LR (a child by mother and Litigation Friend LC), R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 restricts support to a family in an excluded immigration category to the extent necessary to avoid a breach of Convention rights. It does not restore unrestricted eligibility for all section 17 support. Authorities must nevertheless conduct a full section 17 needs assessment, have due regard to safeguarding and actively promoting children’s welfare, and retain flexibility to provide direct services or welfare support. Asylum Support rates may provide a subsistence baseline or cross-check, but they must not become a fixed ceiling or substitute for assessing the individual child’s welfare needs. A policy may lawfully use such a baseline if read with adequate flexibility. The assessment in this case unlawfully treated further support as impossible and focused too narrowly on safeguarding.

The claimant, a 15-year-old child, challenged Coventry City Council’s support for her family under its no-recourse-to-public-funds policy. The family were Nigerian nationals unlawfully overstaying in the United Kingdom while awaiting determination of an arguable human-rights application for leave to remain. The Council provided accommodation, travel assistance and financial support broadly equivalent to Asylum Support rates.

The claim challenged the interpretation of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the compatibility of current support with article 8 ECHR, the lawfulness of the Council’s policy, the assessment of the children’s needs and the refusal of additional support. The central issues were whether Schedule 3 imposed a level restriction on support, whether the policy unlawfully fettered the Council’s discretion, and whether the assessment had properly addressed welfare needs.

1. Ground 1A dismissed. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 restricts support to a family within Schedule 3 to the extent necessary to avoid a breach of Convention rights. The phrase “to the extent that” concerns the level of support, not merely its duration. Direct support to children under paragraph 2(1)(b), and accommodation under paragraph 10 and the 2002 Regulations, remain available outside that restriction. Families in this position form a distinct statutory category from families entitled to unrestricted section 17 support.
2. Ground 1B dismissed. Support equivalent to current Asylum Support rates avoided destitution and therefore did not require further provision to prevent an article 3 breach. The claimant’s poverty and social exclusion did not engage article 8 private life. Nor did the evidence show that additional activities or tuition were necessary to preserve family life. The court nevertheless recognised that article 8 family life may require additional support where poverty causes serious family disruption, compulsory separation or comparable interference.
3. Ground 4 dismissed. The Council’s policy was lawful when its Support Rates Page was read with the main NRPF policy. A subsistence baseline, cross-checked against Asylum Support rates, was permissible provided that decision-makers retained flexibility to meet individual welfare needs. The Support Rates Page would have been unlawful if treated as a free-standing fixed scheme, but it did not make the policy unlawful as objectively read as a whole.
4. Grounds 2 and 3 upheld. The assessment treated the family as receiving the legal requirement and stated that increased support was impossible because they received “statutory support rates”. That was a legal misdirection. Section 17 support must address welfare, not merely subsistence or safeguarding. The assessment also failed to consider direct provision to the children and repeatedly treated the absence of safeguarding concerns as sufficient, although welfare must be actively promoted. Alternatively, the assessment was irrationally inconsistent: it recognised that financial hardship affected the children’s quality of life but made no lawful provision to address that effect.
5. Relief. The claim was allowed and the assessment of 24 April 2024 was quashed. The Council was required to undertake the assessment again. The court did not prescribe the result, but required the Council to explain whether the children had unmet welfare needs, whether direct provision was appropriate, and how its decision promoted welfare. The defendant was ordered to pay 66 per cent of the claimant’s costs.

First-instance judicial review claim. The claim was allowed on Grounds 2 and 3. Grounds 1A, 1B and 4 were dismissed. The assessment dated 24 April 2024 was quashed and remitted to Coventry City Council for reconsideration.