Strategic Social Justice Clinic
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7f12/d7f123878f0a2e1b520f2b615857cb303847e026" alt=""
Strategic Social Justice Clinic
The Strategic Social Justice Clinic (SSJC) is a joint initiative between Central England Law Centre (CELC) and Warwick LinC. It specialises in using public law and other rights-based strategies to address systemic disadvantage and achieve effective change. Students work with the Public Law and Human Rights team at CELC on a variety of projects that CELC would be unable to pursue without our students’ support.
Working in small groups, student volunteers receive supervision, guidance and mentorship from Emma Austin, Solicitor and CELC's Rights in the Community Strategy Lead, alongside Dr Rebecca Munro, Director of Warwick LinC. Emma Austin was awarded the prestigious Warwick Awards for Teaching Excellence (WATE): Social Science Faculty Award for 2024.
Our projects are carefully selected to put legal learning into practice, find creative ways of using the law and develop leadership, communication and organisational skills in the social justice sector. Student volunteers are closely involved in devising and delivering project strategies, and not simply completing set tasks.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/54cf3/54cf34ee52594aa577abc3b38631b4cf63717a58" alt=""
Strategic Social Justice Clinic Projects
Project Background
Central England Law Centre (‘CELC’), like other Law Centres, works with the most vulnerable and marginalised sectors of society, with the vast majority of our clients in Coventry and Birmingham living in poverty and experiencing multiple-disadvantage. As at Census Day in 2021, 14% of Coventry’s residents and 43% of Birmingham’s population lived in neighbourhoods ranked in the top 10%most deprived neighbourhoods in England. CELC frequently represents clients living in sub-standard accommodation, often in a poor state of disrepair and/or which falls below legal standards. Many of CELC’s clients struggle to access stable accommodation at all, due to acute shortfalls in social housing and affordable private rented sector accommodation within their communities.
Birmingham City Council and Coventry City Council are currently undertaking urban regeneration projects in 3 discreet areas of deprivation within CELC’s localities. Whilst, these projects clearly have the potential to improve access to good quality accommodation in these areas, CELC is concerned there is the real risk of displacement of many due to (i) the nature and extent of the redevelopment schemes, (ii) the (arguably) insufficient levels of new social housing provided therein and (iii) the impact redevelopment is likely to have on the affordability of these areas more generally (including on private sector rents). CELC is concerned regeneration may lead to gentrification of these areas, driving poor, marginalised and vulnerable people from their homes and communities.
The Regeneration vs Gentrification Project will (i) consider the regeneration plans for these 3 areas in detail; (ii) identify legal problems that commonly impact disadvantaged residents during regeneration schemes; (iii) explore with local residents, through qualitative research, particular issues of concern for them; (iv) reflect on appropriate strategic legal responses to emerging issues; and (v) develop connections with networks of affected people/groups/organisations within these areas.
Project Background
Central England Law Centre (‘CELC’) aims to create a fairer, more just society, by embedding legal rights in its communities to reduce inequalities, challenge unfair systems and advance social justice through legal advice and education. We do thisby: (i) delivering specialist social welfare legal advice and representation to people who are marginalised, disadvantaged and discriminated against; (ii) providing holistic advice and support and identifying interrelated legal issues to prevent them from reaching crisis point; (iii) creating a range of referral pathways so people are able to access legal advice at an earlier stage and (iv) sharing our knowledge internally across teams and externally with our partners and clients by Public Legal Education to support people to understand their rights and how to use the law to enforce them.
Although we are the biggest Law Centre in the country, demand for CELC’s services far outstrips our capacity. To ensure we are targeting our resources most effectively to support those in greatest need, we prioritise legal work falling under certain overarching themes. In a recent review of our services, it was decided that, as a Law Centre, we would like to do more direct work to combat discrimination in our communities. We have, accordingly, agreed that ‘Challenging Discrimination’ should become one of the overarching themes under which we focus our work. As a very significant proportion of CELC’s client-base are disabled/have long term health conditions (as at 2020/2021 66% of CELC’s clients were disabled compared to a national figure of just 17% within the English population), we are keen to understand the nature and extent of everyday discrimination in access to public services faced by those with non-visible disabilities in our communities.
The Disability Discrimination Project will (i) scope potentially discriminatory policies, processes and practices affecting people with non-visible disabilities in *homelessness and housing allocation, *disability benefit applications and *access to social care provision; (ii) identify and explore with disabled people and disability rights organisations, through qualitative research, particular issues of concern within these fields; (iii) analyse emerging issues through application of discrimination law frameworks; and (v) develop and strengthen connections between disabled people, disability rights organisations and CELC, with a view to engendering rights-based collaborative working in the future.
Project Background
Central England Law Centre (‘CELC’) aims to create a fairer, more just society, by embedding legal rights in its communities to reduce inequalities, challenge unfair systems and advance social justice through legal advice and education.
Although we are the biggest Law Centre in the country, demand for CELC’s services far outstrips our capacity. To ensure we are targeting our resources most effectively to support those in greatest need, we prioritise legal work falling under certain overarching themes. In a recent review of our services, it was decided that, as a Law Centre, we would like to do more direct work to combat discrimination in our communities. We have, accordingly, agreed that ‘Challenging Discrimination’ should become one of the overarching themes under which we focus our work.
CELC, like other Law Centres, works with the most vulnerable and marginalised sectors of society, with the vast majority of our clients in Coventry and Birmingham living in poverty and many experiencing multiple-disadvantage connected with protected characteristics. We are keen to understand the nature and extent of everyday discrimination faced by those in our communities with the protected characteristics of Race, Religion, Sex and Age.
The Race, Religion, Sex and Age Discrimination Project will (i) scope potentially discriminatory policies, processes and practices affecting people with protected characteristics in our communities; (ii) undertake qualitative research with people with protected characteristics and advocates from frontline organisations to identify particular issues of concern; (iii) analyse emerging issues through application of discrimination law frameworks; and (iv) develop and strengthen connections between people with protected characteristics, advocates from frontline organisations and CELC, with a view to engendering rights-based collaborative working in the future.
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a non-means-tested state benefit for adults with disabilities or long-term health conditions, who have difficulties with day-to-day tasks and/or getting around.
Following years of concerns raised by disabled people and disability and welfare rights charities about the quality of PIP assessment/consultation interviews and, specifically, about discrepancies between the content of these and the information recorded by assessors and provided to the DWP in their reports, in January 2022 Part 1 of the PIP Assessment Guide was updated at Paragraphs 1.6.58-1.6.63 to allow audio recordings to be made of PIP assessment/consultation interviews. It was hoped this would increase transparency and accountability of assessors and improve reliability of the information captured therein.
However, despite audio recordings being available for PIP assessment/consultation interviews since 2022, FOIA Data suggests very few interviews are, in fact, currently being recorded (less than 1%). The Work & Pensions Select Committee (‘W&PSC’) has collected evidence from disability and welfare rights charities about the quality of PIP assessment/consultation interviews and about discrepancies between these and the information provided by assessors to the DWP in their reports.
In March 2023 W&PSC recommended in its report, that pending implementation of long term changes to the disability benefits regime detailed in Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper, an opt-out, rather than opt-in, approach to audio recording for PIP assessment/consultation interviews should be introduced to: “ensure an objective record of assessments exists, providing reassurance to claimants and enabling quality auditing” (Paragraph 98). In June 2023 the Government rejected this recommendation in its Response to Committee's Fifth Report of session 2022-23 (Page 13) due to concerns this “could inadvertently cause additional concerns about the assessment process…” for some claimants where detailed, personal information is shared.
CELC was keen to understand whether the experiences noted in our client cases are reflective of broader decision-making practice by the DWP. This would support: (i) potential strategic litigation by CELC challenging the DWP’s non-compliance with Public Law legality and fairness principles in its PIP decision-making; and (ii) lay the groundwork for CELC to undertake further work in collaboration with our partners to seek changes to DWP practices and policies relating to the use of PIP assessment recordings in decision-making processes.
Part 1 - Project Activities and Outcomes:
• Students completed a Public Law analysis of Welfare Benefits provisions and decision-making procedures
• Students submitted FOIA requests to the DWP to establish how many recordings, if any, are listened to in the course of decision-making by the DWP and whether decision-makers have access to the right equipment to allow them to listen to recordings at first instance, at mandatory reconsideration stage and once appeals have been lodged (in order for them to decide whether to defend appeals).
• Students surveyed welfare rights advisors, through the national NAWRA and Rightsnet networks, to gather qualitative evidence of case studies demonstrating discrepancies between assessment/consultation interview content and assessor reports provided to the DWP and harness practitioner viewpoints/experiences about any perceived or actual barriers to having recordings considered by the DWP in decision-making.
• Students extracted useful information from their background reading materials to produce a Cribsheet for volunteers in the continuation project.
• Students met with CELC practitioners and strategic leads from NAWRA and Rightsnet to broaden their contextual understanding and aid development of the project research outputs.
• Presented their early research findings to representatives from CELC’s Welfare Benefits and Senior Management Teams and NAWRA, and facilitated a discussion on how this work might be developed to seek a change to DWP practice.
Part 2- Project Activities and Outcomes:
• Students analysed responses received from the DWP to FOIA requests, considered strengths and weaknesses in the data gathered and identified gaps in information provided in responses. Students then devised and submitted further FOIA requests to DWP, Capita and ATOS to gather further information to bridge gaps in the data and clarify earlier responses provided.
• Students examined responses received from welfare rights advisors to the survey distributed through the national NAWRA and Rightsnet networks. Students scrutinised this qualitative evidence, identifying themes and trends in responses, extracting practitioner viewpoints/experiences about any perceived or actual barriers to having recordings considered by the DWP in decision-making, and drawing out powerful case studies demonstrating discrepancies between assessment/consultation interview content and assessor reports.
• Students conducted independent research of Hansard, Parliamentary Written Questions and Answers and the Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper to identify statements made by or on behalf of the SSWP/DWP as to the purposes of introducing audio recording for PIP assessment/consultation interviews, and to draw out wider concerns raised in parliament about the quality of DWP decision-making for PIP.
• Students presented their findings in a Round Table Meeting to leading welfare rights practitioners from CELC, NAWRA and Rightsnet, and facilitated a discussion about what conclusions could be drawn from the research and how these might be used to develop recommendations for proposed changes to law/policy/DWP decision-making practice.
• Prepared a Policy Briefing Report, which CELC will collaborate with Rightsnet and NAWRA to submit to the Work & Pensions Select Committee, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Disability and the Brimingham pilot team for the DWP’s Transformation Programme.
• Presented their research findings to representatives from CELC’s Welfare Benefits, Public Law and Senior Management Teams.
CELC’s Housing Team reported an increase in enquiries from tenants about poor conditions in social housing properties due to damp and mould (a form of disrepair). CELC was concerned by how few tenants are able to avail themselves of LASPO provisions to successfully secure Legal Aid to bring disrepair claims against their landlords. The ‘serious risk’ threshold seemingly disincentivises applications from Legal Aid providers like CELC (even in cases where disrepair claims may well succeed in Court) due to high administrative and evidential burdens that need to be overcome to satisfy the Legal Aid Agency that funding should be granted.
On 13 January 2023 DLUHC and DH&SC issued a joint letter to the Senior Coroner for Manchester North responding to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths issued following Awaab’s death. This was followed by a further announcement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove MP, on 9 February 2023 that Awaab’s Law would be enacted. The Government set out 4 key changes to improve protections for tenants living in properties with damp and mould, in recognition of the fatal consequences this form of disrepair had for Awaab:
1. The Decent Homes Standard would be reviewed, with a particular focus on how damp and mould is assessed.
2. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System would be reviewed to ensure damp and mould is properly captured.
3. DH&SC would produce new guidance on the health risks of damp and mould.
4. The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 would enact ‘Awaab’s Law’, which requires landlords to fix reported health hazards (including damp and mould) within specified timeframes. The new rules form part of a Tenancy Agreement, so tenants can hold landlords to account if they fail to provide a decent home. Additionally, the powers of the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing are strengthened.
Project Activities and Outputs:
• Students participated in a Public Law analysis of Housing Law and Legal Aid provisions,
• Students considered LASPO and the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance on the current availability of Legal Aid for tenants
• Students surveyed Legal Aid providers through the ‘LCN Housing Law Practitioners Group’ and the ‘Housing and Immigration Law Practitioners Association’ networks to gather case studies and practitioner reflections on specific difficulties they encounter in overcoming the ‘serious risk’ threshold under LASPO to secure Legal Aid for tenants seeking to bring claims for disrepair as a result of damp and mould in their properties.
• Students considered proposed changes to the Decent Homes Standard Guidance, Housing Health and Safety Rating System Guidance, new DHSC Guidance on the health risks of damp and mould and provisions of the newly enacted Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 (passed on 20 July 2023) to analyse whether these could be deemed to reflect a fundamental Governmental shift in the ‘seriousness’ with which damp and mould in social housing properties is viewed.
• Students identified useful information from these materials that could be quoted in individual client cases by Legal Aid providers in applications or appeals for Legal Aid and/or used by CELC in evidence to support Judicial Review legality and rationality ground submissions that the ‘serious risk’ threshold is met in a greater number of circumstances as a result of these changes.
• Students presented their findings in a Round Table Meeting with the Deputy Chair of the ‘Housing and Immigration Law Practitioners Association’ and the Head of CELC’s Housing Team and sought guidance on what conclusions could be drawn from the research and how these might be used to develop recommendations for Legal Aid practitioners.
• Students produced a Cribsheet for Legal Aid providers on making use of new provisions / passages / sections providers in their applications or appeals for Legal Aid to demonstrate the ‘serious risk’ threshold is met and to highlight useful new regulatory and monitoring methods open to support clients with damp and mould disrepair issues.
• Students presented research findings to representatives from CELC’s Housing and Public Law Teams and facilitated a discussion on their findings
In a landmark judgment on 26 January 2023 the High Court in Birmingham held that CELC’s client, BCD, was discriminated against by Birmingham Children’s Trust in the way it provided him and his family, who had No Recourse to Public Funds (‘NRPF’), with support as a ‘child in need’ under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights - BCD v Birmingham City Trust [2023] EWHC 137 (Admin).
Since the judgment (a) enquiries received by CELC’s Health & Social Care, Public Law and Immigration Teams, (b) casework arising out of CELC’s Migrant Rights in Community, Health Justice Partnership and Coventry Women’s Partnerships, and (c) work undertaken by CELC’s partner organisations KIND and Project 17 indicated worrying patterns of poor (frequently unlawful) Section 17 provision to migrant families in other Local Authorities in the West Midlands Combined Authority area (and nationally). Additionally, CELC staff reported concerns about poor awareness and knowledge of the judgment amongst both frontline organisations working with migrants and migrant families themselves who might avail themselves of higher levels of support pursuant to it.
The Social Services Support Levels for Vulnerable Children Project aimed to explore and analyse the extent to which Local Authorities in the West Midlands Combined Local Authority areas were complying with the BCD judgment in the way they provided support to vulnerable children under Section 17 Children Act 1989, gain better data on the scale of demand for such support in these areas, and provide public legal education resources/tools that would increase knowledge and awareness of the rights families with NRPF had under Section 17 Children Act 1989.
Project Activities and Outputs:
• Students learnt relevant Health & Social Care and Immigration provisions and explored how these operate in practice
• Students drafted and submitted detailed FOIA requests to 8 Local Authorities in the West Midlands Combined Authority, and analysed responses to these requests,to gain greater insight into (a) the extent to which Local Authorities are compliant with the judgment in the way they provide support to vulnerable children and (b) the scale of demand for such support in each area.
• Students conducted desk-based research analysing ‘NRPF Support Policies / Section 17 Support Policies’ to explore the extent to which these policies complied with the key tenets of lawful support outlined in the judgment.
Students produced a detailed Briefing Report for internal use by CELC and KIND summarising the findings of their analysis of policies:
• Students considered how public legal education resources for professionals produced by CELC and KIND to disseminate knowledge about lawful levels of support for vulnerable children could be adapted / reworked to provide effective resources for families of vulnerable children. Students then produced a leaflet for distribution by CELC, KIND and our partners explaining key rights families have in accessing support under Section 17 Children Act 1989:
• Students gained presentation experience, presenting project findings to representatives from CELC’s Senior Management, Public Law, Immigration, Family and Rights in Community Teams and to colleagues from KIND.
• Students attended a Round Table Meeting convened by CELC and partners at KIND and Project 17 on 22 April 2024, exploring potential approaches to coordinating effective implementation of the BCD decision and considering how to build campaign movements around these. SSJC project research was presented at the meeting to national third sector organisations to help initiate discussions.
CELC’s Housing Team noted increasing difficulties by 2023-2024 in establishing ‘priority need’ for homeless refugees under the provisions of Part 7 Housing Act 1996. CELC was of the view this may be due to a decline in the quality of Local Authority decision-making generally, increased demand for social housing (which may place pressure on Local Authorities to ‘gatekeep’) and/or could be related to changes made in recent years to *the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
To establish eligibility for Local Authority accommodation pursuant to the homelessness provisions under *Part 7 Housing Act 1999, applicants must show that they meet 5 general criteria: (i) they are homeless/statutorily homeless or threatened with homelessness (defined in *ss175-177 Housing Act 1996); (ii) they have British citizenship or an ‘eligible’ immigration status; (iii) they are in ‘priority need’ (*s189 Housing Act 1996); (iv) they are not ‘intentionally homeless’; and (v) they have a ‘local connection’ to the respective Local Authority area where their application is made. When these criteria are established applicants are entitled to accommodation from Local Authorities under *s193 Housing Act 1996 and then *Part 6 Housing Act 1996. They may, additionally, be eligible for interim or temporary accommodation pending determination of their homelessness application under *s188 (1ZB) Housing Act 1996.
CELC’s Housing Team was concerned about increasing difficulties satisfying criteria (iii), namely establishing ‘priority need’ for homeless refugees.
In CELC’s experience refugees often encounter considerable practical challenges in establishing they are in ‘priority need’ under the homelessness provisions, owing to difficulties gathering evidence demonstrating vulnerability because of the nature of complex mental illnesses (disabilities) and/or for ‘other special reasons’ related to traumatic experiences in their country of origin or their journey to the UK.
The Priority Need for Homeless Refugees Project aimed to explore the extent of the difficulties homeless refugees now face in establishing ‘priority need’ under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and will seek to create resources enabling refugees to demonstrate, pursue and enforce their rights more easily.
Project Activities and Outputs:
Students participated in a Public Law analysis of Housing Law and relevant International Refugee Law and Immigration provisions. This included presentations from CELC’s Housing and Public Law experts and Professor Dallal Stevens from Warwick University, whose expertise is in Refugee Law.
Student volunteers undertook qualitive research by writing an interview schedule and then interviewing representatives from several of CELC’s partner organisations based in Coventry and Birmingham, who work with asylum seekers and refugees, to better understand the problems actually faced by refugees in transitioning to mainstream housing following the grant of status, and to gain frontline agency views into how these problems might be tackled. Student volunteers also had access to anonymized CELC case studies, illustrating situations CELC clients have encountered.
Student volunteers attended a Round Table Meeting on Wednesday 5th June with a panel of experienced Housing Practitioners to present their initial research findings and to draw out insights on how ‘priority need’ can be established in circumstances such as those identified through the qualitative and desk-based research.
Supporting care leavers to access their rights
Most of us expect to continue to receive the support of our family far beyond the date on which we reach the age where, legally, we will be treated as adults. Young people who have been in the ‘care’ of the local social services authority often have a very different experience.
In January 2022 Ofsted published findings from an online survey of young people in care and care leavers to explore whether the help they got when getting ready to leave care was what they needed, and how involved they were in the decisions made about their future. Ofsted found that more than a third of care leavers felt that they left care too early, often because the move out of care happened abruptly and they were not ready for all the sudden changes. Of those who did feel that they left care at the right time, not all felt they had the required skills to live more independently. Many care leavers reported that they were not taught essential skills, such as how to shop, cook or manage money.
Two of the key rights that care leavers have is to a ‘pathway plan’ based on an assessment of their individual needs and to a ‘Personal Adviser’, appointed by the local social services authority, who supports them, potentially until they are 25. There are regulations and guidance setting out how this should work in practice. One of the recommendations made by Ofsted in response to their findings was that care leavers should know what they are legally entitled to and helped to access support after they leave care.
Project aims
The aim of this SSJC project is to develop a tool which will help local organisations who are in contact with care leavers to identify whether they have the benefit of the planning and support they are entitled to and to help them access legal advice when needed.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/147fa/147facf83beb472da992e2e61d97bd345f3dab61" alt=""
December 2022:LinC's Strategic Social Justice Clinic has now published its report based on our 'Rights in Food Justice' project.
The report can be read here:
Tackling Poverty to Achieve Food Justice: Contributions from the Advice Sector
The report explores the extent to which the provision of welfare rights and debt advice and information can alleviate the need for food bank use by helping those who are struggling to buy food to access and manage the state resources available to them. This has potentially significant implications for central and local government strategies for tackling household food insecurity. The report's findings and conclusions have relevance throughout the UK.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/878c8/878c82f6aaf17ce408c5ed209f76b617b9a5ff56" alt=""
November 2022:LinC, working in partnership with Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, have published a report based upon the work undertaken by LinC's Strategic Public Law Clinic in 2019-20 and 2020-21:
Anyone who is detained by the state is entitled to receive health care which is equivalent in quality to that enjoyed in the wider community. For many years there has been a persistent and consistent concern about the quality of healthcare in immigration removal centres (IRCs), but the findings of statutory inspections have tended to find provision to be satisfactory.
This report asks whether there are systemic elements of the inspection scheme which inhibit its ability to apply the community equivalence principle. The report makes comparisons between the scheme used by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to quality assess community healthcare provision and that adopted to respond to the overlapping responsibilities of the CQC and His Majesty Inspectorate of Prisons for inspecting healthcare in IRCs.Its recommendations call for fundamental reform not only to operational processes for gathering and analysing evidence, but also to the underpinning regulations which currently prevent the CQC from applying a ‘community equivalent’ approach.
Developing strategies to support the Central England Law Centre in addressing complaints regarding NHS services to influence local change.
Central England Law Centre is contracted to provide an independent advocacy service in Coventry to assist those who wish to make a complaint about NHS services. The advocate found that clients were raising issues about local mental health services which coalesced around some recurring themes, but the complaints investigation and resolution seemed to be solely focused on the individual case and that patient’s experience of dissatisfaction. The function of complaints mechanisms in the public sector is to use patient’s experience to improve service quality.
Our project team began by analysing issues raised in complaint cases about NHS mental health services to identify any underlying common themes. Those that emerged included complaints about failures to provide key information about diagnosis and treatment, lack of treatment choice and weaknesses in continuity of support.
The team then developed a strategy to try and improve the use of complaints by the health organisations concerned as a quality driver, taking into account the pressure on NHS resources which tends to operate as a counter-incentive. This process involved researching quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and identifying those standards which had something to say about the reoccurring concerns raised by complainants in the cases that had been considered.
The group produced an easy-to-use reference tool to incorporate relevant quality benchmarks into individual complaints to address recurring issues in the quality of service, and a monitoring tool which can be used by the advocate to observe patterns over time. Both tools are currently being trialled by the advocate and will be reviewed based on their experience. The data generated aims to provide other opportunities for influencing change locally.
Raising public awareness of judicial review in the Law Centre’s local communities.
On the 31st ofJuly2020, the Government launched an official review of judicial review.Link opens in a new window It established a panel of constitutional law experts “to consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens and to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.” The indications from the government were that, in its view, the balance needed shifting in favour of the latter.
Judicial review is the court process in which a judge decides whether a public authority has acted lawfully. This was the process that was used in 2019 to decide whether the prime minister’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful. It is also the process that might be used to challenge the lawfulness of a council’s decision that a disabled person is ineligible for social care services or to close a library.
Despite its vital role in protecting us against the abuse of power, very few have heard of ‘judicial review’. Therefore, the aim of this SPLC project was to start to tackle the task of raising public awareness in the Law Centre’s local communities, at a time when the effectiveness of judicial review was under threat.
At the core of the project’s strategy were three elements: understanding and addressing common misconceptions judicial review; making the issue relevant to people’s everyday lives; and disseminating the information through organisations which tend to have contact with local people in connection to a range of issues where judicial review could be a useful tool.
Our project team created an accessible fact sheet about judicial review and a series of real-life case studies that consider the impact it can have in helping to resolve everyday unfairness. We also organised an event ‘Challenging public authorities – using law to tackle everyday unfairness’ which was attended by representatives of 34 local organisations.
More information on the judicial review of public awareness campaign as well as the fact sheet can be found here.Link opens in a new window
An investigation into systemic problems surrounding the issuing of the ‘UC50’ form and recommendations to help influence change in the UC system.
Universal credit (UC) was introduced in 2012 as a new welfare benefits system which was to be administered largely online. This project looked in-depth at one aspect of the administrative process in which the Welfare Benefits Team at the Law Centre has observed irregularities with significant implications for claims. The Law Centre had noticed a trend in the UC50 not being issued to claimants in cases where it would have been expected. If claims did not receive the form, it was likely that they hadn’t been referred into the process for accessing all the benefits to which they were entitled.
The project group undertook internet research to find publicly available information, submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the DWP and surveyed members of the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers (NAWRA).Our research found that there is a significant wide-spread national problem of non-receipt of UC50s, which appears to have been exacerbated by the pandemic. We identified a number of potential weaknesses in the administrative system which could be contributing to the problem, including a lack of automation at key points; a lack of systemisation of key steps; and issues with the training materials disclosed by the DWP. In addition, there is a lack of appropriate safeguards in place when something goes wrong - this has all the hallmarks of systemic unfairness, which is unlawful in public law terms.
The project concluded with a report on our findings and recommendations on how to address this and help influence change in the UC system, making it fairer for claimants. The report is now being used by a national organisation to advocate for changes through the Work and Pensions Committee and the DWP.
A detailed summary version of the report for the Universal Credit project can be accessed here:
Tab content
Tab content
Ensuring effective implementation of the Law Centre’s successful judicial review challenge to the exclusion of 2-year olds of certain migrant families from free nursery entitlement.
In 2019, the Central England Law Centre received the sealed court order settling a judicial review of the exclusion of children of families in receipt of ‘section 4’ migrant support from the right to free nursery education for 2 to 3 year olds. Section 4 embodies the very basic subsistence support provided to third country nationals in the UK who are prohibited from working or having access to public funds and who are not asylum seekers.
The aim of this project was to develop and implement a strategy to ensure effective implementation of the Law Centre’s successful judicial review challenge to the exclusion of 2-year olds of certain migrant families from free nursery entitlement. The settlement was such that the relevant regulations would not be amended immediately, creating a risk that local authorities would continue to refuse applications.
Students working on the project found over 67% of the 150 authorities had not extended their published eligibility criteria. This research was used in a judicial review pre-action protocol letter sent by solicitors whose client had been unlawfully refused. The Department has now promised to undertake compliance monitoring.
Examining the impact of the Legal Aid Means Test on disabled people’s access to specialist legal advice.
Before the implementation of The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 [LASPO], a person who was in receipt of one of a list of means tested welfare benefits (known as ‘passporting benefits’) automatically passed the means test for eligibility for legal aid.There was no ‘capital’ test. Ifnotin receipt of a passporting benefit, there was a capital test. Passporting benefits included benefits such as income-related employment support allowance (IRESA) and guarantee pension credit.
The LAPSO introduced a differentcapital means-test to those in receipt of means-tested benefits. Equity in the home is included when assessing disposable capital. This has specific impacts on disabled people benefitting from the government’s specialist shared-ownership scheme which was established in response to significant difficulties in accessing suitable housing. One of CELC’s clients who used that scheme, and who has needed specialist legal help on a number of occasions, was found to be at increasing risk of Legal Aid ineligibility, solely because of an increase in the value of his home.
The Ministry of Justice’s equality impact assessment didn’t identify these impacts when LASPO was introduced. Therefore, students working on this SPLC projectundertook research activities to contribute to detailed representations on the equalities issues to be submitted to the Government’s current review of the means test.
Researching and developing a complete toolkit for accessing home fees and student finance for students with humanitarian protection.
Initially, students who had been granted humanitarian protection in the UK were discriminated against in two ways. Unless theywere able to show that they had been a resident in the UK for 3 years before their course starts, they:
- Were charged overseas student fees which are much higher than home student fees; and
- Had not been entitled to student finance.
Following a legal challenge by one of the Central England Law Centre’s clients, the government agreed that the 3-year residence requirement is unlawful and discriminated against those who were granted humanitarian protection, and therefore should not be applied.
The Department of Education is notifying both the Student Learn Company and Universities about this change. However, we were concerned that students who have humanitarian protection would still face difficulties if the correct information were not well-publicised.
The aim of this SPLC project was to ensure that students who should benefit, do so without having to take legal action themselves. And should they run into difficulties, they would know where they might find specialist legal help. Students created a toolkit explaining the changes to the 3-year ordinary resident requirement and to also equip individuals who might be affected by this issue. The toolkit will also help students understand what their rights are when applying to university.
Investigating the quality of healthcare services provided to detainees in immigration removal centres.
There is a persistent discrepancy between reported concerns by detainees and the conclusions reached in formal inspection reports. The clinic has a team of students working with Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group (GDWG) on a year-long project investigating evidence of a breach of the ‘legitimate expectation’ of community equivalence and supporting GDWG’s participation in a recently launched public inquiry into Brook House Immigration Removal Centre.
Further information about the Strategic Social Justice Clinic
Recent student feedback:
- "I have developed my research skills, improved my scheduling and organisation, and developed my knowledge of the wider context surrounding public law."
- "Working within a small group as well as the larger project group, has helped me to improve my communication and teamwork skills. I have also developed my presentation, analysis and critical thinking skills. I have developed new skills, working on things that I have not done before, e.g. transcription and interviewing."
- "I think one of the core successes of the project was that it offered lots of insight into how public law works in practice, and how public law practitioners go about their work."
- "I'd like to thank the staff at CELC and the University who organised and facilitated the project - there was clearly a great deal of work and passion going into the project, against what were still inclement circumstances this year. Thank you for supporting us and offering us the opportunities to participate."
"I must say thanks to everyone here. This whole piece of work makes me feel very proud. It really is fantastic that the law centre is in a place where we can take on the initial piece of litigation and then complete a piece of work that brings that legal victory into the real world in order to amplify its effect. Brilliant." Michael Bates, Head of Services CELC Birmingham. Accessing student finance project
"The volunteers and interns we have worked with have been dedicated, passionate and really eager to make positive change. It has been a pleasure working with them and we are very grateful for all of their contributions….. You listen and value our input." IRC Visitors’ Group Advocacy Co-ordinator
Strategic Social Justice Clinic Internships
Each year we aim to offer paid internship positions over the summer break for interns to gain a more intensive, in-depth experience working on SSJC projects and ensure the valuable work of the clinic is able to continue all year round. Internships this year will be supported by the generous donations of alumni, donors and supporters of the University via the Warwick Innovation Fund.
Visit this page for information on current opportunities and volunteering vacancies.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18e47/18e47592623df4fa776c6bae5648b91ba272ade1" alt=""
"I really enjoyed the opportunity to work with an expert in the field, who has significant experience of delivering these kind of projects and really knew their stuff. I learned a lot by working in collaboration with them, and watching the project take shape under their guidance. I was also very pleased to have been able to contribute to such an impactful and significant project over the course of the internship. Finally, I found meeting the staff at the law centre, and the opportunity to gain insight into the kinds of work that they do incredibly valuable."
Summer 2022 Intern
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3139d/3139d753c285d2294bfffb17c200e25f60b59491" alt=""
"My internship has provided an invaluable opportunity to improve my legal and professional skills massively. I can now synthesise and structure large volumes of material quickly and easily, something that would have shell-shocked me before. I’ve learnt to solve problems in practice, prioritise and mange tasks and to express myself more concisely in written communication."
Summer 2020 Intern