Brook House Inquiry Findings – Part 2

This article is part two of our in depth look at the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, following our previous article last week. In this piece, we will highlight the remaining recommendations made by the Chair of the Inquiry, Kate Eves.

We will also examine what steps the Home Office has taken to address the issues identified in the report, with a particular focus on safeguarding and oversight. Finally, we will also give our opinion on the recommendations made in the report.

For an overview of the Brook House Inquiry, and the first half of Kate Eve’s recommendations, see part 1 of our article here.

For now, keep reading for the second half of Eve’s recommendations below.

Brook House Inquiry recommendations

Recommendation 17: Urgent improvement of use of force reviews

The Home Office must ensure, as a matter of urgency, that training is delivered on how to conduct an effective use of force incident debrief, ensuring that issues of detained person and staff welfare, as well as training needs, are covered. The training must be mandatory for all immigration removal centre contractor employees who conduct such reviews and those who manage them.

The Home Office must also require that use of force incidents be reviewed, at a minimum, at the following levels:

Within 36 hours of each use of force incident, the Use of Force Coordinator must conduct a thorough incident review, ensuring that all documentation and footage are collated and preserved, and with a view to taking emergency action in instances of unlawful or inappropriate force. On a weekly basis, all use of force incidents must be reviewed (including all necessary paperwork and available video footage) at a formal meeting by the Use of Force Coordinator and a suitable manager in order to review each incident and to identify any issues or further action required.
On a monthly basis, immigration removal centre contractor senior management must arrange meetings with other stakeholders (including detained people and representatives of non-governmental organisations) to review use of force trends.
Periodically, the Home Office (or its Professional Standards Unit if the Home Office considers it more appropriate) must review use of force at Brook House and across the immigration detention estate, to identify trends and to direct the implementation of any changes and improvements that are required.

This review process must be reflected in the new detention services order regarding the use of force – see Recommendation 15 – in respect of which additional, regular (at least annual) training must then be provided.

Recommendation 18: Urgent guidance in relation to food and fluid refusal

The Home Office must, as a matter of urgency, update Detention Services Order 03/2017: Care and Management of Detained Individuals Refusing Food and/or Fluid, to ensure that it deals with:

food and fluid refusal being clearly and directly linked to consideration of the Rule 35 process and whether a detained person is defined as an ‘adult at risk’;
the consideration by the healthcare provider at each immigration removal centre, upon an incidence of food and fluid refusal occurring, of assessments of mental capacity, of mental state, and under Rule 35, and the conduct of these where indicated, as well as ensuring compliance with Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy and making sure that decisions made in relation to these are recorded;
the notification to the Home Office of the numbers of detained people refusing food and fluid, and the reasons for such refusal, on a monthly basis (in the same way that incidents of self-harm are notified); and
the monitoring by the Home Office of the compliance by healthcare providers with Detention Services Order 03/2017 and the numbers of detained people refusing food and fluid, and the reasons for such refusal, in order to identify any patterns of concern and take appropriate action.

The Home Office must ensure that mandatory training about the application of the updated detention services order takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for all detention staff and healthcare staff, as well as those responsible for managing them. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

In anticipation of the update to Detention Services Order 03/2017, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to communicate this clarification to those operating immigration detention centres.

Recommendation 19: Guidance and training for healthcare staff on the use of force

The Home Office must ensure that guidance is issued to healthcare staff in immigration removal centres clarifying their role in use of force incidents. It must liaise as necessary with NHS England and any relevant medical regulators.

The Home Office must ensure that mandatory training is introduced for healthcare staff, and those responsible for managing them, on their roles and responsibilities in relation to planned and unplanned use of force (liaising with NHS England and any other relevant parties). The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 20: Updating guidance regarding ‘fit to fly and fit for detention’ letters

The Home Office must review and update Detention Services Order 01/2016: The Protection, Use and Sharing of Medical Information Relating to People Detained Under Immigration Powers, to ensure that guidance given to GPs working in the immigration detention estate in relation to their duties and responsibilities in writing ‘fit to fly and fit for detention’ letters is clear. It must liaise with NHS England and any relevant medical regulators as necessary.

The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for GPs working in the immigration detention estate and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment. The Home Office must monitor compliance with this updated guidance at least annually.

Recommendation 21: Ensuring effective communication of medical information

The Home Office must review and update Detention Services Order 04/2020: Mental Vulnerability and Immigration Detention: Non-Clinical Guidance to set out comprehensive guidance for detention and healthcare staff where there are concerns that a detained person is suffering mental ill health or lacks mental capacity. This must include an appropriate system for:

the routine handover or sharing of relevant information between detention custody staff and healthcare staff (for example, in Security Information Reports and Anti-Bullying Support Plans); ● the identification and follow-up of missed medical appointments; ● the assessment of mental capacity where indicated; and
mental health assessment where indicated. The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for detention and healthcare staff, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 22: Improving the handling and audit of healthcare complaints

The Home Office must review and update Detention Services Order 03/2015: Handling of Complaints to ensure that appropriate guidance is given to healthcare providers on the investigation and handling of complaints specific to the provision of healthcare in an immigration detention setting.

The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for staff dealing with healthcare complaints, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Healthcare providers in immigration removal centres must ensure that all healthcare complaints are robustly investigated in accordance with the updated guidance. The methodology and outcomes must be clearly communicated, including to the detained person. They must also ensure that appropriate, regular (at least annual) training and guidance is provided to those holding responsibility for the investigation of healthcare complaints.

Recommendation 23: Ongoing assessment of staffing levels

The Home Office and contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that there is ongoing assessment of staffing levels (at least on a quarterly basis), so that the level of staff present within each centre is appropriate for the size and needs of the detained population.

The Home Office must also ensure that the detained population does not increase at any immigration centre unless staffing is at an adequate level.

Recommendation 24: Mandatory training for immigration removal centre staff

The Home Office, in conjunction with contractors, must ensure that all relevant immigration removal centre staff receive mandatory introductory and annual training on:

mental health;
race and diversity;
a trauma-informed approach;
their own resilience;
drug awareness; and
the purpose of immigration removal centres.

This training must include the perspectives of, or be conducted in consultation with, detained people.

The Home Office must also ensure, in conjunction with contractors, that new joiners must start on probation on completion of introductory training and be adequately supervised for a period of time as necessary to establish their competence to work independently.

Recommendation 25: Improving the visibility of senior managers within centres

Contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that senior managers are regularly present and visible within the immigration removal centre and are accessible to more junior detention staff.

Recommendation 26: Improving the visibility of Home Office staff

The Home Office must ensure that its staff are regularly present and visible within each immigration removal centre.

Recommendation 27: Developing a healthy culture among staff

Contractors operating immigration removal centres must develop and implement an action plan to ensure a safe and healthy staff culture in immigration removal centres. The action plan must address:

the identification of and response to any sign of desensitisation among staff;
training staff on coping mechanisms and secondary trauma awareness; and
maintaining an appropriate balance between care and safety or security. The Home Office must regularly monitor each contractor’s compliance with their action plans.

Recommendation 28: Action to address barriers to making complaints

The Home Office and its contractors operating immigration removal centres must take steps to identify and address the barriers to making complaints that are faced by detained people, including a fear of repercussions. This must include training for staff on their role in enabling detained people to overcome these barriers.

Recommendation 29: Improving investigations by the Home Office Professional Standards Unit

The Home Office must update Detention Services Order 03/2015: Handling of Complaints to clarify that, in investigations carried out by the Professional Standards Unit into allegations of serious misconduct against contractor staff:

Professional Standards Unit investigators must carry out interviews themselves and not rely on contractors to do so.
All staff against whom allegations are made must be invited to interview.
Where there are inconsistencies between any accounts given of events, any evidence relating to those accounts (including footage and documentation) obtained by an investigating officer must be shown to the complainant and to the subject of the complaint, prior to reaching a conclusion.
The Professional Standards Unit must be given information about previous complaints made against alleged perpetrators, including unsubstantiated complaints.
Previous disciplinary action against alleged perpetrators must be taken into account.
Investigators must look for evidence that is both supportive and undermining of the complaint.
Full reports must be sent to complainants (and their solicitors if applicable).
Investigation reports and/or outcome letters must be sent directly from the PSU to complainants (and their solicitors if applicable).

The Home Office Professional Standards Unit must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for staff dealing with investigations, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment. The Professional Standards Unit must also review the training provided to investigators and ensure that investigators receive regular and adequate training, from a variety of perspectives, on issues including:

the nature of immigration removal centres and issues that may arise;
obstacles that detained people may face in making complaints;
interviewing vulnerable witnesses; and
use of force and assessing reasonableness of force.

Recommendation 30: Improving the independence of the Home Office Professional Standards Unit

The Home Office must:

take steps to enhance the independence of the Professional Standards Unit from the Home Office and the perception of this independence; and
increase the seniority of the Head of the Professional Standards Unit so that they are closer in status to the Heads of the relevant Home Office Immigration Enforcement teams.

Recommendation 31: Improving the process for and response to whistleblowing

The Home Office must update Detention Services Order 03/2020: Whistleblowing – The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to require contractors that run immigration removal centres to:

have a whistleblowing policy and procedure that is specific to the immigration detention environment;
ensure that the whistleblowing mechanism is not limited to a hotline and allows for anonymous reporting of concerns;
ensure that those who receive whistleblowing concerns have an understanding of immigration removal centres;
take active steps to encourage staff to use whistleblowing processes, for reasons including those set out at paragraph 10 of Detention Services Order 03/2020; and
ensure that whistleblowing concerns are investigated thoroughly by someone external to the immigration removal centre, and that the Home Office is informed of the nature of the concern and the investigation carried out.

The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for staff dealing with whistleblowing, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 32: Enhancing the role of the Independent Monitoring Boards

The government must:

respond to and publish responses to all concerns raised by any Independent Monitoring Board regarding immigration removal centres;
take steps without further delay to amend the Detention Centre Rules 2001, in so far as they govern Independent Monitoring Boards, in order to accurately reflect their current role; and
consider whether to put the National Chair and Management Board of the Independent Monitoring Boards on a statutory footing.

Recommendation 33: Improving the investigation and reporting of HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards

HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards working within immigration removal centres must ensure that they have robust processes for:

obtaining and reporting on an enhanced range of evidence and intelligence from detained people and those who represent or support them, staff and contractors, including that which is received outside of inspections or visits; and
reporting on any concerns about the Home Office and contractors.

The reforms since Brook House abuse in 2017

The Home Office have stated that they have introduced reforms in IRC in the UK since 2017, including:

Improved and rigorous training for all IRC staff on the use of force, with regular monitoring and reviews on staff and providers’ training.
Introducing the Home Office Detention Gatekeeper to independently assess the suitability of those referred for detention.
Case Progression Panels to consider whether continuing detention is appropriate, including independent panel members.
More Home Office staff in IRCs, and a higher ratio of provider staff to detained individuals.
Putting an immediate stop to three people occupying rooms designed for two.
Reinforcing the use of whistleblowing mechanisms.
Rigorous oversight of our contractors ensuring any complaints, incidents or use of force are properly investigated by senior managers.
Improved training and support for staff working with vulnerable people.

The Home Office have expressed that they have implemented steps across IRC to improve oversight of providers. They also stated that they closely monitor performance of their providers across IRCs and accept nothing but the highest standards. From Brook House’s Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) in 2022, it was expressed that residents at Brook House were generally within a safe environment, suggesting that standards have improved since the report was commissioned.

The IMB went on to say that there had been a general improvement in governance and monitoring of safeguarding, with more attention to detail in management of the use of force.

What safeguarding and oversight measures are in place at the Home Office?

The Home Office have stated that there are robust safeguarding measures in place to ensure anyone in IRC is treated with dignity and has access to the support they need.

The Home Office went on to express that all IRCs have dedicated health facilities run by doctors and nurses commissioned by NHS England and delivered to the equivalent standards as community health services.

The Home Office have stated that they have dedicated welfare teams in all sites who can promptly deal with any instances of mental health or illness.

The Home Office have expressed that staff at all IRC are trained to identify and prevent the risk of suicide and self-harm. Notices in various languages are displayed in all IRC, to encourage any concerns about a fellow detained person to be brought to the attention of a member of staff. The staff are rigorously trained to ensure the safety of residents, including on the appropriate use of force.

The Home Office have stated that force must only be used as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time. Physical force will be used only after a thorough risk assessment and in consideration of an individual’s personal circumstances.

Our Solicitor’s thoughts

I do think recommendations by Kate Eves are good enough to tackle issues outlined in the Brook House Inquiry. Hopefully we will see positive changes to how all IRCs are run.

However, I have always felt, and still believe following the Brook House Inquiry, that detention is not appropriate to maintaining immigration controls by removing those who have no right to remain in the UK. I have always felt that there are other alternatives to detention such as the enforcement of reasonable and regular reporting to an immigration officer.

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Trust assets – how do I protect them following a divorce?

Trust assets in divorce proceedings are an increasingly common issue in family law cases. In divorce proceedings, if you or your spouse are beneficiaries of a trust and are entitled to capital or income from the trust, this is likely to be considered a financial resource. As a result, it will be financially considered by the court in remedial proceedings.

If you or your spouse have a beneficial interest in the trust, you need to disclose it in your divorce proceedings even if you are not technically the owner of the trust assets. Courts have power over trust assets, so it is important from the outset of divorce proceedings to determine how the court might deal with related trust issues, and what steps you might take to protect or challenge the trust.

Keep reading to learn more about how trusts assets can be protected in the event of a divorce.

What is a trust?

When dealing with trusts, it is important to understand the nature of the trust, the status of the settlor, the responsibilities of the trustee and the rights of the beneficiaries. In a nutshell, a trust is a fiduciary relationship in which the trust is usually an asset provided by the settlor, which can be money, real estate, or a property.

These assets are legally owned by a “trustee”. A trustee is a person who holds the assets for the purposes of those beneficiaries who are specified in the trust. These beneficiaries are often children.

In the UK, there are many types of trusts. Some are relatively self-explanatory, while others are more complex in nature. Common types of trusts include the following:

1. Declarations of Trust, which provide that a third party other than the legal owner of the property has an interest in the property

2. Life Interest Trusts, which specify that a specific person will live in a property throughout their lifetime

3. Discretionary Trusts, which allow the trustee to make certain decisions about how to distribute trust income and sometimes capital

4. Other trusts, such as offshore trusts are created abroad and allow individuals to avoid UK tax on assets

Why should you establish a trust?

There are many reasons why a couple may establish a trust jointly or separately during their marriage, including:

1. To avoid or manage taxes

2. To invest in inherited assets

3. To protect the wealth of future generations

4. Beneficial interest in third party property; or

5. Provide discretionary income or capital for one or more classes of beneficiaries

Solicitor Xinlei Zhang explains:

The most common scenario in the cases we deal with is that couples set up a trust to protect their assets from falling into the marriage pool. They may put assets (money or property) into a trust in order to benefit specific beneficiaries (such as children or siblings).

For example, Mr. A and Ms. B are about to get married, and they both have children with their ex-husbands or ex-wife. They hold property and savings in their own names in order to protect and keep their respective assets. They also put certain assets into a trust with their respective children as beneficiaries.

That said, setting up a trust is certainly an effective way to manage and control their personal wealth through the peculiarities of the trust structure. However, the timing and nature of the creation of these trusts should be considered between husband and wife, otherwise the court has the power to change the original trust deed.

How do courts deal with trust assets when it comes to divorce proceedings?

In line with section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the court has a duty to take into account all available assets and resources of the parties and has broad and varied powers to make orders to achieve a fair outcome in each case. That is, regardless of your situation, the court will have the power to order changes to the settlement if necessary to safeguard the interests of your spouse or civil partner, including orders to provide funds or income for your spouse or family children, removals of a Trustee’s order, etc.

Generally, when courts are faced with disputes involving trusts, they are aware of the complexities of trusts. This includes reviewing the trust deed and the history of how the beneficiaries benefited from the trust.

In summary, courts need to ensure that a fair distribution of finances is achieved between spouses to determine which assets are available to each party. This allows the Court the power to vary nuptial settlements in line with property/trust law to demonstrate whether a trust is a sham trust. This is a trust which is set up to prevent one of the spouses from claiming the right to assets.

What issues will the court consider?

In general, in a divorce, if a spouse has a fiduciary interest, the court may be asked to consider several issues. For example:

Is a trust a financial resource for a spouse?
Is the trust a matrimonial trust that can be varied by the court?
Finally, is the trust valid, false and/or should the funds put into the trust be revoked?

While the majority of trusts are genuine, sham trusts are set up for the purpose of protecting assets which would otherwise be considered matrimonial. While it can be difficult to prove whether a trust is a sham, proving so means that these assets will be taken into account.

If the court decides that the trust is matrimonial, the court has very broad powers. The court can order:

A change of beneficiaries to allow the court to provide reserves to each spouse through a trust;
Change of the trustee and appointing of a new trustee, which helps ensure that both spouses are treated fairly; or
The transfer of assets out of the trust to allow the non-beneficiary spouse to receive the assets directly as part of the divorce settlement rather than continuing to participate in the trust.

If your ex-partner is the beneficiary of a trust, what happens after divorce?

Most often in a marriage, your ex-husband or ex-wife is the beneficiary of a trust set up by their parents or someone else. At the time of their marriage, the couple may have benefitted from the trust for many years. Following a divorce, you and your ex-partner’s trust would no longer be relevant because you legally no longer have any direct relationship with the beneficiaries.

However, that doesn’t mean you can’t benefit from the trust at all. In such a case, the court will use its power to review from a fairness perspective what the trust has done to the family before the divorce. For example, if a couple benefits from trust assets every month and are living the high life, after divorce, the court may also believe that one of them should be able to maintain such a lifestyle to avoid a change of lifestyle.

The case of Whaley v Whaley [2011] is a typical case. The judge in the case ruled that trust assets held in a trust created by the husband’s father could be considered as part of the marital assets in a divorce. Even though the wife is not a beneficiary of the trust, the court held that because the husband has the ability to direct the trustee which distributions to make, the trust assets are actually part of his resources and can be taken into account. The wife then gets a portion of the trust assets.

How can assets be protected following a divorce?

If the trust was created before your marriage, the court’s treatment will depend on the history of the trust. Even if the trust was created before you got married, it may include your spouse in the beneficiary category. This would make it a “marriage settlement” that can vary.

If not, the court’s approach will depend on the course of the transaction, and it will be necessary to look at who has benefited from the trust in the past, to what extent, and how it is enforced.

The judge will need to conduct a detailed analysis of the trust documents, assess your availability to the trust assets and treat the trust assets as a financial resource if it believes you are trying to stay away from your true wealth so your spouse/civil partner can assets to file a claim.

Whether you are the beneficiary or the settlor, the most important thing is to separate it from the marital property. This means that absolutely no marital property is involved, including funds and property. It is affected by the parties involved as the court will have to take into account the financial stability of both parties as well as other factors such as –

The financial responsibility of each party, for example, children
Age of parties
Any form of disability, physical or mental
Contribution to the family, financial or otherwise
Length of marriage.

Solicitor Xinlei Zhang: “the legal process for divorce is complicated, and either spouse in the broken marriage should seek legal advice. Divorce cases can become more complicated when assets in a marriage involve trusts. Given the complex nature of trusts, getting legal advice is even more important.”

If you want to protect your property by setting up a trust, or you have a trust involved in the division of your divorce property, please consult Lisa Lawyers immediately. We can provide you with advice and assistance to help you solve the problem.

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Council at fault for ignoring woman’s nuisance complaints against restaurant

Nuisance complaints are a surprisingly common occurrence. While there are no statistics for general nuisance complaints, there were a total of 356,367 noise complaints recorded by local authorities in 2020/2021, giving an idea of just how many complaints councils receive in general.

The case we will be discussing today doesn’t exclusively focus on a noise complaint. Instead, it relates a general nuisance complaint regarding noise, smells, chemical drainage into a garden, and excess waste by a restaurant.

A woman who had suffered for years from nuisance caused by a nearby restaurant has received over £3000 from Brentwood Council. This decision comes prior to further investigations and enforcement action.

The woman impacted, referred to as Ms X, was a Brentwood homeowner who had made several nuisance complaints to the council regarding the above going back as far as 2018. The restaurant itself had opened in 2017.

As well as being unable to enjoy her home and garden, her health had also been affected by the restaurant’s practises.

What was the restaurant accused of being in breach of?

According to Ms X, the restaurant was in breach of the following:

Business licence conditions
Failure to comply with a planning condition, as well as continuing to complete further developments without planning permission
Causing the woman significant issues due to the breaches and nuisances

Following Ms X’s complaints, the council finally decided to investigate the woman’s concerns by visiting the restaurant. However, much to her dismay, the council decided that there were no statutory noise nuisances being committed by the restaurant in question. The council had visited the restaurant when it wasn’t busy, leading Ms X to ask them to return at a time that it was actually busy.

What happened next?

Following the council’s failure to take any action against the restaurant, bar speaking to them about drainage issues and licence condition breaches, Ms X made a formal complaint.

However, this was also to no avail, with the council deciding there was no evidence of statutory noise or smell nuisance and that there had been no failings in its planning process.

Further attempts to report the nuisance complaints and escalate also ended in failure, leading her to bring her concerns to the Ombudsman in September 2022 while continuing to make regular reports to the council.

This step finally resulted in some decisive action in favour of the woman, with the Ombudsman deciding following an investigation that the council had failed to:

consider the powers available to it to enforce the boundary screening it set as a planning condition in 2017, in good time;
consider in good time the retrospective planning applications made in 2021;
to consider the various nuisances Ms X reported via its environmental health enforcement and statutory nuisance procedures;
communicate with Ms X or respond properly to her complaint; and
have due regard to Ms X’s human rights under The First Protocol, Article 1, which entitles her to peaceful enjoyment of her home and land.

The Ombudsman also decided that the council was at fault for causing Ms X “avoidable distress, and time and trouble.” They also concluded that there remains uncertainty for Ms X about how things may have been different for her had the Council acted without fault, and this uncertainty caused her distress.”

What were the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s decision?

The Ombudsman gave the Council a deadline of three months to confirm what action it has taken or will take as a result of the report.

The Council has agreed that they will:

Pay Ms X a total of £3,450
Apologise to Ms X for their faults and the impact the faults had on her
Create an action plan for investigating all outstanding planning, environmental health, and licensing issues without delay

The ombudsman also tasked the Council with reviewing its process for collaborative working between its environmental health, licencing and planning teams, as well as to review its environmental health enforcement and statutory nuisance policies.

Our comments

This case provides a real lesson to businesses on the danger of causing nuisance to the general public. While it may be tempting to ignore small issues if it seems like they can merely be dismissed, it is usually better to stop them at the source by engaging with the nuisance complaints. This can save businesses costs further down the line and also prevent any potential legal action being taken against them. We gave some advice regarding what businesses should do to deal with noise complaints here.

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today.

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Brook House Inquiry – what were the findings? Part 1.

By Victor Falcon Mmegwa

This article is a more detailed follow up to our instant report on 19^th September about the Home Office response to the Brook House Inquiry. In this article, we will go into more detail about the Inquiry, as well as take a look at some of the recommendations made by Kate Eves, the Chair of the Brook House Inquiry. Stay tuned for part 2, which will look at the remainder of the recommendations made by Eves.

In their response to the inquiry, the Home Office confirmed that the abuse that took place at Brook House in 2017 was unacceptable.

The Home Office went on to say that they have made significant improvements since 2017 to uphold the welfare and dignity of those detained. This includes strengthening safeguards, promoting a culture of transparency and improving the oversight of contractors’ performance.

The Home Office stated that they remain committed to ensuring safety and security in all Immigration Removal Centres and to learn the lessons from Brook House to ensure these events never happen again.

A report published on 19 September 2023 by Kate Eves presented the results of a full investigation into the mistreatment of detainees at Brook House immigration removal centre (IRC). This was initiated by a BBC Panorama programme which was broadcasted in 2017 and saw an investigation take place between 1 April 2017 and 31 August 2017 at the IRC Brook House. At the time, the IRC was operated by the private contractor G4S.

The report disclosed a “toxic” culture at the IRC, with evidence that detainees suffered mistreatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It was described that IRC Brook House was prison-like and unsuitable for detaining people. Staff used force inappropriately, as well as dehumanising, abusive, racist and derogatory language. The report also disclosed that the management was dysfunctional.

The Brook House Inquiry has exposed the inexcusable and immoral abuse of vulnerable people held in IRC by the Home Office. The Inquiry found the safeguarding system in IRC to be dysfunctional resulting in a failure to protect detained people as intended. The Inquiry disclosed that vulnerable people were exposed to the risk of mistreatment and were subjected to actual harm. There were 19 incidents of credible breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment within a 5-month period.

Detained people were found to have been allowed to deteriorate in their mental and physical health. Such failures were found to be connected with the inappropriate use of segregation and a quick resort to the use of force to manage incidents of self-harm and mental health crises. The Inquiry expressed that healthcare failures put vulnerable people at risk of deteriorating in their health, and example of mistreatment.

Kate Eves made a number of important recommendations on the IRC in general, including the introduction of a 28-day time limit.

Kate Eves recommendations

Recommendation 1: Robust monitoring of contract performance

The Home Office must actively and robustly monitor the performance of the Brook House contract, including satisfying itself that any self-reported information is accurate. This may include engagement with monitoring bodies and appropriate stakeholders. Penalties must be attached to inadequate self-reporting.

Recommendation 2: Contractual term requiring compliance with the overriding purpose of Rule 3 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must ensure that each contract for the management of an immigration removal centre must expressly require compliance with the overriding purpose of Rule 3, which is to provide “the secure but humane accommodation of detained persons in a relaxed regime with as much freedom of movement and association as possible, consistent with maintaining a safe and secure environment, and to encourage and assist detained persons to make the most productive use of their time, whilst respecting in particular their dignity and the right to individual expression”. The provisions and operation of each contract must be consistent with and uphold the requirements of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy and the safeguards contained in detention services orders (including those concerning the use of force).

Recommendation 3: Limit on cell sharing

The Home Office must ensure that a maximum of two detained people are accommodated in each cell at Brook House

Recommendation 4: Ensuring computer and internet access

The Home Office and its contractors must ensure reasonable access to computers and the internet. Contractors must comply in full with Detention Services Order 04/2016: Detainee Access to the Internet, in particular:

Computers and the internet provided for detained people’s use must be maintained and fixed, if broken, within a reasonable time period, in order to allow detained people to access the internet for a minimum of seven hours per day, seven days per week.
Websites containing personal internet-based email accounts must not be blocked, since this is not a prohibited category of website.
Websites facilitating the provision of legal advice and representation must not be blocked, as this is not a prohibited category of website.

Recommendation 5: Undertaking and complying with cell‑sharing risk assessment

The Home Office must ensure that adequate risk assessment for cell sharing is carried out by contractors in relation to every detained person. This must be done at the outset of detention and then repeated at reasonable intervals (at least every 14 days) or following any relevant change in circumstances. In the event that an immigration removal centre is unable to detain someone in accordance with the outcome of a risk assessment (due to capacity or for other reasons), the Home Office must ensure that the individual does not remain at that centre.

Recommendation 6: Review of the lock-in regime

The Home Office, in consultation with the contractor responsible for operating each immigration removal centre, must review the current lockin regime and determine whether the period of time during which detained people are locked in their cells could be reduced. The Inquiry does not consider cost alone to be a sufficient justification for extensive lock-in periods.

Recommendation 7: A time limit on detention

The government must introduce in legislation a maximum 28-day time limit on any individual’s detention within an immigration removal centre.

Recommendation 8: Mandatory training on Rule 34 and Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office (in collaboration with NHS England as required) must ensure that comprehensive training on Rule 34 and Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 is rolled out urgently across the immigration detention estate. Staff must be subject to refresher training, at least annually. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them, as well as GPs and relevant Home Office staff. Consideration must be given as to whether such training should be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 9: Review of the operation of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must, across the immigration detention estate, assure itself that all three limbs of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (reports by a medical practitioner where: (i) it is likely that a detained person’s health would be injuriously affected by continued detention (Rule 35(1)); (ii) it is suspected that a detained person has suicidal intentions (Rule 35(2)); or (iii) there is a concern that a detained person may have been a victim of torture (Rule 35(3))) are being followed, are operating effectively and are adequately resourced, in recognition of the key safeguarding role that the Rule plays. The Home Office must also regularly audit the use of Rule 35 in order to identify trends, any training needs and required improvements.

Recommendation 10: Clarification on the use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must amend, as a matter of urgency, Detention Services Order 02/2017: Removal from Association (Detention Centre Rule 40) and Temporary Confinement (Detention Centre Rule 42) and, if necessary, the Detention Services Operating Standards Manual for Immigration Service Removal Centres, to clarify who can authorise use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, in both urgent and non-urgent circumstances, including providing a definition of the term ‘manager’ in Rule 40(2) and Rule 42(2). In anticipation of the update to Detention Services Order 02/2017, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to communicate this clarification to staff and contractors operating immigration detention centres.

Recommendation 12: Training in relation to Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office and contractors operating immigration removal centres must provide regular training, at least annually, on the operation of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, which must include:

that Rules 40 and 42 are the only powers under which detained people in immigration removal centres can be removed from association and/or located in temporary confinement;
who is permitted to authorise use of those Rules and in what circumstances they may be authorised;
that Rules 40 and 42 cannot be used as a punishment or solely for administrative convenience before a planned removal or transfer; and
the need to assess any adverse effect that use of Rule 40 or Rule 42 could have on a detained person’s physical or mental health, and to consider any steps that could be taken to mitigate those effects. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 13: Audit of use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must regularly (and at least quarterly) audit the use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 across the immigration detention estate, in order to identify trends, any training needs and required improvements. In addition, HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the National Chair and Management Board of Independent Monitoring Boards must review processes to consider how they fulfil their oversight role in respect of Rule 40 and Rule 42, and report on the monitoring of the use of Rules 40 and 42 going forward.

Recommendation 14: Handcuffing behind backs while seated

The Home Office and contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that all staff are aware that the technique of handcuffing detained people with their hands behind their back while seated is not permitted, given its association with positional asphyxia.

Recommendation 15: A new detention services order about the use of force

The Home Office must introduce, as a matter of urgency, a new and comprehensive detention services order to address use of force in immigration removal centres. The detention services order must include the following issues:

the permissible justifications for the use of force within immigration removal centres, based on the key principle that force must not be used unnecessarily and must be used only as a last resort;
the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including that it must be subject to a dynamic risk assessment before and during any use of force incident;
the protection of dignity when force is used on a naked or near-naked detained person;
the circumstances in which force can be used against a detained person with mental ill health; and
monitoring, oversight and reporting of use of force by contractors and by the Home Office. The Home Office must ensure that training about the application of the new detention services order and use of force techniques takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for all detention staff as well as healthcare staff. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

In anticipation of a new detention services order on the use of force in immigration detention, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to its contractors managing immigration removal centres that force must be used only as a last resort, using approved techniques.

Recommendation 16: Urgent review of use of force on detained people with mental ill health

The Home Office must urgently commission an independent review (with the power to make recommendations) of use of force on detained people with mental ill health within immigration removal centres. The review must consider:

how, when and whether to use force on detained people with mental ill health (including the application of pain-inducing techniques);
the likely effect of the use of force on a detained person’s mental health;
the use of individual risk assessments for detained people, which could be conducted by personal officers and healthcare professionals; and
the increased use and prioritisation of de-escalation techniques for those who have mental ill health. The review must take place in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including detained people’s representative groups and mental ill health experts.

The recommendations of the review must be incorporated in the new detention services order regarding the use of force (see Recommendation 15), in respect of which additional, regular (at least annual) training must then be provided.

A statement by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in response to the Inquiry’s report states: “The Government takes the welfare and safety of those we detain very seriously and has made significant improvements to immigration detention since the dates covered by the Inquiry. … We will carefully consider the findings of this Inquiry in its detailed report, including the recommendations in relation to the management of the immigration detention estate and the welfare of detained individuals.”

This concludes part 1 of our look at the Brook House IRC Inquiry. The next article in the series will focus on the second half of the recommendations made by Kate Eves in the report.

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today.

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

ETAs to be introduced for travel to the UK – do I need to apply?

If you have travelled to countries such as Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand, you may be familiar with the concept of an ETA. Short for electronic travel authorisation, ETAs are used to prevent unwanted visitors from entering the respective country. While they are already used in the previously listed countries, both the EU and UK will soon join the list by using ETAs to protect their borders.

Introduced in the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022, ETAs will need to be applied for by those who do not require a visa to enter the UK, known as non-visa nationals.

ETAs will come into effect for those travelling to the UK from 15^th November 2023, when nationals from Qatar will be required to possess an ETA to travel. However, applications will open from 25^th October to give enough time for applications to be processed.

For nationals of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, you will need to have an ETA if you are travelling to the UK on or after 22^nd February 2024.

Nationals of other countries do not need to think about applying for an ETA now, however more countries will be added later. As a result, most travellers to the UK do not need to worry about getting an ETA.

However, the Home Office has previously stated that ETAs will be in place for all relevant nationalities by the end of 2024.

Keep reading to learn more about whether you need to apply for an ETA and how to do so.

Do I need to apply for an ETA?

You need an ETA if you:

come to the UK for up to 6 months for tourism, visiting family and friends, business or study
come to the UK for up to 3 months on the Creative Worker visa concession
transit through the UK – including if you’re not going through UK border control

However, you will not need an ETA if you have:

a British or Irish passport
permission to live, work or study in the UK
a visa to enter the UK

Furthermore, those who live in Ireland do not need an ETA if they:

are legally resident in Ireland
do not need a visa to enter the UK
are entering the UK from Ireland, Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man

How do I apply for an ETA?

Applying for an ETA will be a rather simple process according to the Home Office. Applicants will be able to apply either through an ETA app or online on GOV.UK. You should then receive a decision within 3 working days, unless further checks are required.

To apply, you will need the following items:

A valid biometric passport from one of the eligible countries
The details of your travel
A credit card or debit card
A valid email address to receive confirmation

While each traveller must get an ETA, including children and babies, it will be possible to apply on behalf of others.

The cost will be £10 per applicant and will be electronically linked to your passport, meaning you must use the same passport to travel.

You will also receive email confirmation to say if your application has been successful.

How long does my ETA last?

As your ETA lasts for 2 years, you won’t need to apply for a new one every time you travel to the UK. However, if your passport expires in less than 2 years then you will need to get a new ETA.

You will still need to use an E-passport gate or see a Border Officer when entering the UK. However, it should be noted that an ETA does not guarantee you entry to the UK.

What happens if I am refused an ETA?

If this happens then you will be required to apply for a visa instead. These include a standard visitor visa, a transit visa if you are simply transiting through the UK, or a Temporary Work – Creative Worker visa to come to the UK as a creative worker.

Reasons for being refused an ETA may include past criminal convictions or overstaying a visa.

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today.

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

UK Ancestry Visa Guidance and FAQs

What is a UK Ancestry Visa?

Ancestry visa is a visa issued by the United Kingdom to Commonwealth citizens with a grandparent born in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Ireland. Should you qualify, you will be granted a 5-year visa.

You can also apply for a UK Ancestry visa if you’re one of the following:

a British overseas citizen
a British Overseas Territories citizen
a British national (overseas)
a Commonwealth citizen
Citizen of Zimbabwe

Which are the eligible Commonwealth countries?

The following countries are part of the Commonwealth Countries and citizens of these countries may be eligible to apply for the Ancestry Visa:

Antigua and Barbuda	Dominica	Malawi	Papua New Guinea	Swaziland
Australia	Fiji Islands	Malaysia	Samoa	Tonga
The Bahamas	The Gambia	Maldives	Seychelles	Trinidad and Tobago
Bangladesh	Ghana	Malta	Sierra Leone	Tuvalu
Barbados	Grenada	Mauritius	Singapore	Uganda
Belize	Guyana	Mozambique	Solomon Islands	United Kingdom
Botswana	India	Namibia	South Africa	United Republic of Tanzania
Brunei Darussalam	Jamaica	Nauru	Sri Lanka	Vanuatu
Cameroon	Kenya	New Zealand	St Kitts and Nevis	Zambia
Canada	Kiribati	Nigeria	St Lucia	Zimbabwe
Cyprus	Lesotho	Pakistan	St Vincent and the Grenadines

Where to find the rules ?

The relevant Immigration Rules are contained in Appendix UK Ancestry of the Immigration Rules.

This guide will briefly explain the general requirements that must be met to apply for Ancestry visa. All validity requirements for the UK Ancestry route must be strictly met otherwise the application will be rejected as invalid and not considered.

What are the requirements?

In order to qualify for a UK Ancestry visa, you must show that you have a grandparent born in one of the following circumstances:

Born in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man
Born before 31 March 1922 in what is now Ireland
on a ship or aircraft that was either registered in the UK or belonged to the UK government

You can claim ancestry if:

you or your parent were adopted
your parents or grandparents were not married

You cannot claim UK ancestry through step-parents.

You must also show that you satisfy the following requirements:

are aged 17 or over
a British overseas citizen
a British Overseas Territories citizen
a British national (overseas)
a Commonwealth citizen
a citizen of Zimbabwe
have enough money without help from public funds to support and house yourself and any dependants
can and plan to work in the UK
If you are from one of the countries where a tuberculosis test is required, then you will need to provide your TB results

Partner and children

Your partner and children can apply to join you in the UK as your ‘dependants’ if they’re eligible.

A ‘dependant’ is any of the following:

your partner
your child under 18
your child aged 18 or over who was previously on your or your partner’s visa as a dependant

You’ll need to provide evidence of your relationship when you apply.

You must be able to prove one of the following for your partner:

you’re in a civil partnership or marriage that’s recognised in the UK
you’ve been living together in a relationship for at least 2 years when you apply

Your child must:

live with you (unless they’re in full time education at boarding school, college or university)
not be married, in a civil partnership or have any children
be supported by you without using public funds

The applicant must meet the following requirements for a dependent child in Appendix Children:

(a) relationship requirement: entry clearance and permission to stay; and

(b) care requirement; and

An application which does not meet all the validity requirements for a partner or child on the UK Ancestry route may be rejected as invalid and not considered.

Process and timeframe

Once you application has been submitted, you will need to book a biometric appointment so that you can attend a visa centre to submit your biometrics. You will not be able to submit any further documents after your biometrics have been submitted and your application will be under consideration.

Presently, the Home Office can take up to 3 weeks from your biometric submission date to decide an application made for the first time unless there is a delay.

Fast Track Option

Depending on the services available at your local visa application centre, you may be able to pay an additional fee of £500 for the priority service (for a decision within 5 working days) or £1,000 (after 4 October 2023) for the super-priority services (for a decision by the end of the next working day).

Fees

You will need to make payment of both the Home Office fee and Immigration Health Surcharge when your application to the Home Office is ready to submit. Presently, the fees are as follows:

Application	Home Office fee	Immigration Health Surcharge
Applying for entry clearance	£637 (after 4 October)	£624 per year
Applying within the UK	£1,048	£624 per year

Please note that when applying for entry clearance, the actual fee paid may be higher due to payment being processed in the local currency.

Ancestry Visa – Granted

Should your application for Ancestry visa be granted you will be granted a visa for 5 years.

You will be eligible to enter and live in the UK within this time. You will be able work without any restrictions and study in the UK.

You cannot:

change (‘switch’) into this visa if you came to the UK on a different visa
get public funds

When can you apply for settlement?

If you met all the Ancestry visa requirements, then you can apply for settlement after holding the visa for 5 years. If you did not meet the requirements, then you can apply after 10 years.

You will also need to have spent not more than 180 days outside the UK in any of the previous 5 years and demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of the English language and Life in the UK.

For a dependent child on the UK Ancestry route who wants to apply for settlement, the applicant must meet the following requirements for a dependent child in Appendix Children:

(a) care requirement; and

(b) age and independent life requirement

Below we have highlighted some of the common questions we receive in relation to the Ancestry Visa process:

1) Do I qualify for a UK Ancestry Visa?

Under the Ancestry Visa requirements, you have to be 17 years of age or over and a citizen of a commonwealth country.

2) How many times can I apply for an ancestry visa?

The Ancestral visa is granted for five years. After that time, you can apply to extend your visa or you can apply for UK indefinite leave to remain if you can show five years’ continuous UK residence.

3) Can I switch from my current visa to the UK Ancestry Visa?

You are able to switch unless you are presently on the following:

on a Visitor visa
on a Short-term study visa
on a Parent of a Child Student visa
on a Seasonal Worker visa
on a Domestic Workers in a Private Household visa
on Immigration Bail
because you were given permission to stay outside the immigration rules, for example on compassionate grounds

Should your circumstances fit into the above, then you will need to leave the UK and make an application from abroad.

4) Can I claim state benefits?

No, you are not permitted to claim public funds.

5) Are there any restrictions on Employment?

You can take any kind of employment or self-employment. The work can be full-time or part-time, paid or unpaid.

6) Can I study?

There is no limit on the number of hours you can study or level of course they can do. Study may be undertaken anywhere you choose and does not have to be with a licensed Student sponsor.

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today.

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!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

New EPC targets scrapped following Sunak’s Net Zero reversals

In an announcement to the British public this week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak revealed that he has decided to scrap EPC targets requiring landlords to bring private rental properties up to a minimum level of C by 2025. We discussed these targets in depth in a previous article from February here.

While EPC ratings may seem slightly nebulous at times, their importance cannot be understated. Whether you are a renter, a home owner, business owner or a landlord, EPC ratings have a profound impact on our lives, affecting everything from the warmth of our homes, to how cheap our bills are.

The new announcement formed part of a watering down of UK environmental policies more generally. Other reversals included a delay on the ban of the sale of petrol and diesel cars to 2035, as well as a delay on the transition from gas boilers to heat pumps.

The government’s decision has been met with a mixed response within the property sector. On the one hand, Landlords will rejoice as they no longer have to retrofit their homes to meet the minimum C rating. However, other senior figures within the property industry have decried the decision.

The National Housing Association said that the decision was “hugely disappointing” and that scrapping the targets could “lead to people facing higher bills for years to come”. A body representing the other side of the housing industry, the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA), praised the decision to scrap plans to fine landlords for not meeting the minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES). Despite this, they also criticised the uncertainty over Government policy, describing it as “hugely damaging to the supply of rented properties”.

What does the EPC targets reversal mean for tenants and landlords alike?

Overall, the measures previously in place to improve the minimum energy efficiency requirements for residential tenancies would have only been a good thing for tenants.

The energy crisis last winter demonstrated how poor the energy efficiency of some homes were, especially in the face of astronomical energy bills which were subsided by the government through the energy price guarantee. No one quite knows what the situation will be regarding energy bills this winter, however some experts estimate that they will be more expensive for millions of homes given the withdrawal in support.

The latest government data on energy efficiency within the private rented sector shows that of the 4.6m private renters, 56% of them live in homes with a EPC rating of D or below. The proposed changes would have therefore made a huge difference to the living standards of private renters in the UK.

It is also worth pointing out that many landlords have already invested money into ensuring that their properties met the C level for the EPC rating, given that the expected changes were just two years away. Consequently, many will feel aggrieved by the sudden U-turn, contrary to what one might expect. Some will also have sold their properties due to the costs involved in upgrading to the minimum standard.

Furthermore, the lack of a rise in the minimum energy efficiency standards will also have a detrimental impact on the government progress towards its net zero targets. The UK government has set a target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. The latest announcement by the Prime Minister, which water down several of the government’s climate commitments, put this target in jeopardy.

What is an EPC rating?

An EPC rating provides a useful indication of how energy efficient a property is. This is helpful information for anyone looking to lease or purchase a property, whether it is residential or commercial.

Properties are rated on a scale from A to G. As previously mentioned, since April 2020 residential properties must be rated at least an ‘E’, with commercial properties now also required to be rated as such.

Owners of commercial properties that do not have an EPC rating of A to E will need to carry out sufficient works in order to bring the properties up to scratch, register a valid exemption, or face the consequences of a penalty. While MEES does not prohibit the sale of a property which falls into the ‘F’ or ‘G’ energy performance category, they are unlikely to be as easy to sell given that it will no longer be possible to lease properties in these categories.

Our comments

The reversal by the government adds further uncertainty to the property market at a time when it is already precarious, particularly in major cities where demand for rental properties is sky high.

As part of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the UK has legally committed to at least a 68% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. The latest announcements certainly make this target far less achievable. Despite this, Sunak has said that the UK is still committed to the legally binding net zero targets.

The UK government is likely to face several legal challenges in terms of the UK being able to meet its climate legal commitments due to the latest changes. Whether these legal challenges will be successful remains to be seen.

More questions? Get in touch NOW!

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

The Legal Implications of Issuing Warnings Without Action in Employee Management

In the world of employment law, addressing employee misconduct demands a thoughtful and structured approach. One common error that employers often make is the passive issuance of warnings without taking concrete action. In this article, we will explore why this approach can have legal repercussions and the importance of following due process.

The Significance of Due Process

In employment law, the process of addressing employee misconduct is as vital as the misconduct itself. Threatening termination without due process can raise legal concerns, except in truly exceptional cases of severe misconduct. Fair and just treatment of employees is a cornerstone of employment law.

The Pitfalls of Passive Warning Practices

A concerning trend in employee management is the repeated issuance of warnings without any progression in response. While warnings are necessary, relying solely on them can be a critical mistake. This passive approach inadvertently implies acceptance of the employee’s actions and can complicate future termination efforts.

Consider an employee who consistently violates company rules. Employers may claim to have issued numerous warnings, but a critical issue often arises – the absence of clear communication about the consequences of further violations. Employers frequently fail to inform the employee explicitly about what will occur if the misconduct continues.

Additionally, employers often do not follow through with the consequences outlined in the warnings if the employee repeats the misconduct. Instead, they continue to issue warnings without specifying the repercussions.

The Consequences of Passive Management

Passive management practices not only fail to change behaviour but also encourage employees to persist in misconduct. Over time, the absence of meaningful consequences can lead employees to believe their actions are condoned. This can create challenges when employers decide to take action.

The Correct Approach: Escalation and Clarity

In cases of persistent misconduct, the appropriate course of action for employers is to escalate their response. This includes verbal warnings, followed by written warnings explicitly detailing the consequences of further violations. If the misconduct persists, disciplinary meetings should be initiated, and the consequences outlined in the warnings should be enforced.

Enforcing Company Policies: The Key to Compliance

In conclusion, even well-drafted company policies are ineffective if not enforced. Employers must recognise that clear communication, due process, and appropriate consequences are essential for managing employee misconduct effectively while avoiding potential legal pitfalls.

Navigating employment law complexities is best done with legal guidance to ensure compliance and best practices. Proactive and fair management not only mitigates legal risks but also promotes a productive and harmonious workplace.

More questions? Get in touch NOW!

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!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

News and Insights

What is different about the new guide?

Does the tenant need to be provided with the latest version of the guide if the tenancy is renewed?

Brook House Inquiry recommendations

Recommendation 17: Urgent improvement of use of force reviews

Recommendation 18: Urgent guidance in relation to food and fluid refusal

Recommendation 19: Guidance and training for healthcare staff on the use of force

Recommendation 20: Updating guidance regarding ‘fit to fly and fit for detention’ letters

Recommendation 21: Ensuring effective communication of medical information

Recommendation 22: Improving the handling and audit of healthcare complaints

Recommendation 23: Ongoing assessment of staffing levels

Recommendation 24: Mandatory training for immigration removal centre staff

Recommendation 25: Improving the visibility of senior managers within centres

Recommendation 26: Improving the visibility of Home Office staff

Recommendation 27: Developing a healthy culture among staff

Recommendation 28: Action to address barriers to making complaints

Recommendation 29: Improving investigations by the Home Office Professional Standards Unit

Recommendation 30: Improving the independence of the Home Office Professional Standards Unit

Recommendation 31: Improving the process for and response to whistleblowing

Recommendation 32: Enhancing the role of the Independent Monitoring Boards

Recommendation 33: Improving the investigation and reporting of HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards

The reforms since Brook House abuse in 2017

What safeguarding and oversight measures are in place at the Home Office?

Our Solicitor’s thoughts

What is a trust?

Why should you establish a trust?

How do courts deal with trust assets when it comes to divorce proceedings?

What issues will the court consider?

If your ex-partner is the beneficiary of a trust, what happens after divorce?

How can assets be protected following a divorce?

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

What was the restaurant accused of being in breach of?

What happened next?

What were the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s decision?

Our comments

Kate Eves recommendations

Do I need to apply for an ETA?

How do I apply for an ETA?

How long does my ETA last?

What happens if I am refused an ETA?

What is a UK Ancestry Visa?

Which are the eligible Commonwealth countries?

Where to find the rules ?

What are the requirements?

Partner and children

Process and timeframe

Fast Track Option

Fees

Ancestry Visa – Granted

When can you apply for settlement?

Below we have highlighted some of the common questions we receive in relation to the Ancestry Visa process:

What does the EPC targets reversal mean for tenants and landlords alike?

What is an EPC rating?

Our comments

What single-use plastic items are banned?

Plates, bowls and trays

Polystyrene food and drink containers

Conclusion

Subscribe to our newsletter