Popular Italian restaurant goes viral after imposing checkout fee – is it legal?

A digital receipt from the Italian restaurant, Gloria, recently went viral due to the presence of an unfamiliar charge. When a diner at the Shoreditch restaurant went to pay using their app, they discovered that this restaurant not only charged them a 13.5% service charge, but also charged them an additional “checkout fee” of £2.99.

In the end, the total cost of their meal jumped from £193.50 to £222.64, a full £29.14 more – leaving them feeling very uncomfortable.

After the image of the bill was posted on social media a large amount of commenters voiced their consternation. Subsequently, many visitors to the Shoreditch restaurant also left negative reviews online.

So, what exactly is a “checkout fee” and, furthermore, does the restaurant have the right to charge such fees?

What is a checkout fee?

Gloria Restaurant is an Italian restaurant owned by The Big Mamma Group. It is very popular in London, and customers often need to book a month in advance to get a seat.

The co-founders of The Big Mamma Group also launched the mobile phone app, Sunday. Customers can log into the app by scanning the QR code and pay on the platform. They can use Sunday to calculate expenses, split the bill with friends, and pay in just 10 seconds, saving time for both dinners and waiting staff.

However, if a customer uses the mobile app to pay, a checkout fee will apply. These are very uncommon for restaurants, but are more commonly found when purchasing tickets for events such as concerts.

Alternatively, customers at Gloria can go out of their way to ask the waiter to pay by card using the card machine or with cash to avoid the “checkout fee.”

Various restaurants charge different “hidden fees”

In fact, this is not the first time that restaurants have been exposed to charging “hidden fees”. Many restaurants charge customers extra in various forms, sometimes adding up to 20%.

Some time ago, the Chinese Dim Sum restaurant, Ping Pong, was exposed as charging a 15% “brand management fee” to help maintain the brand experience. Ping Pong said the charge would enable it to increase wages to at least £12.44 an hour, allowing staff to have a stable income.

In addition, pubs owned by the Scotsman Group, which owns a number of bars and pubs across Scotland, charge customers an automatic fee of 2%.

In recent years, many restaurants began charging customers an automatic service charge, a now common industry practice. Most of these “discretionary service charges” add 12.5% to a customer’s bill after the meal.

However, service charges are now appearing on everything from beer to takeaway coffee, and the fees are higher than before. Some fear the UK is sleepwalking into US tipping culture, where tips average around 20%.

Can restaurants legally charge this type of fee?

The UK preciously implemented a blanket ban on all operators charging surcharges to any consumer using a credit or debit card or any other form of electronic payment. This applies to both in-store and online payments.

The law stresses that the new rules apply to any British company selling products to British consumers. These transactions include buying flight or concert tickets, or using cards to pay bills in small shops, restaurants, takeaways, etc. Investors are assured that there won’t be any unpleasant surprises and that consumers won’t be penalized for wanting to pay in a specific way.

However, a “Service Charge” in a restaurant is something that exists legally. Despite this, it should not be mandatory, and consumers have the right to refuse to pay this fee. If the customer feels that the service is not worth the price, they can propose a reduction in the fee and a new bill.

However, returning to the example of the Sunday app mentioned in this article, the checkout fee does not belong to the category of a payment surcharge, nor does it belong to the “service charges” category.

Best practise to advise customers of fees in advance

According to the law, Gloria cannot charge a surcharge because customers choose to pay by card. Therefore, what consumers need to figure out is whether this “checkout fee” is charged by the restaurant, or whether it is charged by a third-party company (the mobile app company the restaurant cooperates with). For example, many restaurants cooperate with takeaway companies such as Deliveroo and Just Eat. When you place an order on these platforms, the platform directly charges some service fees.

However, no matter what, restaurant consumption is in principle a contractual relationship, and the establishment of any contractual relationship should be based on both parties knowing what the terms are. Therefore, restaurants are obliged to inform customers in advance that if they use the mobile platform to pay, the platform will charge an additional fee, and it is ultimately the customer’s choice.

To take a step back, when running a business, brand image is very important. Restaurant owners should consider many factors before charging additional fees. Even if they are charged legally, if there is no communication with customers or the fees charged are not reasonable, it can easily give customers a bad impression. After the checkout fee for this Italian restaurant was exposed, many people made negative comments and shared the story on social media, leading to a detrimental impact on its reputation. This can be detrimental in the long run.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

New research finds that Graduate Visa provides a net contribution of £70m to UK economy per year

A recent report has been published by the Higher Education Policy Institute analysing the Graduate route visa scheme. The Graduate Visa has come under scrutiny in recent times from certain sections of the media and politicians for the number of immigrants and their dependents arriving via this immigration route.

The research, which was published jointly with the Kaplan International Pathways and the National Union of Students sought to reveal the net benefits to the UK economy of the Graduate visa. This was in response to a rapid review of the Graduate Route Visa being conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee, which is due to be completed by 14^th May 2024.

So, what benefits of the Graduate visa did they find?

Let’s take a look.

What is the Graduate visa?

A graduate visa gives you permission to stay in the UK for 2 years after you have studied an eligible course there. Those who have a PHD or other doctor qualification can stay for 3 years. You must also have successfully completed the course, which your education provider will inform the Home Office about. Find out more about the eligibility criteria here.

While the Graduate visa cannot be extended, it is possible to switch to a different visa, such as a Skilled Worker visa. However, due to the huge rise in the Skilled Worker visa salary threshold, this has suddenly become increasingly difficult for many graduates. You can learn more about the Skilled Worker Visa in our guide here.

Key findings from the report

The report, which was undertaken by the consultancy, London Economics, revealed a number of economic benefits to the UK economy. These include the following:

Number of Graduate Visa holders

The report found that there were an estimated 66,410 Graduate Route visa holders in the UK in the 2022/23 tax year. This was composed of a split between 56,460 international graduates being educated in UK higher education and 9,950 dependants overall.

Contrary to some reports within the UK, for every 10 Graduate Route visa holders, there were fewer than two dependants. This ratio will decline significantly in the future as a consequence of the increased restrictions on dependants of Graduate Visa holders.

In fact, following this change taking effect in January 2024, there has already been a decline of around 80 per cent in the number of dependants of new international students.

Contribution to UK economy

The presence of these Graduate Route visa holders in the UK is estimated to have contributed £588m during the 2022/2023 tax year, worth £10,410 per Graduate Visa holder. These figures don’t include the value that many would go on to contribute if they later transfer on to the Skilled Worker Visa route.

On the other hand, the total costs of public provision come to an estimated £517m (£9,160 per individual). As a net figure, this means that the net benefit to the UK economy of hosting Graduate Route visa holders works out at a total of £70m overall or (£1,240 per international graduate). This counters the view that the UK loses out financially by hosting Graduate Visa holders, even before the clampdown on Graduate Visa holder dependents.

The report adds that the financial benefits of the Graduate Visa to the UK are on course to increase. There are estimated to be over 350,000 Graduate Visa holders in the UK by April 2025, increasing the direct economic benefits by five times more than the first full year of the first year of the Graduate Visa. Due to the new rules on dependants, the costs are also set to fall significantly, adding an even greater net benefit to the UK economy.

At Lisa’s Law, we have a dedicated immigration department with experience in handling Graduate Visa Applications. Contact us today for advice or support.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Australia proposes “right to disconnect” law – what rights do employees have to switch off from work in the UK?

Many workers may have encountered a similar situation in the workplace. Even though it is time to leave work, their superiors or bosses continue to frequently contact them about work.

It is understandable that there are occasional cases where you need to work outside of your normal working hours due to emergencies or special reasons. However, if the boss has developed this “habit”, from time to time they will continue to interrupt the employee’s rest during the break time and let them take care of things, which is really annoying.

After all, this can lead to working hours and rest time being mixed together, blurring the lines between work and leisure.

This has been especially true in the wake of the pandemic, as more and more people have started working from home, making it even harder to separate work from the rest of your life.

But is it legal for an employer to consistently disturb an employee during non-working hours? And what should an employee do if this happens to them from time to time?

Australia takes the lead and fights for the “right to disconnect” for workers

Under Australia’s proposed new law, employees have the right to ignore messages, emails or phone calls from their superiors after hours. If employers continue to contact employees during off-hours hours, employers who violate the law may face criminal penalties.

In an Act of Parliament, the labour rights are described as the “right to disconnect”. To put it simply, it is the “right to disconnect” from work during off-duty hours.

Australia’s legislators believe this will protect the rights of employees and help restore greater work-life balance.

Specifically, if an employer contacts an employee during non-working hours, the employer who violates the rules may be fined and may even face criminal penalties.

Currently, a majority of Australian senators support the right to disconnect legislation. It is expected that the bill will be tabled in Parliament at a later date.

In Europe, similar laws have been enacted in France, Spain, Ireland and other countries in the European Union, giving employees the right to disconnect from the company after work hours.

Is there a similar law in the UK, and can an employee “disconnect” from their employer?

In the United Kingdom, the Working Hours Regulations 1998 set out workers’ rights in relation to working hours, rest periods and holidays.

These regulations ensure that the average working week cannot exceed 48 hours, however employees can opt out of this restriction on their own. In some high-intensity industries or jobs (e.g., investment banking), many people sign an employment contract with a statement that they are voluntarily withdrawing from the 48-hour work week limit imposed by law.

But generally speaking, most industries and jobs in the UK are between 35 and 40 hours per week, which is basically in line with the law.

That said, there is a distinction between “working hours” and “rest periods” in English law, which can infringe on an employer’s rest time if they expect their employees to handle work calls and affairs outside of their agreed working hours.

Generally, employees need to understand the details mentioned in the employment contract. For example, the employment contract should clearly stipulate working hours, and any work outside of the agreed hours needs to be agreed upon by both parties and, where possible, compensated.

In the absence of such an agreement, then employees are generally not legally obligated to answer work calls or handle work outside of working hours.

In the UK, many companies have a different policy: overtime compensation is available through a method called time off in lieu (TOIL). This includes any time spent processing work calls outside of normal business hours, adding up to vacation time.

At present, there is no right to disconnect in the UK that requires employers not to contact employees after work hours. Nevertheless, the UK’s Labour Party has proposed a similar law dubbed the “right to switch off” if it gets into government, which could happen this year.

What are some good ways to achieve a work-life balance outside of work

In the eyes of many, continuing to work outside of normal working hours can show love and commitment to the job and may lead to career advancement.

Of course, there are also those who believe that it is more important to achieve a work-life balance, and that work is only a part of life. Many argue that this is a more prevalent attitude among Gen-Z workers than it was in decades gone by.

Both employers and employees need to establish a clear understanding of what is really urgent and what need to be dealt with urgently so that when some urgent issues arise and need to be dealt with during non-working hours, there are no adverse effects.

In the UK, many employers are increasingly valuing and respecting of employees’ leave, with many recognising the importance of leave for mental health and the continued maintenance of productivity.

There are several ways in which it is possible to improve your work-life balance:

Set up an auto-reply in your work email to let them know your working hours and use other ways to contact them if you have an urgent problem.
Add similar information to your work chat such as Microsoft Teams, including marking your working hours in the status bar.
Employees and employers should also have an open discussion about the necessity of after-hours work to find a mutually satisfactory solution to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and problems.

Our thoughts

In addition, Yitong Guo of Lisa’s Litigation Department reminds employers of the following:

Employers have a responsibility to focus on the health, safety, and overall well-being of their employees. This responsibility includes preventing excessive working hours, as long working hours and heavy workloads can lead to mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, and depression.

Employers must address these issues through reasonable accommodations such as reducing hours or workload, especially when mental health conditions are considered disability. Failure to do so would result in a claim for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal.

Employers can assist employees in adjusting to healthy working styles. This not only fulfils legal obligations, but also increases job satisfaction and productivity, and creates a positive work environment. In addition, prioritizing work-life balance can increase employee loyalty, retention, and team success.

Contact with employees during absences

Another reminder, especially for employers and businesses, employers and employees should agree on how to stay in touch during absences. Different types of absences may require different levels of communication.

For example, regular updates may not be required during leave, but employees on maternity leave may want to contact more frequently about work due to the length of time off.

Both parties must determine the frequency and method of communication, as well as the designated point of contact, such as a line manager or human resources manager. For employers and businesses, staying connected can provide an opportunity to monitor the health of their employees and provide support if necessary.

Regular contact is particularly important in situations of mental health-related absences, but should be done with the employee’s consent and should not be overwhelming for the employee.

During periods when employees are on leave for various reasons, including maternity leave, adoption leave, or other statutory holidays, employers must keep employees up to date on important matters that may affect their work, such as promotions, layoffs, or reorganizations.

Failure to do so may constitute discrimination against absent employees. Other types of advice can be found on the ACAS website or for professional legal advice.

That’s all for our discussion on the right to disconnect, click here for regular updates on our articles.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

James Cook

See Full Bio

Three new staff members join Lisa’s Law

We are delighted to welcome three new staff members to Lisa’s Law Solicitors. Frankie, Sam and John bring a variety of skills which make them a great asset to the firm and we are very pleased to have them with us.

Let’s introduce you to our new starters.

Frankie

With a background covering various areas including construction disputes, shareholders’ disputes, and cross-border commercial conflicts, Frankie has extensive experience in commercial litigation, arbitration and dispute resolution.

Qualified in both England and Wales as well as in Hong Kong, Frankie’s expertise extends across international borders.

Frankie holds a law degree and also a master’s degree on Chinese and Comparative Law. Furthermore, Frankie’s professional journey includes invaluable in-house experience with a major developer, providing insights into corporate dynamics and strategic legal approaches.

Beyond the courtroom and the office, Frankie finds enjoyment on the golf course and in travelling.

Frankie is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Sam

Sam graduated from King’s College London with a second upper class degree in Law and trained at Bloomsbury Law, specialising in immigration, commercial property and residential conveyancing.

He is currently 4 years qualified and largely deals with any general conveyancing matters including second hand properties sales, new-build purchases, mortgages and redemptions as well as some commercial lease renewals.

Sam was born in England but is of Chinese heritage (Hong Kong and China) so is fluent in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. Prior to his training contract, he also worked briefly as a commercial property sales agent, making him particularly commercially minded when it comes to understanding clients’ business needs.

Outside of work, he enjoys playing the guitar and singing to let off some steam. In the coming years he hopes to expand and establish his own conveyancing team.

John

John first studied at the East China University of Political Science and Law where he earned his dual bachelor’s degrees in Law and Cultural Industrial Management.

He then went to the University of Leeds to purse his Master of Laws in International Business Law. After that, he attended King’s College London to complete another Master of Laws in Intellectual Property and Information Law.

Prior to becoming a member of Lisa’s Law, John has experience working as a Paralegal in which he enhanced his legal skills and deepened his motivation to become a qualifying solicitor in the UK.

He is fluent in both English and Chinese Mandarin.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

How can you challenge an unfair service charge as a leaseholder?

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, recently created headlines when he voiced his belief that the law should be changed so that leaseholders should reserve the right to refuse to pay service charges if they believe that they are too high. Many leaseholders have seen their service charges increase substantially in recent times, with the average service charge on a flat in England and Wales now standing at £2,247 per year, a staggering 31% higher than in the first quarter of 2019.

Khan stated, “While many landlords act responsibly, we need stronger rights for leaseholders to act against those who don’t, with new powers of redress and the ability to withhold service charges that simply aren’t justified.” Part of his proposals include the ability for leaseholders to withhold the payment of service charges for payments that have not been provided for in writing, such as in a statement of accounts.

While refusing to pay your service charge is a bad idea, as it could lead to eviction or repossession, leaseholders do have certain rights when it comes to their service charge. One of these rights is the ability to challenge a service charge. But, as a leaseholder, when is it possible to challenge an unfair service charge and how can you do it?

Keep reading to find out.

What is a service charge?

If someone owns a flat then they will share their building with other people. Leaseholders own the flat itself, but they do not own the land it sits on. As a result, the landlord, or freeholder will charge the leaseholder a service charge in return for providing services to a building.

This can cover a wide variety of services such as general maintenance and repairs, buildings insurance, central heating, lifts, lighting, cleaning etc. The payment period for a service charge is generally one year, but payments may have to be made on a more frequent basis.

So, how can you challenge a service charge you believe is unfair? Keep reading to find out.

When can you challenge a service charge?

While there is no limit when it comes to service charges, they must be deemed reasonable. If they are not, then it is possible to challenge them. However, the law does not define ‘reasonable’ in this context.

It is important to note that you do not have to pay for any service charges which are not included in your lease. It is worth double checking your lease to ensure that you are not being charged for anything which is not included in your lease.

The expense also must have been reasonably incurred. If the windows required a repair rather than a complete new replacement, this may not be an example of a reasonable service charge.

The job or service must also have been carried out at a reasonably standard. If some communal tiling starts to come loose after only a few months then this is clearly not an example of a job which was carried out at a reasonable standard.

Finally, if the amount charged for a job or service was not reasonable then this may also be a matter which can be challenged.

How do you challenge a service charge?

As a leaseholder, you have the right to apply to a tribunal to challenge any service charge, or proposed service charge, which you feel is unreasonable. Your landlord can also ask the tribunal if a service charge is reasonable. The cost for applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is fixed at £100 for all applications “to commence proceedings for a determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges” ((Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). The hearing fee is fixed at £200.

If you have already agreed or admitted responsibility for paying the charges then you cannot apply to a tribunal. This also applies in cases where the charges have been decided by a court or tribunal, or by arbitration following a dispute.

If your service charge is due, then in most cases it is advisable to continue to pay it. However, at the same time you can advise your landlord then you will be challenging the charge at a tribunal. If you are successful at a tribunal then the landlord will be forced to repay the amount that you overpaid for.

Our thoughts

Ultimately, if you are unhappy with the way your building is managed then it may not make sense to continue applying to the First-tier Tribunal. An alternative to this is to make a Right to Manage application or to buy the freehold. However, neither of these solutions may be possible if not enough of the flats in the building are let to “qualifying tenants”. When it comes to either buying the freehold or making a Right to Manage application, two thirds of the flats in the block must be let to a ‘qualifying tenant’, also known as a leaseholder.

We previously assisted a group of leaseholders on a dispute regarding the service charge passed on by the landlord for repairs to building parts that were considered structural and should not be included in the service charge. To address such an issue, a detailed investigation into the lease agreement content is necessary. Additionally, obtaining a professional surveyor report on the structural issues that need to be remedied would be beneficial in resolving the dispute effectively.

We also advised on a case where the issue stems from the contractor or subcontractor and the building was constructed with defects. This would indeed be unreasonable and unfair to pass the cost of repairs onto the leaseholder. In such a scenario, leaseholders should not be burdened with costs that are a result of construction defects or contractor negligence.

If your lease contains a forfeiture clause for breach of non-payment of service charge, even though you consider the charge is not reasonable, we will advise against not paying it and risking your lease being forfeited.

Have any further questions? Get in touch with us today.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats increase security procedures to prevent illegal working

The Home Office have announced that three major food delivery companies, Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats are to undertake enhanced security checks to prevent illegal working.

There appears to have been a major increase of illegal working with these companies, with some driver’s accounts being shared by others. Some drivers have taken advantage of the system to avoid completing right to work checks. This relates to those that are not permitted to work, or alternatively, there are some skilled worker visas who use the companies for additional income. This is not permitted under the immigration rules as delivery driver jobs are not an eligible occupation.

The government has made a concerted effort to crack down on illegal working in recent times, with enforcement visits rising by 68% last year and arrests more than doubling. Meanwhile, returns of people who have no right to be in the UK has increased by two-thirds.

Comments by the delivery companies

The three delivery companies have commented on the announcement as follows:

A Deliveroo spokesperson said:

“We take our responsibilities extremely seriously and are committed to strengthening our controls to prevent misuse of our platform.

We are the first major platform to roll out direct right to work checks, a registration process and identity verification technology to ensure that only substitutes with right to work can continue riding on our platform.”

They added, “We will continue to work in close collaboration with the Home Office and leaders in industry to support efforts in this area.”

An Uber Eats spokesperson said:

At Uber Eats we are going to roll out identity verification checks to help ensure only those who legitimately use someone else’s account to earn with us are able to, and we are pleased to be working with government to find a solution.

A Just Eat spokesperson said:

We take our responsibilities on this issue seriously and have high expectations for couriers delivering on our behalf which is why we’re continuing our work together with industry and policymakers to develop a solution which will ensure couriers substituting their work do so in accordance with the law.

The gig economy, which food delivery companies are a major part of, has often resisted regulation of the sector. For instance, efforts by Uber drivers to be classed as workers rather than self-employed contractors were met with great resistance. However, the Supreme Court later held that Uber drivers are workers, granting them a host of new rights.

Ultimately, ensuring that substitute deliver drivers have the right to work in the UK will provide reassurance to both customers and employers.

We at Lisa’s Law will keep you updated on any new developments.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Disability benefits to be overhauled, with “lesser mental health conditions” such as anxiety and depression to be targeted

The government has announced plans to significantly overhaul the way that disability benefits are paid through Personal Independence Payment reform (PIP). As part of the announcement , a consultation has been launched on proposals for moving away from a fixed cash benefit system.

The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has previously voiced his desire to increase the number of people in work, vowing to tackle what he described as Britain’s “sick note culture”. The UK’s out of work population has increased sizably since Covid, with many citing long Covid as a reason for being out of work. Overall, there are currently over 2.6 million people of working age in the UK who are receiving PIP.

There are currently 33,000 new PIP applications which are approved every month, double the number which were being approved prior to the pandemic. The government have claimed that this is partly due to the rise in people who are receiving PIP for mental health conditions including anxiety and depression, with this rising from 2,200 to 5,300 per month since 2019. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mel Stride, has suggested that people who have milder mental health conditions would no longer receive financial support.

But what exactly is PIP, and what reforms are the government proposing? Keep reading to find out more.

What is a Personal Independence Payment?

PIP, which stands for personal independence payment, was introduced in 2013. It replaced Disability Living Allowance, and provides regular payments to working age people for help with living costs which are caused by long-term disabilities or ill health, whether physical or mental. The maximum weekly payment is £184.30 and you are able to claim for PIP whether you have a job or not.

PIP is divided into 2 parts – those who have difficulty in doing everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition. This determines how much money you receive based on the difficulty with which you experience everyday tasks and getting around. It is key to point out that the mobility aspect of PIP is not purely related to physical disability, but also for those who have difficulty getting around because of a cognitive or mental health condition such as anxiety.

The government estimates that PIP will grow by 52% by from 2023/2024 to 2027/2028. It is also expected to cost the taxpayer £28 billion per year by 2028/2029, a 110% increase in spending since 2019.

What reforms to PIP are being proposed by the government?

The main reforms to PIP focus on moving it away from a “one size fits all” fixed cash benefit system. Plans to reform personal independence payments (PIP) will include changes to eligibility criteria and assessments.

. While there will be a 12 week consultation period which closes on 23^rd July, a number of proposals have already been put forward. These include the following:

Changing the qualifying period for PIP to determine if a condition is likely to continue long term
Consider if some people could receive PIP without an assessment based on the support of medical evidence
Looking at whether evidence of a formal diagnosis by a medical expert should be a requirement to be assessed as eligible for PIP
Options being considered include one-off grants for help with significant costs including expensive equipment or home adaptations, as well as giving vouchers towards specific costs
For those receiving PIP with lower or no extra costs, considerations are being made as to whether better access to treatment should be provided instead of cash payments

The government have claimed that these changes are being proposed due to the difference in costs between claimants. However, this does not acknowledge the fact that the current system has been in place since 2013.

Our thoughts

The UK has a productivity issue to go alongside its stagnating economy, and this move is clearly designed to disincentivise more people from claiming PIP due to so-called “lesser mental health conditions” including anxiety and depression.

In combination with Mr Sunak’s previous announcement that the fit note system would be revised by shifting the responsibility for signing people off work from GPs towards “specialist work and health professionals”, it signals a desire to take vast numbers off PIP and reduce those who are signed off work. Whether this will be effective remains to be seen, however many of those affected will question the decision given the lack of effective mental health support in the NHS at present.

We will provide updates on these proposals as and when they arrive. Subscribe to our newsletter for more information about the latest changes in employment law.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Rwanda declared a a safe country by Parliament, paving the way for asylum seekers removals

On the 25th of April 2024, the contentious Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, received Royal Assent and became law. The passing of this bill marks a big step forward for the UK government’s plans to remove asylum seekers to their chosen third country, Rwanda. The government has announced that the preparatory stages of this plan have been established to ensure the first flight to Rwanda will happen in July 2024, with more flights set to follow. Let’s take a look at the Safety of Rwanda Bill and its legal consequences.

The Bill’s passing highlights the government’s ambitious endeavour to vastly reduce immigration figures, while the twists and turns of the Rwanda Deal over the past two years may foreshadow hurdles that the implementation of the bill will encounter.

What is the Rwanda Deal?

First, let’s just recap the Rwanda deal. On 13^th April 2022, former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel announced a 5-year plan for an asylum partnership arrangement between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the Republic of Rwanda. The plan aimed to tackle the issue of small boats crossing the Channel by outsourcing the asylum processing offshore. Boris Johnson, the previous prime minister opined that this scheme would break the business model of ‘vile people smugglers’ and ‘save countless lives’.

The first deportation flight with 7 passengers to Rwanda was arranged on 14^th June 2022. The European Court of Human Rights stepped in last minute to grant an urgent interim measure regarding an Iraqi national on the flight. This decision allowed the remaining six individuals to appeal against their removal orders, seeking to have them revoked. The UK challenged this ECtHR ruling and eventually, the appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on 15^th November 2023, on the grounds that Rwanda is not a safe country, and it would be unlawful for refugees to be removed there.

Twists and Turns of the Rwanda Bill

The UK government did not just stop here. Shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court, the government published an emergency bill declaring Rwanda a safe country, showing their determination to push its migrant deportation scheme to a further step in defiance of the courts. This is an attempt by the UK government to legislate a declaration regarding the facts that are not found by the court.

Many consider the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill itself to be a direct response from the government to the UK Supreme Court’s decision in November 2023, which held that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers due to the risk of refoulement, poor human rights records, and lack of judicial independence. The government defiantly introduced this bill as a means of preventing legal challenges that were placed from stopping or delaying a person’s removal to Rwanda.

After two years of wrangling, the bill designed to prevent small boat crossings in the English Channel finally became law. Tragically, only a few hours after the passing of the Rwanda Bill, French officials stated five people, including a seven-year-old girl, were found dead while trying to cross the English Channel on an overloaded boat with 122 migrants. Two people have now been arrested.

Migration Milestone

The passing of the bill is seen by the government as symbolic of the UK Parliament’s sovereignty and ensures that international law shall leave the Act of Parliament unaffected.

This new law was built upon the treaty between the government of the UK and Rwanda, and is one of the toughest pieces of immigration legislation introduced by the UK government. It confirms that Rwanda is safe on general ground, disapplies much of the Human Rights Act 1998 and holds that only a Minister of the Crown can decide whether to comply with the interim remedies issued by the ECtHR. The law leaves a narrow margin for individuals to challenge their removal decision and ensure the courts interprets the law in agreement with the will of Parliament.

The government has taken steady measures to ensure the operation of the plan. It increased the detention spaces to 2,200 and has 200 well-trained caseworkers and 25 courtrooms to process the claims timely and decisively, with around 800 trained individuals ready to assist the escort.

Once implemented, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will entail the immediate deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda upon their asylum claim and they will not be able to return to the UK. It will also significantly curtail the ability of asylum seekers to challenge their decisions of removal considering the UK has legislated to declare Rwanda as a safe country to protect asylum seekers.

Moreover, it gives no room for the courts to have further doubt about Rwanda’s safety, with or without any evidence.

Step back from the rule of law

Vice-president of the Law Society Richard Atkinson believes this Rwanda Bill is a defective, constitutionally improper piece of legislation. It is disappointing to see that the sensible Lords amendments are ignored. He condemned this bill as a backward step from the rule of law, it sabotages the UK’s constitutional balance and limits access to justice.

The United Nations also expressed their worry given that this legislation empowered the UK government to disregard any protective remedies from the ECtHR. Such precedent lays a further departure of the UK from fulfilling its obligations to Refugee Conventions.

Nevertheless, this bill is not completely bulletproof. While Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 disallows much of its application, Section 4 preserves an option to seek a declaration of incompatibility. This declaration, while not binding, holds political and moral weight and can potentially pave the way for further legal action in ECtHR.

Additionally, when the decision breaches an individual’s ECHR rights, recourse to the ECtHR provides an alternative avenue for challenging the Act’s compliance with ECHR rights. The ECtHR’s independent assessment is not bound by UK legislation or presumptions regarding Rwanda’s safety. However, Sunak stated no ‘foreign court’ will prevent flights from taking off. This would undoubtedly place the UK and the Strasbourg courts in confrontation.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Government backs down on scrapping ground rent – what is the alternative?

We previously brought you the news that the government were planning to bring an end to ground rent following a consultation, with a number of options on the table. A number of news organisations have now reported that Michael Gove’s ambition to reduce ground rent to a peppercorn rate has been blocked by both the Prime Minister and Chancellor. Instead, it looks as though a ground rent cap at a nominal level of £250 per year which is phased out over 20 years will be introduced as a potential compromise.

The Housing Secretary, Michael Gove, had previously stated that among the options, his preference was for ground rent to be reduced to a peppercorn amount. However, it seems that this has turned out to be false hope for leaseholders.

The Sunday Times, who have reported the announcement, revealed that the Housing Secretary’s plans to reduce ground rent to a peppercorn rate for existing leaseholds has been watered down due to lobbying from investors and pension funds which own many of the freeholds. These have traditionally been seen as a safe way of providing a steady income over time for pension funds. Opponents of the legislation have also argued that it would make investing in freeholds less attractive in the future.

Following a consultation on ground rent which we covered in a previous article here, analysis by The Treasury found that the financial impact of reducing ground rents to a peppercorn rate would cost in the range of somewhere between £15bn and £40bn. Many freeholders had reacted to the consultation by stating that without having a regular income from ground rent, many of them may be forced to exit the market.

The ground rent cap alternative

A ground rent cap of £250 per year may not have been the preferred choice of campaigners for leasehold reform, however many will be encouraged by progress on this area. This will ensure that ground rent is capped at a more managed number than had often been occurring previously. Despite this, the 20 year period mentioned in the briefings to the press will have the air of scrapping ground rent completely being ‘kicked into the long grass’.

A spokesperson for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has previously added: “It is not fair that many leaseholders face unregulated ground rents for no guaranteed service in return, and we remain committed to reducing ground rents to a peppercorn as set out in our 2019 manifesto.

“We recently consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents for existing residential leases, and we are carefully considering the responses before we make an announcement in due course.”

Solicitor’s thoughts

The backlash may be due to concerns that legislating to cap ground rents may expose the government to legal challenges, as it could conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights and English property ownership laws. The approach of disallowing something that was previously part of a contractual agreement is noted as a more direct method compared to past government actions involving asset expropriation through taxation. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, potential legal challenges may be predicted to be brought up.

What ground rent proposals were previously put forward?

A number of proposals were put forward in the consultation entitled Modern leasehold: restricting ground rent for existing leases. These include the following:

setting ground rents at a peppercorn
putting in place a maximum financial value which ground rents could never exceed
capping ground rents at a percentage of the property value
limiting ground rent in existing leases to the original amount when the lease was granted
freezing ground rent at current levels

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is currently making its way through Parliament, and is currently at the committee stage in the House of Lords. There are an estimated 4.98 million leasehold properties in England according to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This makes up approximately 20% of the English housing stock overall.

Further communication about the exact proposal for ground rents under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is expected this week. This will confirm whether the proposed ground rent cap will indeed be introduced. Stay tuned and subscribe to our newsletter for further updates.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

James Cook

See Full Bio

The Innovator Founder Visa – a guide for applicants

The UK has a rich entrepreneurial spirit, with the likes of Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, and James Dyson all household names from the UK. It also has a proud history of welcoming immigrants to its shores, many of whom have founded successful businesses, whether locally or at a national level. The Innovator Founder Visa is designed to attract the best and the brightest to the UK by encouraging start-up entrepreneurs and experienced business people to establish their new business here.

Formally known as the Innovator visa, the Innovator Founder Visa gives far more flexibility to innovators while retaining the requirement for an innovative business idea with sufficient funds to deliver on it.

Let’s take a look at the requirements of the Innovator Founder Visa.

Basic eligibility requirements

Firstly, the basics. The Innovator Founder Visa is a specialised type of visa as the innovative business you must set up and run in the UK must be one which is different from anything else on the market.

The creation of an Innovator Founder visa business plan will play a crucial role in determining whether you gain their endorsement. The business plan must demonstrate that your business has potential for growth and be scalable – meaning that you must give evidence that your business will create jobs and have the potential for growing into national and international markets.

You also need an endorsing body to assess your business under the above requirements. These include the following organisations:

Innovator International
Envestors Limited
UK Endorsement Services (UKES)
The Global Entrepreneurs Programme (GEP)

It is also vital that you are able to speak, read, write and understand English. You may be asked to prove this, however if you are a national of one of the following countries then it won’t be required.

Financial requirements

You must have the funds to support yourself, as well any dependents while you are in the UK. This means that before you apply, extend or switch to an Innovator Founder visa, you must have had at least £1270 in your bank account for 28 consecutive days. If you have a partner, this is an additional £285. For a child, it’s £315. For every additional child, it’s an extra £200 for each child.

When it comes to extending or switching, this requirement is only necessary if you have been in the UK for less than a year.

As of June 2025, the current fee for an Innovator Founder Visa is £1,274 if you are applying from outside the UK. If you are applying from within the UK by switching from another category, the fee will be £1,590.

How long will your visa last?

The initial period your Innovator Founder visa will be valid for is 3 years. However, it is possible to extend it for 3 years at a time subject to you meeting the requirements. After 3 years, it is possible to apply for indefinite leave to remain as an Innovator Founder.

What documents will you need to provide?

Like all visa route, a number of documents must be provided. These include:

An endorsement letter from one of the endorsing bodies listed above
A valid passport, or another type of document which shows your nationality or identity
Bank statements showing at least £1270 in your bank account for 28 consecutive days before applying
Proof of your English language proficiency
Your tuberculosis test results must also be provided if you are from a country where you must take the test

How can you apply from outside the UK?

To apply for an Innovator Founder visa from outside the UK, you must apply online and have the above documents with you.

You must also prove your identity. The manner in which you can do this will depend on the country you are from and the type of passport that you have.

To get a biometric residence permit, you will either need to:

Have your biometrics (fingerprints and photograph) taken at a visa application centre
Or, you can use the UK Immigration: ID Check app to scan your identity document by create or signing into the UK Visas and Immigration account

How long does a decision take?

After applying online, providing documents, and proving your identity, a decision will usually be given within 3 weeks. If it will take longer, then you will be contacted about the reason why.

You may be able to get a faster decision using the priority or the super priority service. Priority will provide a decision within five working days, while super priority will provide a decision by the end of the next working day. This will be extended to 2 working days after if your appointment or document submission is at the weekend or on a bank holiday. This will cost an extra £500 for priority and an extra £1000 for super priority respectively.

Want to switch to an Innovator Founder Visa?

Much of the above applies if you wish to switch to an Innovator Founder Visa from another type of visa. However, there are a number of visas you cannot switch from. These include:

Visit visa
Short-term student visa
Parent of a Child Student visa
Seasonal worker visa
Domestic worker in a private household visa
Immigration bail
Permission to stay outside the immigration rules, such as on compassionate grounds

When switching to an Innovator Founder Visa, you will usually get a decision within 8 weeks of your application date.

Looking to apply for an innovator founder visa? Contact us today and we will be happy to help as well as answer any additional questions.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Have a question? Our friendly and experienced team are here to help.

Subscribe to our newsletter

We post weekly articles covering a variety of topics, including immigration, property, and more, so subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.