Eight-year-old boy left street homeless with his mother because Home Office unlawfully refused them benefits

Judgment expected to provide lifeline to people unable to work during coronavirus pandemic who are currently blocked from accessing state support due to policy denying migrants access to public funds

The court heard that the British child, known in court as W, has lived his entire life in extreme poverty (Rex)

An eight-year-old British boy was left street homeless with his migrant mother because the Home Office unlawfully refused them benefits, the High Court has ruled.

The judgment is expected to provide a lifeline to people unable to work during the coronavirus pandemic who are currently blocked from accessing state support.

The court heard that the child, known in court as W, has lived his entire life in extreme poverty because his mother’s wages as a carer are not enough for her to keep him properly housed and fed.

Under the “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF) policy, introduced in 2012 by then-home secretary Theresa May, W’s mother is blocked from receiving the same state support that helps other low-earning parents to survive, including child and housing benefits, or tax credits.

The condition is imposed on migrants granted the legal right to live and work in the UK on the basis of strong family ties to this country, and subsequently denies thousands of families access to the welfare safety net.

Senior judges ruled that aspects of the NRPF policy were unlawful and must be amended to make clear to case workers the circumstances in which they are obliged not to impose the condition or to lift it.

The court heard that the eight-year-old had moved school five times and been street homeless with his mother due to the Home Office’s refusal to allow them access to the social security safety net. The judges were also told that J, as his mother was known in court, had been driven into debt and suffered from serious anxiety.

The judges ruled that the level of poverty and degradation the boy faced as a result of the NRPF policy was so severe that it breached Article 3 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.

A detailed order is expected to follow, which will set out the steps the Home Office needs to take to comply with the judges’ ruling.

Caz Hattam, project coordinator of The Unity Project, a charity set up three years ago to support families facing destitution as a result of NRPF, which supported the challenge, welcomed the judges’ decision.

“Even before the pandemic, this policy was trapping working families in the most abject poverty, forcing them into debt, and unsafe, insecure housing. Since the Covid-19 outbreak, their situations have become even more dire and urgent,” she said.

“We provided extensive evidence of how children’s lives are being blighted by this policy, and we welcome the judges’ recognition that their families must be given access to the welfare safety net to prevent them from falling into destitution.”

Adam Hundt, partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, the law firm bringing the case, said: “We and many others have been telling the Home Office for years that this policy is causing immeasurable, irreversible damage to so many people, but particularly children like our client.

“The Home Office refused to listen and ignored all the evidence [it was] shown, so it has now been left to the courts to confront the truth, which is that the policy leads to inhuman and degrading treatment.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The court’s ruling today was not on the principle of the no recourse to public funds policy, it was on the clarity in the policy for applicants who are seeking to have the no recourse to public funds policy lifted.

“The Home Office notes the courts judgment and that its full reasons will follow. We will provide submissions in response.”