Written evidence submitted by NRPF Network (TVF0034)

 

Introduction

 

  1. The No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) Network, hosted by Islington Council, provides advice and guidance to local authorities across the UK about statutory support for people who are excluded from mainstream benefits and housing assistance by their immigration status.

 

  1. This response addresses the question: how should the government prioritise funding in a VAWG strategy?

Key points

 

  1. The government should prioritise meeting the needs of survivors of VAWG with no recourse to public funds in its funding strategy to tackle the inequalities experienced by migrant women and ensure they can access essential support.

 

  1. Migrant women can be at a disadvantage when seeking assistance to flee violent or abusive situations due to the impact of immigration restrictions, such as the NRPF condition, and a lack of available support options, leaving some survivors of VAWG at risk of homelessness and destitution.

 

  1. When survivors of VAWG have no recourse to public funds and are at risk of destitution or homelessness, statutory social care duties may be engaged, requiring local authorities to provide accommodation and financial support, but such support is currently unfunded and usually required on a long-term basis.

 

  1. Survivors of VAWG without children in their care or social care needs will not be able to access local authority support and may rely on the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme to meet their accommodation and support needs.

 

  1. Although prioritising VAWG funding to cover gaps in support available for survivors with no recourse to public funds is currently an essential need, less funding would need to be allocated for that purpose if all migrant survivors of VAWG are able to access benefits through the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC), to access free legal advice, and receive Home Office decisions quickly.

Recommendations

 

  1. The following preventative changes would ensure that the inequalities experienced by migrant women survivors of VAWG are addressed and would reduce the amount of funding required for services to meet existing gaps in support and enable access to vital legal advice:

 

 

  1. If these recommendations are not implemented, the VAWG funding strategy must ensure that the government:

 

Supporting evidence

Data on households with no recourse to public funds supported by local authorities

 

  1. NRPF Connect data evidences the costs incurred by local authorities in England and Scotland of providing accommodation and financial support to families under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and adults with care needs under the Care Act 2014 (or equivalent legislation in Scotland). [1]

 

  1. At the end of March 2024:

 

  1. The data demonstrates that immigration restrictions can lead to families and adults with care needs experiencing destitution that adversely impacts on their welfare and well-being to the extent that a statutory support intervention is required. However, we suspect that the number of people with no recourse to public funds who seek assistance from their local authority represents only the tip of the iceberg. There are likely to be many women with no recourse to public funds who are experiencing violence, abuse, or exploitation who have not approached a public authority for assistance.

 

  1. Our data also delineates that immigration restrictions disproportionately affect female single-parent households, with 73% of families supported by local authorities being female-led single-parent families.

Local authority support for families experiencing homelessness or destitution

 

  1. When a parent presents to the local authority as a survivor of domestic abuse and is at risk of homelessness and/or has insufficient income to meet their needs, the local authority will have a duty to provide the family assistance under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 where it is assessed there is a ‘child in need’. This is explicit in the Home Office Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance, which makes clear that local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation and financial support to a family under section 17, regardless of their immigration status, where the child’s wellbeing is at risk. [3]

 

  1. While we do not know exactly how many families supported by local authorities were survivors of VAWG, we do know from local authorities that domestic abuse is often a presentation feature. A COMPAS report, Understanding Migrant Destitution, also identified that experience of domestic abuse was often reported in cases of destitute families living with no recourse to public funds. [4]

 

  1. Local authorities increasingly find themselves supporting survivors of VAWG and their families without any source of claimable funding, and who, in some cases, may require support on a long-term basis if they do not have a clear route to be able to access public funds, and/or face lengthy waits to access legal advice and Home Office decisions, as addressed at paragraphs 25 to 40. Therefore, funding is essential to enable local authorities to effectively implement the statutory guidance.

Gaps in support for adults experiencing homelessness or destitution

 

  1. When an adult with care and support needs is experiencing, or is at risk of abuse or neglect, the local authority must undertake a safeguarding enquiry. Abuse can encompass physical abuse, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse and modern slavery. When a safeguarding enquiry for a survivor of VAWG who has no recourse to public funds is being undertaken, the local authority must consider what support options the survivor has if they are at risk of homelessness or destitution.

 

  1. Local authorities may have a statutory duty to provide accommodation and financial support to an adult with no recourse to public funds who has eligible care and support needs arising from or related to a physical or mental impairment or illness under the Care Act 2014. Interim support can be provided whilst a needs assessment is undertaken under section 19(1).

 

  1. An adult with no recourse to public funds cannot be supported under the Care Act 2014 if they do not have care and support needs, or if their care and support needs have arisen solely because the adult is destitute or due to the physical effects, or anticipated effects of being destitute (section 21).

 

  1. Local authorities have a power under section 19(3) to meet non-eligible care and support needs, which can be engaged to provide accommodation and financial support if failure to meet an adult’s non-eligible needs gives rise to a breach of human rights and the person has no alternative support available in the UK or cannot return to their country of origin (if they are without lawful status in the UK). Therefore, some survivors of VAWG who have needs relating to their physical or mental health, in addition to being destitute, may be supported on this basis, at the local authority’s discretion.

 

  1. The following case study from a local authority in England is an example of when a local authority used its discretionary powers to provide interim support to a survivor of VAWG whilst their needs and immigration options were being established:

An EEA national arrived in the UK as a visitor in 2021. After suffering domestic abuse and coercive control, she fled her partner. She was referred to the local authority’s NRPF team who provided her with accommodation and financial support on an interim basis while carrying out the relevant assessments. The survivor had previously made an unsuccessful application for leave to remain to the Home Office and was referred to an immigration adviser, who advised that she was not eligible to apply for the MVDAC and had no other grounds to apply for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules. The local authority determined that it had no duty to provide ongoing support and recommended that the survivor could return to their country of origin voluntarily to avoid destitution in the UK. The local authority supported the survivor for 36 weeks, incurring costs of £10,095.

  1. Had the survivor in this case not received such support from her local authority, she may have missed the opportunity to access immigration advice to help inform her next steps and remained vulnerable to further abuse. While this case demonstrates good practice, providing such support comes at a financial risk to the local authority. In determining whether discretionary powers can be used in a case such as this, local authorities must balance safeguarding responsibilities and good practice with budget constraints, accepting that non-refundable costs may be incurred for supporting a survivor of VAWG who could ultimately have no onward support or immigration options.

 

  1. As the eligibility criteria for support under the Care Act is extremely restrictive, in most cases, women experiencing VAWG will not meet the threshold for care and support and discretionary powers cannot be relied upon to fill gaps in support left by excluding many migrant survivors of VAWG from accessing benefits temporarily through the MVDAC.

 

  1. A survivor who is seeking asylum or has been refused asylum may qualify for support from the Home Office and a survivor who is a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking may be supported through the National Referral Mechanism. However, other survivors will only be able to access support through the voluntary and community sector, which is why the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme is so vital to plug this gap whilst the MVDAC remains restricted to specific migrant groups.

Extending the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC)

 

  1. Some survivors of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds can apply to the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC) (formerly Domestic Violence Concession (DDVC)) for temporary access to public funds to alleviate the risk of homelessness or financial insecurity when fleeing domestic violence and abuse. However, the scheme has restrictive eligibility criteria and is not available to all groups of people with the NRPF condition, so only those with leave on specific routes can benefit.

 

  1. Many people with valid leave to remain, such as those on a student visa or skilled worker route, cannot apply for the concession. Additionally, individuals without valid leave to remain whose last grant of leave was not as a qualifying partner are also unable to benefit, leaving them at increased risk of exploitation and further abuse. For those who can access the MVDAC, not everyone will choose to vary their leave under the concession, as not all qualifying groups are eligible to apply for ILR under the domestic abuse immigration rules.

 

  1. The following case study from a local authority in England demonstrates how a council can intervene to provide a family with essential support when they cannot  apply for the MVDAC to access benefits: 

A mother, with her British child, came to the UK on a 6-month fiancée visa to join her British partner. Her visa was subject to a NRPF condition, and she was financially supported by her partner. She approached her local authority for assistance after fleeing domestic abuse perpetrated by her partner. The mother and child were provided with accommodation and financial support under section 17 of the Children Act. As she had a fiancée visa, the mother could not apply for the MVDAC or settlement under the Victims of Domestic Abuse Immigration Rules. The mother was referred to a charity providing immigration advice and was supported to apply for leave to remain as the sole parent of a British child. She was granted leave to remain in and her support from children’s social care ended four months later, once benefits had been awarded. She had been supported by the local authority for 45 weeks at a cost of £22,948.

  1. Had the survivor been able to access the MVDAC, she may have been able to claim benefits and access mainstream housing assistance much sooner while making her further leave to remain application. The local authority would not have incurred significant costs by supporting her for so long, and the family would have been able to move forward with their future and integration in the UK. It also highlights delays in Home Office decision-making, with the survivor waiting five months for a decision on their immigration application.

 

  1. Excluding survivors of VAWG from the MVDAC on the basis of their immigration status is inconsistent with the universal offer of statutory support available through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) for survivors of VAWG who have been trafficked or subjected to modern slavery. The Home Office provides survivors of trafficking and modern slavery with access to safe accommodation and financial support, enabling them to flee exploitative or abusive circumstances. They may also be able to apply for a permission to stay in the UK as a survivor of trafficking and modern slavery, regardless of their current immigration status. If this approach was replicated for all survivors of VAWG, it would safeguard survivors from exploitation and align with the government’s response to tackling modern slavery.

Increasing access to legal advice

 

  1. The availability of free immigration advice is vital to ensuring survivors can apply for the MVDAC promptly or get advice about their options to be able to make informed decisions about their future.

 

  1. Stakeholders at regional NRPF Networks often report that survivors of VAWG can face challenges establishing what immigration options are available to them due to the lack of legal aid funded immigration advice. This view is corroborated by Justice Together, which found that domestic abuse services encounter a lack of available immigration advisers to assist individuals they have identified as eligible to apply for the MVDAC. [5]

 

  1. Difficulties in accessing free legal advice delay the submission of immigration applications, extending the periods during which individuals may be left without access to public funds or lawful status.

 

  1. Although legal aid funding and a fee waiver can be available to some survivors who are on a low income and who are applying for indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic abuse (known as a VDA application), survivors of VAWG who are pursuing other immigration routes will routinely be unable to access free legal advice. Although some free immigration advice may be available from voluntary and community sector organisations, the availability of advice varies by location and is usually heavily over-subscribed.

 

  1. The following case study from a local authority in England demonstrates the importance of accessing legal advice to enable a survivor of VAWG to make an informed decision about her next steps and shows how social care involvement can be instrumental in providing stability and oversight of the children’s needs during periods of transition: 

A woman and her two children came to the UK as dependants of a work visa holder. They were referred to children’s social care by the children’s school as the family were threatened with homelessness and had no income to afford food after fleeing domestic abuse from the partner/stepfather. Children’s social care provided accommodation and financial support under section 17 of the Children Act. They were advised by an immigration adviser that the mother qualified for MVDAC but did not meet the rules to apply for indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic abuse. She was advised to apply for asylum due to the risk of forced marriage and/or honour-based abuse upon return. The family were transferred from local authority support to Home Office asylum support upon claiming asylum. Social care continued to work with the family while support was transitioned, and the children were able to continue their education at the same school. The family were provided with local authority accommodation and financial support for 80 days. 

Ensuring timely resolution of immigration claims

 

  1. NRPF Connect data shows that, at the end of March 2024:

 

  1. Of those that had their local authority support ended in 2023-24, 70% of families and 59% of adults had their support ended following a grant of leave to remain.

 

  1. The data shows that it takes several months, and in many cases, years, for people to obtain leave to remain with access to public funds. The data also indicates that families receiving local authority support who obtain MVDAC leave also experience delays in making, or receiving decisions for, an MVDAC application, and then further delays accessing benefits once the concession is granted. In such cases, the local authority may be providing accommodation and support to safeguard survivors of VAWG without any source of claimable funding.

 

  1. Local authorities similarly report delays in processing Change of Conditions applications to remove the NRPF condition. Home Office data reveals that average decision-making times for the Change of Conditions application was as high as 94 days in 2024, leaving some people without access to the safety-net of social security benefits and homelessness assistance for significant periods. [6]

 

  1. Survivors of VAWG who cannot apply for the MVDAC or a Change of Conditions are likely to require support on a long-term basis, whether from their local authority or through the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme. However, the SMVS only provides support for up to 12 weeks, or 16 weeks in cases of extreme hardship. For local authorities, supporting survivors of VAWG with no recourse to public funds on such a long-term basis creates an additional pressure on over-stretched social care budgets.

 

  1. Ultimately, if all migrant survivors of VAWG were eligible for the MDVAC, could access free legal advice promptly, and have their applications determined quickly, there would be less need to develop or expand existing funding schemes, as survivors would have more timely access to benefits and local authority homelessness assistance whilst they establish their longer-term options.

 

Notes and references

 

[1] The NRPF Network project manages NRPF Connect, currently used voluntarily by 91 local authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales to obtain immigration status information from the Home Office. National data from NRPF Connect is referenced in this submission. https://nrpfnetwork.org.uk/nrpf-connect/about-nrpf-connect  

[2] NRPF Network (2024), NRPF Connect data report 2023-24. https://nrpfnetwork.org.uk/-/media/microsites/nrpf/documents/nrpf-connect/annual-reports/data-report-20232024.pdf

[3] Home Office (2022), Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance, p74. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-act-2021

[4] Leon and Broadhead (2024), Understanding Migrant Destitution in the UK: Research Findings, p15. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publication/understanding-migrant-destitution-in-the-uk-research-findings

[5] Wilding (2023), ‘It’s a no-brainer’: Local authority funding for immigration legal advice in the UK, p14. https://justice-together.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/JT-Local-authority-funding-for-immigration-v3.pdf 

[6] Home Office (2025), Immigration and protection data: Q4 2024.  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-and-protection-data-q4-2024

 

April 2025