CHAPTER 21
Asylum-seekers and other overseas nationals
21.3Limitations on local authority powers under the Care Act 2014 Cases
21.15R v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC ex p M, P, A and X (1997–8) 1 CCLR 85, CA A destitute person might require ‘care and attention’
21.16R (Ali) v Birmingham CC [2002] EWHC 1511 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 355 It could be lawful to use section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to offer assistance enabling a destitute family to leave the UK, rather than to remain here
21.17R (Mani and others) v Lambeth LBC and another [2002] EWHC 735 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 486 A need for help with domestic chores amounted to a need for ‘care and attention’
21.18R (M) v Islington LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 235, (2004) 7 CCLR 230 It can be incompatible with Article 8 ECHR to use section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to offer travel assistance, rather than assistance to remain in the UK
21.19R (PB) v Haringey LBC [2006] EWHC 2255 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 99 It could be incompatible with Article 8 ECHR to refuse to provide support to a woman engaged in care proceedings involving her children
21.20R (Mwanza) v Greenwich LBC [2010] EWHC 1462 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCLR 454 Ordinary accommodation could only be provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 when it answered a need arising out of mental disorder
21.21R (Clue) v Birmingham CC [2010] EWCA Civ 460, (2010) 13 CCLR 276 It was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR not to offer accommodation and support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to a mother and her children who had made an outstanding application for LTR under Article 8 ECHR, which was not manifestly abusive or hopeless
21.22R (SL) v Westminster CC [2013] UKSC 27, (2013) 16 CCLR 161 A need for ‘care and attention’ had to be accommodation-related
21.23R (SG) v Haringey LBC [2015] EWHC 2579 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 444 A need that qualified for accommodation under the Care Act 2014 had to be accommodation-related
21.24R (GS) v Camden LBC [2016] EWHC 1762 (Admin), (2016) 19 CCLR 398 Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 could be used to provide accommodation to a person not entitled to accommodation under the Care Act 2014 and had to be so used insofar as necessary to avoid the breach of a person’s ECHR rights
21.25The statutory bar and local authority provision Cases
21.29R (K) v Lambeth LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1150, (2003) 6 CCLR 484 It was not a breach of Article 8 ECHR to offer only travel assistance to leave the UK to a family who could reasonably be expected to leave the UK
21.30R (M) v Islington LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 235, (2004) 7 CCLR 230 It was a breach of Article 8 ECHR to refuse to support this family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989
21.31R (Conde) v Lambeth LBC [2005] EWHC 62 (Admin), (2005) 8 CCLR 486 It was not incompatible with EU law to refuse to accommodate a work-seeking family
21.32R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66, (2006) 9 CCLR 30 It was incompatible with Article 3 ECHR to refuse to accommodate and support destitute asylum-seekers
21.33R (AW) v Croydon LBC [2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin), (2006) 9 CCLR 252 It would be incompatible with the ECHR not to accommodate failed asylum-seekers with fresh claims that were not manifestly hopeless or abusive
21.34Blackburn-Smith v Lambeth LBC [2007] EWHC 767 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 352 On the facts, it had been lawful to offer travel assistance rather than accommodation
21.35R (Mwanza) v Greenwich LBC [2010] EWHC 1462 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCLR 454 Accommodation could be provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 only in order to address a need arising out of mental disorder
21.36R (Clue) v Birmingham CC [2010] EWCA Civ 460, (2010) 13 CCLR 276 It was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR not to offer accommodation and support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to a mother and her children who had made an outstanding application for LTR under Article 8 ECHR, which was not manifestly abusive or hopeless
21.37R (Birara) v Hounslow LBC [2010] EWHC 2113 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCLR 685 A failed asylum-seeker who had applied at port was lawfully present in the UK
21.38R (de Almeida) v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin), (2012) 15 CCLR 318 A person who reasonably required assistance with domestic chores required ‘care and attention’
21.39Pryce v Southwark LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 1572, (2012) 15 CCLR 731 The sole carer of British children had a right of residence in the UK that qualified her for homelessness assistance
21.40R (KA) v Essex CC [2013] EWHC 43 (Admin), (2013) 16 CCLR 63 It was incompatible with the ECHR to refuse accommodation to a destitute family whose claim for LTR under Article 8 ECHR had been refused, who were awaiting an appealable immigration decision and whose appeal would not be manifestly hopeless or abusive
21.41R (MK) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2013] EWHC 3486 (Admin) Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 could not be used to provide accommodation and support to a destitute individual, without children or care needs
21.42Sanneh and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others [2015] EWCA Civ 49, (2015) 18 CCLR 5 Sole carers of British children had a right of residence under EU law and, also, a right to work and to a reasonable basic minimum for subsistence; but not to social security benefits
21.43R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820 It was incompatible with Article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR and Article 14 ECHR to exclude from student loans prospective students who had not clocked up three years of lawful, ordinary residence but who had lived in the UK for most of their lives, had been educated here, could not be removed save for grave misconduct and were treated throughout as members of UK society
21.44R (F) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2015] EWHC 2838 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 754 It was desirable for the court to case manage jointly family law and support proceedings
21.45R (Kosi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (unreported) Interim relief was granted, restraining the removal of a parent involved in contact proceedings
21.46Mirga v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Samin v Westminster City Council [2016] UKSC 1 EU nationals who were not exercising rights of residence in the UK under EU law were not entitled to social assistance except perhaps in extreme circumstances and it was unnecessary for the authorities to undertake a ‘proportionality exercise’ in every case
21.47United Kingdom Visas and Immigration support and local authority support 21.47Machinery and introduction Cases
21.59R (Mani and others) v Lambeth LBC and another [2002] EWHC 735 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 486 Adults who needed help with household chores needed ‘care and attention’
21.60R (Westminster CC) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38, (2002) 5 CCLR 511 Asylum support was residual and could not be provided for persons entitled to residential accommodation
21.61R (Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1839 (Admin) The local authority, not NASS, was responsible for the special needs of disabled children whose family was in receipt of asylum support
21.62R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 364, (2003) 6 CCLR 136 It was incompatible with Article 3 ECHR to refuse support to destitute asylum-seekers
21.63R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 836, (2003) 6 CCLR 376 A person who needed help with domestic chores needed ‘care and attention’
21.64R (A) v NASS and Waltham Forest LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1473, (2003) 6 CCLR 538 NASS was under a duty to accommodate a family with disabled children, not the local authority: but the accommodation had to be suitable for those children
21.65R (O) v Haringey LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 535, (2004) 7 CCLR 310 The local authority was responsible for providing residential accommodation to a mother but the Secretary of State for the Home Department was responsible for funding the children’s accommodation and support costs
21.66R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66, (2006) 9 CCLR 30 It was incompatible with Article 3 ECHR to refuse support to destitute asylum-seekers
21.67R (AW) v Croydon LBC [2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin), (2006) 9 CCLR 252 It was incompatible with the ECHR to refuse support to failed asylum-seekers who had outstanding further representations that were not manifestly hopeless or abusive
21.68R (AW) v Croydon LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 266, (2007) 10 CCLR 225 Local authorities, not the Secretary of State for the Home Department, were responsible for accommodating failed asylum-seekers with a need for ‘care and attention’
21.69R (M) v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52, (2008) 11 CCLR 733 A need for storage of medicine and a need for accommodation and basic living needs did not amount of a need for ‘care and attention’
21.70R (YA) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWCA Civ 225, (2009) 12 CCLR 213 A failed asylum-seeker who could not return to his country of origin was entitled to NHS care that was either immediately necessary or could not wait for his return to his country of origin
21.71R (Zarzour) v Hillingdon LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1529, (2010) 13 CCLR 157 A blind man who needed help when in new accommodation needed ‘care and attention’
21.72R (VC) v Newcastle CC [2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin), (2012) 15 CCLR 194 It had not lawful to decline to provide support to a destitute child, and the child’s family, under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, on the basis that support might be available under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
21.73R (SL) v Westminster CC [2013] UKSC 27, (2013) 16 CCLR 161 A need for ‘care and attention’ had to be accommodation-related
21.74R (EAT) v Newham LBC [2013] EWHC 344 (Admin), (2013) 16 CCLR 259 When in substance a person had applied for LTR under Article 8 ECHR, not Article 3 ECHR, only the local authority could provide support – the asylum support regime was inapplicable
21.75R (Refugee Action) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1033 (Admin), [2014] PTSR D18 The level of asylum support was in breach of the Reception Conditions Directive
21.76TLT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB) Damages were awarded for the publication on the internet of the names and approximate geographical location of applicants for asylum or leave to remain