Here we take a look at some highlights from the year that was. Here is a round-up of some of the successful cases handled by the Kent Law Clinic in 2024.
Immigration Law: Refugee Family Reunion Successes
We had several successful outcomes for refugees seeking family reunion.
The year started with us finally being able to reunite an Eritrean refugee in the UK with his younger brother who had been stranded in a refugee camp in Sudan. He had fled, as had his older brother, from Eritrean regime of enforced and indefinite national service. His father had been detained by the regime and his mother was missing. At the time of the initial application (July 2022) he was 16 years old and had some support from the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) in the camp. However, in 2023 civil war broke out in Sudan, resulting in further displacement and aid workers leaving the area. He eventually had to flee Sudan as well for Ethiopia. The Home Office initially refused the decision, disputing the claimed relationship and denying that there were compelling reasons for why he should be allowed to join his brother. The tribunal allowed the appeal on human rights grounds, effectively requiring that a visa be granted. However, many months then followed before the visa was finally granted with him finally arriving in late 2023.
Another case that required significant work throughout the last academic year, concerned two Afghan brothers who had been separated for many years from their older brother, a refugee in the UK. After surviving as orphans in Afghanistan throughout their childhood, they finally made it to Iran where they were able to apply at the embassy to join their brother, but they were then at risk of being deported back to Afghanistan.
Both cases were dealt with separately by the Home Office and were initially refused. The first case was allowed on appeal, with the judge recommending that the second case also be granted. However, the Home Office then refused that application, resulting in a further appeal. There was also significant delay in the UK government issuing the visas even after the court had allowed the appeal. However, nearly two years after they first submitted their application, they were finally reunited in the UK.
A further family reunion case involving the child brother of an Eritrean refugee who was living alone in Uganda was also allowed following an appeal. The Home Office had refused to accept that the applicant was a child or that there were compelling reasons that should warrant him joining his brother in the UK. The judges found in our favour on all issues, and the brothers have now been successfully reunited in the UK.
Finally, the clinic has been assisting a young Eritrean man who arrived aged 14 to be joined in the UK by his family. First the Clinic helped with his mother’s application to join him, and then his 3 younger siblings, who had all escaped from Eritrea’s forced military service. Then finally this year his father was able to escape, and the Clinic assisted with his refugee family reunion application. Now all the family are together and safe in the UK.
Immigration – Regularising Status
The clinic has assisted a number of clients to obtain indefinite leave to remain or British citizenship. We have also successfully applied for leave to remain on human rights grounds this year for a number of clients who had been resident in the UK for many years, but without a legal status. Including:
- Mr B – A young man who had been in the UK since the age of 14 but was now, at the age of 19, facing removal to Sierra Leone. He had not been back to his country since he was 11 and had no family to return to. The tribunal allowed his appeal against refusal of further leave accepting that he would face very significant obstacles to integration if forced back to his country of origin.
- Miss L – a young woman with a British grandmother, brought to the UK as a small child – and no one in the family realised for many years that she had no right to remain in the UK. An application was submitted based on her Article 8 ECHR ‘right to private life’, showing that she could not possibly return to her birth country and live a normal life there after having left as a small child. She has now been granted leave to remain in the UK.
- Mr D was declared unlawfully present in 2017 along with thousands of others who faced the Home Office mistakes and incompetence known as the ‘Windrush’ scandal. SD lost his job and his home and feared deportation back to a place he had left when he was 18 months old. Several Clinic students assisted over the years, first getting the Home Office to accept that he had the right to live in the UK, then applying for British citizenship through the Windrush scheme, and then applying for financial compensation for the losses he suffered. Finally, this summer, his compensation award was finally determined and paid.
- Ms R was invited to travel to the UK to join a man whom she had met online, and who said he wanted to marry her. He told her {wrongly} that it would be better for her to travel here as a visitor and then they would get married here. However, once she arrived, he very soon began to be rude, insulting and exploitative. She became pregnant. He threatened her and said she could not leave, because she had no rights in the UK. Finally, she did leave, with the help of church friends, and the Clinic applied for leave to remain for her, as the parent of a British child. That was granted last week, and she is now ‘safe and legal’ somewhere in the UK distant and carefully hidden from the abusive partner.
- Ms A came to the UK 3 years ago as a student – financially supported by her mother, and full of hope for the future. However, her mother died only 2 weeks after she arrived, leaving her with no money to support herself or pay her fees. She then began to suffer seriously from her sickle cell condition, and her health deteriorated rapidly. She asked the Clinic to help her find a way of staying in the UK, since with her mother having passed away she had no one in her home country to support her – for her to return would be a death sentence. We applied for to stay, arguing that her health was so poor, and medical provision back home was so expensive and inadequate, that returning her would be a breach of her Article 3 ECHR right not to face ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’. These types of cases are extremely difficult to win, and unsurprisingly the Home Office refused the application. By the time her case came to the Tribunal, she was so ill that she could not attend the court and found it very difficult to give her evidence. But the Judge accepted her case, and Miss A now has leave to remain. Her doctors said that with the end of the stress and fear about her immigration situation, she has a good chance of her condition stabilising, and even being able to achieve some quality of life.
Welfare Benefits: Personal Independence Payment Appeals
PIP appeal for K, a client living with disabilities
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a state benefit that helps people financially with some of the extra costs they face as a result of living with long-term disability or ill-health.
About half of the claims made for PIP are initially refused by the relevant government department, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Many applicants give up at that point. For those who appeal and their cases proceed to a hearing before a Tribunal, there is a high success rate overall (70% according to statistics for 2018 to 2023). However, even where appeals are ultimately successful, the applicant is left without the financial help that they need during the long appeal process.
In July we successfully represented a client K in their PIP appeal hearing at a tribunal in Ashford. K has a number of physical and mental health conditions that impact on their daily life. They suffer from extreme fatigue, forgetfulness, anxiety, difficulty in concentration and propensity to faint or fall asleep unexpectedly. K needs to be reminded to take medication, to attend appointments, to wash, and needs encouragement to socialize. It can be dangerous for K to cook or travel on their own. One example was when K’s partner came home to find that K had fallen asleep while cooking and a pan of pasta was burning on the hob.
We prepared a detailed written submission and a statement from K’s partner. This, together with K’s oral evidence, all helped to win the appeal. The Tribunal awarded PIP for K to reflect their difficulties with daily living activities and for moving around (travelling).
Sophie Hall, now a third year law student, attended the tribunal hearing with Vivien, Clinic solicitor. Students Kary Wong and Tasnuva Karim (who graduated in July 2024), worked on the case in the earlier stages.
Severely disabled Canterbury man triumphs over DWP for the final time!
Following multiple previous appeals, the Tribunal has once again confirmed Mr E is entitled to Personal Independence Payment. This time, they recognised his health conditions have deteriorated to the point that he now qualifies for the enhanced rate of both components. Mr E’s matter is one of the rare cases in which the Tribunal have also found that his award should be paid indefinitely, in recognition of the fact that his conditions are not expected to improve.
Mr E has received disability benefits for over 20 years and over the last few years has become effectively housebound by his health conditions. Unable to walk without pain and discomfort, Mr E has been forced to struggle with his electric bike to the shop and rely on microwave meals. Without this financial support he has been unable to afford basics, such as heating. The DWP’s review and health assessment process failed him once again when they decided in April 2023 that he was entitled to 0 points for every activity.
A team of students from the Kent Law Clinic reviewed the 327 page bundle and 25 pieces of further evidence submitted to the Tribunal. We also interviewed Mr E several times and prepared a set of submissions. These documents were so robust that the Tribunal indicated without the need to question Mr E, they had found in his favour at the outset of the telephone appeal hearing on 7 May 2024.
The outrageous but not uncommon amount of time it has taken for this case to reach its conclusion means that Mr E has missed out on payments totalling approximately £8500 over the last year. These will be paid to Mr E now, but the hardship he has suffered in not receiving the payments whilst entitled will go uncompensated unless the Law Clinic puts its mind to assisting Mr E with a complaint. And so… watch this space…
Impact of ADHD recognised in recent PIP award
The Clinic has assisted a client with a hearing impairment and ADHD to have the impact of their health conditions properly considered in their claim for Personal Independence Payment. The DWP found it easy to “award” points based on the client’s hearing loss but had failed to acknowledge the daily impact of their ADHD. Having come to us with a hearing already scheduled, the Clinic scrambled to get a supporting statement from the claimant’s partner and drafted detailed submissions for the Tribunal. We also found our way to the Tribunal venue hidden amongst a shopping centre in Ashford and represented the client before the Tribunal panel. Our client has now started to receive his PIP payments, which will relieve some of the financial impact of living with his health condition and disability.
And in other news…..
Inheritance Act claim for Mrs R
Mrs R, an elderly lady in her early 90’s, lived with her husband for over 30 years until his death in October last year. He owned the home they lived in. They had a happy marriage and a comfortable lifestyle. After his death, while grieving, Mrs R was shocked to receive a letter from solicitors stating that her husband’s Will gave Mrs R a modest amount of £10,000; most of his property was left to his two adult daughters. The letter required Mrs R to move out of the house as the house had to be sold. At that time Mrs R had nowhere else to go and was at risk of becoming homeless. There was no apparent reason for the terms of the Will to be so disadvantageous to Mrs R.
Mrs R’s daughter helped R to get legal advice from the Law Clinic.
Based on research (carried out by Clinic student Ghayab Khalil, assisting Vivien, Clinic Solicitor), we considered that Mrs R had a very strong claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. That Act enables the court to make an order in effect changing the terms of the deceased person’s Will. This is only where the Will has failed to make reasonable provision for specified people, which includes the deceased’s widow.
Mrs R had a strong claim to stay in the property for the rest of her life. However, the house was no longer suitable for her, as she had struggled with the stairs and she felt isolated there after losing her husband. We negotiated a good financial settlement; part of the settlement money will be used to assist R to move to more suitable accommodation and to pay for some furniture and improvements to her new accommodation. R will also receive some pension provision from her husband’s pensions.
Securing Ms B’s tenancy after relationship breakdown
Problems can arise when a relationship between joint tenants breaks down acrimoniously, even if one of two joint tenants walks out and ‘disappears’.
B and her partner were joint tenants of a property they rented from a housing association landlord. There were tensions in their relationship; B’s partner was very controlling. Things came to a head after the police came to their home looking to question B’s partner about an allegation of sexual assault (unrelated to B). B’s partner blamed her for not accepting completely that the allegation was false. He then left suddenly while B was out at work, after maliciously damaging some of B’s clothes. He telephoned B once to tell her that he had left the UK. Neither B nor their teenage son has heard from him since.
As a joint tenant B’s partner was still legally entitled to return. B was emotionally drained, anxious, and the fact that her ex-partner’s name was still on the tenancy and on all letters from her landlord was upsetting and a constant reminder of a very difficult period.
B had a strong claim for the joint tenancy to be transferred into her sole name.
In most civil and family cases, a legal claim must be served (sent to) the opponent. The courts are generally reluctant to dispense with this requirement.
We managed to find enquiry agents who do work in Belgium, where B’s partner was likely to be. We negotiated a modest fee for the agents to try to trace B’s ex-partner’s whereabouts. Perhaps not surprisingly, they were unable to locate him by carrying out usual searches. Equipped with their report, we applied for an order transferring the tenancy to B’s sole name and for an order that we should not be required to serve the application on B’s ex-partner. The application was successful. B is better able to move on with her life and to put the bad experiences behind her.