Strategic Social Justice Clinic

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.

During the CELC's Rights in Community (RIC) partnership with St Basils , concerns arose about support for care leavers. St. Basils works with homeless youth and care leavers. St Basils identified a clear knowledge gap in relation to care leavers, both amongst care leavers themselves who were often unaware of the duties the local authority held toward them, and amongst their front-line staff in terms of navigating this complex statutory framework.

What LinC did:

• Students interviewed St Basils staff and a CELC Health & Social Care Law specialist to understand care leavers' issues and the legal framework.
• Students researched legal provisions on care leaver’s rights and created a draft toolkit on Google Forms for St Basils, featuring questions for care leavers and support for St Basils staff.
• Students were given the opportunity to present the draft toolkit to Central England Law Centre for feedback on how their work could be improved to ensure its utility for care leavers, practitioners and frontline workers.

Project Results

We devised a project which would first research care leaver entitlements and then devised a tool to assist support workers and young people to navigate those rights. This tool was used to raise awareness and consciousness of those rights within the voluntary sector. It contributed to increasing the capacity of frontline workers to provide advice and support to a particularly vulnerable group.

In Term 2 the SSJC built on the work done during Term 1’s project. The project's first aim was to finalise the St Basils toolkit based on CELC feedback and present it to St Basils. Additionally, it sought to assess the local authority's 'Local Offer for Care Leavers' for its robustness, usage, and opportunities for improvement, with the goal of creating recommendations for constructive dialogue with the local authority regarding care leaver provision quality.

What LinC did:

• Students refined and finalised the Care Leavers Rights Toolkit for St Basils, comprising questions for care leavers and legal education for staff.
• Researched the legal framework related to Care Leaver Local Offers.
• Conducted desk-based research on the local authority’s Care Leaver Local Offer and compared it with 12 other local authorities’ offers.
• Created a table to document comparative research findings.
• Received training on drafting FOIA requests and submitted requests to local authorities for data on care leaver engagement with Local Offers.
• Prepared draft recommendations for the local authority based on research.
• Received presentation skills training and presented the toolkit to St Basil’s staff, including a Q&A session and a tour of St Basil’s accommodations.

Project Results

• Completed Toolkit which has been used by frontline workers to navigate complex statutory framework on care leaver’s rights and provide vital support to care leavers.
• Delivered PowerPoint presentation on the toolkit to St Basils.
• Created a table for local offer comparative research and developed draft recommendations for local authority on improving Care Leavers Local Offer.
• Obtained FOIA responses from local authorities on Care Leaver Local Offers.

The Student Finance Legal Briefing Project stemmed from CELC and Kids in Need of Defence’s (KIND) work advising young migrants on their access to UK student finance. The long residence criteria, which determine eligibility, have been a point of concern. The project aimed to research and create a briefing note for CELC’s Public Law Team, explaining how the criteria operate and suggesting areas for potential litigation.

What LinC did:

• Students researched student finance legislation, guidance, and case law.
• Reviewed We Belong’s report on barriers to student finance access.
• Drafted FOIA requests to Student Finance England for quantitative data.
• Created a Briefing Note for CELC’s Public Law Team.
• Received presentation skills training and presented the Briefing Note to CELC staff, followed by a Q&A session.

Project Results

• Briefing Note for CELC on student finance.
• PowerPoint presentations on Briefing Note, delivered to CELC.
• FOIA responses from Student Finance England.

Central England Law Centre deals with housing law, often helping clients facing delays in reviewing their priority status for social housing. The project’s aim was to establish a legal basis for challenging Coventry City Council’s delays in assessing change of circumstance (CoC) requests, referencing statutory regulations and the Council’s Allocation Schedule. The project aimed to draft a pre-action protocol letter for use by the CELC and a briefing note for staff.

What LinC did:

• Students researched the judicial review process, the legal framework and allocations policy of housing law and local authority guidance.
• Drafted a briefing note and pre-action protocol letter for use by the CELC.
• Staged a mock debate regarding the validity of judicial review.
• Received training and feedback on the presentation for CELC and partners and critiqued resources produced.

Project Results:

• Students produced a pre-action protocol letter and briefing note for CELC staff.
• Presented to CELC the results of research and outlined resources for use by CELC staff.
• Formed basis of a further housing project for SSJC in 23/24

The Coronavirus Act 2020 removed a swathe of key rights of those in need of adult social care. The Care Act 2014 created an absolute obligation on local social services authorities to meet the statutory eligible needs of adults with disabilities. This right was transformed by the pandemic legislation into acts to be performed unless and until the authority decided it would ‘adopt easements.’ The idea was that easements would allow local authorities to limit their obligations so that they would be in a better position to deal with the pressures from the pandemic. Four of eight authorities across England who decided to adopt (what were called) ‘level 3’ easements (and therefore restrict the rights of disabled adults) were in the West Midlands. There were a number of legal challenges to the decisions and none of the authorities retained their level 3 easements for very long. However, anecdotally, it appears that a number of local authorities used lower-level easements and even, in effect, operated in the higher levels informally with resulting needs unmet.

The relevant provisions of the Coronavirus Act were withdrawn in July 2021, but were social care rights fully reinstated two years on from the introduction of this unprecedented emergency legislation?

This project carried out investigations to identify patterns of impact on key rights and the extent to which those may not have yet been fully reversed and need tackling strategically. For example, through public legal education campaigns, advice and litigation casework, data collection and policy influencing. This cannot be ascertained by simply analysing issues that arise for clients who approach the Law Centre. Those who were affected may not have known that they have relevant legal rights and they may not seek out specialist legal advice. We wanted to get a better sense of the extent and nature of the impacts through a survey of those organisations who provide various types of care and support to meet assessed needs under the Care Act.

This work formed part of a broader project (‘Rights in Peril’) undertaken by the Law Centre’s Health and Social Care Team and funded by the Barings Foundation.

Birmingham Food Justice Network (FJN) is a partnership of over 200 members from various organisations coordinated by the Active Wellbeing Society (AWS) with the aim of ensuring that people in Birmingham have access to sufficient and nutritious food. It was set up during the pandemic and responded to food needs across the city.

But the pandemic only exacerbated food poverty in the city. As the overall impact of Covid was lessening, FJN wanted to explore how to take a more rights-informed approach, helping those who had to continue to use the network to access not only emergency food, but also rights which may tackle the cause of their food crises.

The aim of the Rights and Food Justice Project was to assist FJN by developing effective and accessible public legal education and information about relevant rights that FJN members could use in their work.

Students participating on this project:

• Contributed to developing an effective, targeted public legal education strategy in conjunction with small liaison group from the FJN.
• Explored the concept of food justice and the importance of a rights-informed approach to food justice work.
• Explored the nature of relevant rights including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and domestic rights in fields such as welfare benefits and social care.
• Learnt about best practice and developed skills in public legal education by drafting and designing information resources that are useable by FJN staff and volunteers and which contributes to getting rights into the hands of those to whom they belong.

December 2022 Update :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.

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.

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.

An investigation into systemic problems surrounding the issuing of the ‘UC50’ form and recommendations to help influence change in the UC system.

Analysing the Impact of Care Easements

Community Equivalent Healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres

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.

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.

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.