Home Affairs Committee
DASH was formed in Kirklees in November 2011 to deal with destitution amongst asylum seekers and new refugees. We offer a hosting scheme which provides accommodation, breakfast and evening meal, together with a bus pass to enable clients to access their accommodation. The majority of our clients are asylum seekers whose claims have not currently been successful and who are without recourse to public funds. A minority are new refugees who are in the limbo period between being evicted from their NASS accommodation and being able to access council housing in the Kirklees area. They are also without funds because they do not yet have access to Jobseekers’ Allowance and other benefits. A very small number are clients who have not yet claimed asylum and who are waiting to do so.
DASH also offers support to all asylum seekers, whether they have a decision or not, and new refugees through our drop-in centre, the TOMORROW Centre, which is at Huddersfield Samaritans. We assist clients with keeping on track with their cases, signposting, making phone calls, accompanying people to appointments and other kinds of advocacy, as well as offering emotional support and welcome. We feel these aspects of our work are vital to halting the deterioration in our clients’ physical and mental health, as they are under severe pressure, being often homeless and without funds.
In DASH’s first year of operation, we hosted 35 asylum seekers and new refugees for a total of 735 nights. In a town the size of Huddersfield this is totally unacceptable.
Of these, six people were new refugees who had been evicted from NASS property and were awaiting placement in the Refugee Move-On scheme. Four people stayed for one or two nights, after which they were with friends until their accommodation could be sorted out. The other two did not have friends they could stay with and were with DASH for 16 and 17 nights respectively, in the middle of winter.
There were two people who had not yet claimed asylum and they were asked to wait for several days before they could be given appointments to make their claims. The claims had to be made in Croydon, which meant DASH had to find the money to get them to Croydon. It would have been easier if they could have claimed in Leeds.
The remainder of the people—27 asylum seekers—were all destitute. Some only stayed for a few nights because they had friends who would help them out, but our longest staying clients were with us for 158, 140 and 115 nights respectively. The client who stayed 158 nights now has been awarded s. 4 support and is detailed below as Mr F in case study. The client who stayed 140 nights is detailed as Mr A
in case study 11; he is still being supported part of each week by DASH and to date has been with us 238 nights. The client who stayed 115 nights is Ms B, detailed in case study 12.
DASH has received approximately £6000 in grants and donations to date. The amount of activity we have undertaken for this small sum has been possible only with the generous support of volunteers.
We are very willing to submit oral evidence to the Select Committee, as are our clients detailed below, although due to lack of funds we would require expenses to do so.
Summary of evidence and recommendations
We believe that it is contrary to human rights to deny support, particularly to this group of people who are frequently suffering from trauma caused by their experiences in their own countries, or by their experiences at the hands of the UK system. Destitution for long periods of time, as illustrated in our case studies, takes a severe toll upon our clients’ health and wellbeing.
We recommend that, for asylum seekers who have fallen out of the system, they should be encouraged to report by being given , at the very least, transport costs so that they can do so. They should not be penalised for failing to sign because they did not have the requisite fare.
The delays in dealing with some cases are unconscionable and we believe that those who have been here for a sufficient length of time to qualify as legacy cases should be granted unconditional leave to stay, and that from this time there should be a mandatory limit to how long a person may remain in the country without being granted leave to stay.
We believe that the Home Office should not insist that clients present themselves personally at their offices in Liverpool, when they know that these clients are without funds and destitute, and that one of the reasons that they need to apply to the office in Liverpool is that this will assist them in applying for s. 4 support. DASH has seen the judgment in the case of Mr F where it is clear that there is no legislation ro support this policy, and we believe that this has been adjudged many times before but is simply being ignored by the Home Office.
We recommend that the Home Office should not be permitted to threaten clients with return on an ad hoc basis as this causes undue stress, particularly in cases where they know that return is not currently possible, for example, to Iran.
All the asylum seekers and refugees we have spoken to recommend that asylum seekers should be given the right to work, and that, if necessary, this could be limited to a certain number of hours per week, regulated by licence. This would allay the temptation to work illegally, and would significantly contribute to the wellbeing of asylum seekers, who see work as part of a normal life and something they are currently being denied.
We would like the card system of benefits to be abolished, as this is degrading. It is also nonsensical that asylum seekers who are granted section four support on medical grounds are unable to have access to cash to enable them to pay for public transport to attend medical appointments.
We recommend that the Home Office should incur penalties for not replying to correspondence within a specified time, and that these penalties should be monies which are made available for asylum seekers in addition to benefits which they receive.
DASH wishes to concentrate upon items 5 and 6 of the enquiry as these sections relate to the bulk of our experience.
5. Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
We believe that the support received by asylum seekers on s.95 and s.4 is placed at too low a level and recommend that this be increased to match the level of benefits which a British citizen can access. There have been significant increases in the cost of food over the past twelve months and £5 per person per day is no longer adequate to cover food, toiletries, transport, clothes and incidental expenses. The administration of
s. 4 support is in disarray and, particularly in cases where the client’s health is at risk, should be significantly improved and speeded up.
Case Study 1
Family X, comprising two adults and two children, were relocated to another part of Huddersfield following the awarding of the Compass contracts. The children were unable to access school places locally for several weeks and the family paid for the bus passes for one adult and the two children during this time so that the children could remain in school and retain a semblance of normality in their lives. After considerable delay G4S consented to pay for the busfares, although Family X could not claim for the money they had already spent as they had not kept the receipts, believing them to be of no use. A letter from the children’s schools indicating their full attendance during the relevant period was disregarded. When the children were allocated places in new schools, the parents were unable to afford the cost of uniforms and were given assistance from the schools. The older child was further stigmatized when the family were unable to afford to pay the bus fares for her to attend work experience, and they approached DASH who communicated with the school, and the school paid these fares. The parents have difficulty in communicating well in English and find it demeaning to have to attempt to negotiate these kinds of matters, particularly when there is no accepted way to find a solution.
At around the same time, Mr X, who has mental health issues and was under severe stress from the move and the difficulties with getting the children to school, lost the family’s support card. He had already been to DASH to say that he had forgotten to cash the family’s benefit for the week of 5 November and we were already helping him with this. DASH assisted him in getting this reinstated, but it took almost three weeks to do this. The matter was reported by fax to UKBA on 21 November and G4S were contacted on 23 November. G4S said they would attend to the matter on 25 November . Firstly, the UKBA sent communications to the wrong address, and it was only eight days after first reporting the loss that, on 29 November, the family were given an emergency cash payment of £45 and it was promised that the missing money would be delivered that day. On 3 December letters arrived acknowledging receipt of the fax and it was clear that those letters, dated 29 November, meant the fax had not been dealt with adequately on its receipt on 21 November. On 3 December Sodexho attempted to deliver the support money by courier but a mistake was made and the money did not arrive. At this point DASH made a cash loan to the family of £120. Through the intervention of Duncan Wells at G4S, a further token for £90 was issued on 4 December. The family support money finally arrived on 7 December.
The family decided that it would be better for Mrs X to be the main applicant for the purposes of ensuring the benefit was cashed, as Mr X was unwell and felt he could not be relied upon for this. On 17 December Mrs X went to cash the benefit but her card was declined. DASH phoned the UKBA and was told as the main applicant had been changed there would be a gap in the benefit. The man DASH spoke to pointed out that the family had received £757.20 on 7 December and that therefore they should not need further funds on an emergency basis. DASH pointed out that the family were entitled to this benefit, and that they had been borrowing money during the period where they had been without benefit, and that we knew this to be the case as we had lent them money ourselves, which had been repaid when the money arrived. Reluctantly the UKBA official agreed the family should have an emergency cash payment to last until the benefit could be claimed in the wife’s name.
On 28 December Mr X phoned DASH to say that he had received an eviction notice from Cascade Homes. DASH investigated this and the UKBA said that this was a mistake, made because the main applicant status was being transferred to Mrs X, and they had not taken account of this, and the fact that there are two children in the family so they cannot be evicted in this way.
Not unnaturally, the family have suffered significant stress because of these issues, and it has to be said that DASH has found it somewhat traumatic trying to assist them in untangling the various situations in which they have found themselves.
Case Study 2
Mr J, in his forties, was granted s. 4 support on health grounds. He was accommodated by DASH for five nights in September 2012. He frequently attends the GP, a long bus ride from his home, and various hospitals including one in Bradford. Without the assistance of DASH he would have to walk to these appointments as he has no access to cash for busfares. Mr J’s health is deteriorating and if he had access to better financial support he would be better able to manage his conditions. His mental health is also deteriorating as a result of the insecurity of his situation. In November 2012 he was threatened with detention and removal by the Home Office, despite the fact that he is building a fresh claim based on medical evidence of his experience of torture in his home country. This contributed to a decline in his mental health.
Case Study 3
Family Y, comprising a single mother and two children, a girl aged 16 and boy aged 8, have been on asylum support now for almost two years. They claimed asylum is August 2011. They rely on free clothing provided at the Women’s Centre and at the 611 Centre, two projects in Huddersfield which support asylum seekers. As the mother and daughter have very large feet they are frequently unable to access shoes in this way and the cost of new shoes is exorbitant on their budget. The expense of school uniform is also an issue.
They once received a food parcel from the Welcome Centre in Huddersfield to supplement their diet, although the Welcome Centre is itself under pressure at this time. The daughter is significantly overweight and has been recommended to follow a diet to help with this, but is unable to do so because the family funds do not allow it. Hair cuts are a problem, as are toiletries, bus fares and school trips.
Mrs Y applied to the Home Office on 15 November asking to see her file so that she can make a fresh claim, the letter being sent by recorded delivery and enclosing the requisite £10: this was funded by DASH as Mrs Y could not afford the cost. To date she has heard nothing.
Mrs Y has suffered from a series of relatively minor ailments which seem to be the result of the constant stress she is under, due to the insecurity of the family’s situation and their lack of funds.
Mrs Y’s eldest son, detailed below as Mr A, is not allowed to live with the rest of the family and DASH considers this to be contrary to human rights.
The family have actually been in the UK now for almost seven years. It is hoped that when the seven years expires they will be granted leave to stay, although Mrs Y is currently attempting to submit a fresh claim.
Case Study 4
Mr K, Iranian, in his thirties, was threatened with eviction in January 2013 following the rejection of two medical reports, one by his GP and one by a specialist. Mr K had suffered a stroke in 2012 and walked with two sticks. Two medical advisers at the UKBA who did not see Mr K refused to accept the reports and it was decided his support should be withdrawn. Mr K suffered severe stress as a result of this and on the morning of 18 March, the date of his proposed eviction, he was found unconscious in his flat. He spent two weeks in intensive care, suffered a brain haemorraghe and subsequently died on 1 April. It is not yet known whether he had a kidney infection, suffered a further stroke, took an overdose, or whether the cause was a combination of those difficulties. Undoubtedly the stress he was placed under has contributed to his death, as did the false Home Office assertion that he was going to be deported to Iran. At the moment it is not possible to deport people to Iran because the Iranian embassy is closed, and DASH believes it was nefarious of the UKBA to threaten Mr K with this and thus add to his stress levels.
6. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.
Unfortunately DASH has significant experience of this, as we were set up to provide accommodation and food for destitute asylum seekers. It is the case that people who have been refused have no recourse to public funds and are obliged to consider ways to put in a fresh claim in order to be eligible for some kind of support. DASH knows of people who have been without support for years at a time, relying on friends and on religious organisations for shelter and food. We believe that is a basic human right that people should be provided with support.
Case Study 5
Mr V, a Zimbabwean in his late twenties, was referred to DASH after he had presented himself at Kirklees Asylum Seekers Support, a Kirklees council agency, on 16 January 2012. His support had ceased in 2004 and he had been living with an aunt since that time, but was unable to continue this situation as the aunt wished to sell the house. He was completely destitute and was hosted by DASH from 16 January 2012 until 4 February 2012. He was granted s.4 support after making a fresh claim, and given leave to remain for three years on 1 April 2012.
Case Study 6
Mrs Q, a lady in her sixties from Somalia, arrived in August 2004. She has various serious health conditions including difficulty walking, and was without support at the beginning of September 2011. Mrs Q was hosted under a pilot scheme prior to the setting up of DASH for a total of six weeks until her s.4 support was put in place. In fact the s. 4 support had been in place for almost two weeks before she was housed, not in Huddersfield as had been requested, so that she could access her healthcare support easily, but in Halifax. She was housed in a property with steep stairs. It took another month before she was returned to Huddersfield and this time the property had steep steps leading up to it; she was also given an upstairs room as the accommodation provider said they were unable to find anything ground floor. She has since been transferred to a property where all the necessary facilities are on one level. Mrs Q’s two sons are also asylum seekers, in Sheffield and London respectively. DASH considers it would be humane for the family to be able to be accommodated together, and for Mrs Q to be given better support levels to enable her to access social networks as she is very lonely. Mrs Q also experiences difficulty with doing shopping and, because she cannot access large supermarkets easily from her accommodation, she is sometimes forced to hand over her card in return for less than its cash value to unscrupulous agents.
Case Study 7
Mr F, Liberian, in his forties, has been in the UK for almost nine years. After his initial claim failed, he was without support. It has not been possible to ascertain how he survived in the period before he was referred to DASH. Mr F was referred on 6 June 2012 and was signposted immediately to an organisation which helped him to re-start his case. DASH supplied him with the funds to attend reporting events in Leeds, which he otherwise could not have done. His file papers, in Liverpool, arrived in September, a wait of three months. His solicitor put forward fresh submissions and he applied for s. 4 in October. He was refused s.4 on the grounds that a)the submissions from the solicitor had not arrived (this was disproved by referring to the tracking facility on the recorded delivery service) and b) that he should have presented these submissions in person in Liverpool. The solicitor in the case did not respond to emails and telephone calls regarding the submissions, and so that Mr F would not be out of time to appeal this decision, DASH drove Mr F to Wakefield on the last day he was eligible to appeal so he could request the tracking documentation in person. Mr F remained with DASH hosts until 11 November, when he went to London for an appeal against this decision. He was granted interim support . A synagogue funded him to travel to Liverpool to lodge his further submissions. When his case was heard in the High Court, it was held in paragraph 19 that:
‘(i) The Judge appears to have treated as binding UKBA’s policy of requiring further submissions to be made in person in Liverpool. The policy does not , however, carry the force of primary or secondary legislation, nor does it constitute statutory guidance. It is a policy, and as such the Tribunal ought not to have treated it as, in effect, dispositive of the entire appeal. It was not enough to say, as the Judge appears to have said in terms, that the Claimant could and should just go to Liverpool, particularly in circumstances where it was accepted that the Claimant was destitute (see (iii) below).
(ii) The Tribunal erred by focusing its attention on the Claimant’s failure to attend the Unit in Liverpool rather than applying the statutory test that governed the determination of his appeal—namely reg. 3 of the 2005 Regulations.
(iii) Having accepted that the Claimant was destitute, the Tribunal failed to give any, or any adequate, consideration to the question of how his destitution affected his ability (or rather inability) to travel to Liverpool to make his further submissions in person.
(iv) If the Judge thought that the Claimant’s immigration solicitors were at fault for attempting to submit representations by post, it was unfair and irrational to in effect visit the consequences of this on the Claimant himself.
(v) Because of the errors identified above, the Tribunal failed properly to address the breach of the Claimant’s Convention rights occasioned by his destitution. The Claimant’s solicitors had submitted further submissions to UKBA raising issues under Article 8 of the ECHR, so it was no answer to say that the Claimant could cure a breach of his rights arising from his destitution by returning to Liberia. It followed that the Claimant’s street homelessness in this country would bring about a breach of his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR—see Limbuela v. SSHD (2006) AC 396—and thus bring him squarely within the scope of reg. 3(2)(e) of the 2005 Regulations.’
Mr F is now in receipt of s. 4 support pending a decision on his case. His immigration solicitors are proving unco-operative and do not respond to correspondence effectively, as has been DASH’s experience in his and in other cases.
Case Study 8
Ms R, a Gambian, in her thirties, was evicted and made destitute following an unsuccessful claim, on 27 February 2012. She was pregnant. She stayed with DASH hosts from 27 February until 23 March, but DASH was unable to accommodate her beyond that time because of her health needs, arising from her pregnancy. For several weeks, she stayed with various friends, often sleeping on the floor. She had no money for food and DASH provided occasional money and referred her to the Welcome Centre who provided her with three food parcels (their maximum allowance). Eventually she received National Assistance support and was housed in a bed and breakfast hotel. DASH believes she was awarded s.4 support later in her pregnancy, but has no proof of this. Approximately three weeks after the birth of her child on 6 September 2012 she received accommodation and support at basic levels. The health of Ms R and her child were in danger from the time she was evicted, although it was consistently held that she could not receive s.4 support until late pregnancy. The child was born one month prematurely and it could be held that this was as a result of the conditions endured by Ms R during her pregnancy.
Case Study 9
Mr W, a Palestinian national in his late forties, became known to DASH in November 2012. He had been in the UK without support since 2008. His file was applied for from Liverpool on 28 September 2012, to enable him to file a fresh claim, and it arrived at the end of March. To date he is still without support, although he was interviewed at the Home Office on 3 April and expects to receive support shortly.
Case Study 10
Mr C, a Kuwaiti Bedouin in his forties, was granted leave to stay in December 2011. He was evicted from his NASS accommodation on 17 January 2012 and accessed accommodation with DASH from that date until 8 February when he was allocated accommodation at the Refugee Move-On project run by Kirklees Council. During this time he was destitute and received no benefits.
Case Study 11
Mr A, Gambian in his early twenties, was refused leave to stay in February 2012 and came to DASH on 9 March 2012. Since that date he has been staying with the same hosts, and has been without support. He attempted to put in a fresh claim, but this was rejected before he could have the opportunity to apply for s. 4 support. Without DASH, Mr A would have been street homeless for over one year to date. He has family here (see Family Y in Case Study 3) but is not permitted to live with them. He is a father figure to the younger child, whose father died when he was a few months old. It is hoped that his family will receive leave to stay at the end of this year, under the seven years’ residence rule, and that then he will be allowed to remain himself, but this is by no means certain. In the meantime he tries to keep himself busy and fit.
Case Study 12
Ms B, a Bangladeshi national aged 30, was trafficked from Pakistan where she had been taken as a young child. Her parents died when she was small and she had been forced into begging and prostitution. When her claim failed she was taken in by a ‘boyfriend’ who subjected her to domestic violence and dumped her in Huddersfield in May 2012. After spending some nights in the bus station, she contacted the Womens Centre and DASH began to accommodate her on 21 May. She wanted to make a fresh claim but was told she would need fresh evidence and was unable to access this for herself because of her fragile mental health and lack of facility with the English language. On 14 September she moved into housing owned by the Abigail Trust in Bradford and remains there. She is currently still destitute but is being assisted by the Red Cross and Rape Crisis in Bradford to make a fresh claim on the basis of trafficking. Ms B’s mental health is very fragile and she frequently speaks of attempting suicide if she were to be deported.
Case Study 13
Mr C is from Pakistan and came to this country ten years ago, shortly after his wife and four (now adult) children. His is a legacy case and, like Mr V, he was required to present himself at Liverpool in person to further his claim. On this occasion DASH were able to provide transport. Mr C first came to the attention of DASH in May 2012 and stayed with DASH hosts for a few weeks. His support had ceased in 2007 and since that time he had been assisted by various friends and by mosques. His family are also asylum seekers and his children, now in their early to late twenties, have all spent a significant amount of their lives in this country. Mr C has a bullet wound to his head which he says was the result of intimidation in Pakistan.
Mr C, with the help of DASH and other agencies in Huddersfield, is attempting to pursue his case. He says he was a high ranking trade union official in Pakistan and that his life would be in significant danger if he were to return. He maintains that his eldest son was kidnapped in Pakistan and disappeared for four and a half years. Although Mr C searched for him, he was unable to find him, and left Pakistan to secure his own safety. When Mr C had news that his son had returned, he had to cope with the news that his son had to be placed in a mental institution as he was in extremely poor mental health due to his experiences, and he remains to this day in such a place. Mr C feels the loss of his son very keenly.
Over the past ten years Mr C’s health has deteriorated alarmingly, given that he is still in his mid-fifties. He urgently requires the services of an optician and dentist. He suffers from severe depression. His eldest daughter, now aged 29, had breast cancer and had to have a mastectomy which was followed by complications. Another daughter was absent from the family circle for four years, after which she returned with two sons of mixed race and a history of domestic violence.
On one occasion last year he was being interviewed by officials at the UKBA in Leeds and was subjected to threats and bullying. He was told that it could be arranged for him and his wife to return to Pakistan the following day, which was untrue. The pressure exerted by these officials resulted in him experiencing severe chest pains and having to be hospitalised for several days. He has since had heart problems, and is also having other health problems which require hospitalisation.
Mr C is being supported by members of his community, but there is a strong feeling against asylum seekers and he has been ostracised by many. The families supporting him do not wish it to be known that Mr C and his family are asylum seekers.
When he attempted to get a medical report from his GP, he was told he would have to pay £50 for it, and the GP, on learning he was an asylum seeker, treated Mr C with a lack of respect and courtesy. The report was paid for by DASH and comprised three lines. Mr C then changed his GP to the Whitehouse facility in Huddersfield, which is designated for asylum seekers, and found he was able to access much better treatment and a medical report which covered his health in greater detail and was a more accurate assessment of his current situation.
Mr C is very concerned that his daughters’ lives are ruined because it is unlikely they will be able to marry due to their age. He is also concerned about his younger son who is 21, although currently his solicitor is applying for him to be given asylum under the seven years’ residence rule.
DASH feels it is unconscionable that this family should have been allowed to remain in limbo and without support for such a lengthy period.
Destitute Asylum Seekers Huddersfield [DASH]
April 2013