friends, and on a rare occasions borrowed money from her family. She also heavily relies on foodbanks such as LRMN to feed herself and her children. Kaleisha previously had access to Public Funds, but recently the Home Office decided to revoke that access in her most recent grant of leave and she must now quickly find a way to provide for her family. Kaleisha spoke to her adviser about having to resort to sex work in order to repay loans from her family, which added to her anxiety and mental health deterioration. Her dyslexia also means that she struggles to keep track of her finances and struggles to read documents provided by support agencies and GPs. Cases like Kaleishaās highlight the need for more support for people with NRPF in reaching independence and meet their basic needs. Lack of a strong support network can lead vulnerable women to look elsewhere for money, and this can sometimes mean turning to prostitution.
*Client's name and nationality have been changed to protect their identity'