UK tightens legal immigration rules – minimum salary hiked to £38,700 for some visas

Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced plans which amount to one of the most substantial proposals in years to cut migration levels through the tightening of UK immigration rules. Popular visa routes like the skilled worker visa, health and care worker visas, as well as family visas are all affected.

Those who wish to come to the UK to work will now need to have an offer from an employer that is paying a salary of £38,700 per year. This will be the minimum requirement for anyone who wishes to apply for a skilled worker visa or a care worker visa. Presently, the minimum requirement is that you must be offered employment earning at least £26,200 per year or £10.75 per hour.

The UK government will be increasing the income requirement required for British or settled people who wish to sponsor family members from abroad. Presently, the income requirement is that a person who wishes to sponsor their partner needs to earn £18,600 per year. This has been the set limit for a substantive number of years. This will now be increased to £38,700, which amounts to an increase of 108% and more than double what is presently required.

Those who come to the UK on a health and care visa to work in the health and care section will no longer be able to bring dependants with them to the UK. This change will no doubt lead to a huge reduction in staff joining the UK health and care sector, with applicants not being able to bring their loved likely to be a huge deterrent. In the year ending September 2023, 101,000 visas were issued to care workers. With an estimated 120,000 visas granted to dependants of those care workers.

Finally, the government has also announced big changes to the shortage occupation list. This is a list of jobs that the UK have a shortfall in presently that enables the applicant to obtain a skilled worker visa with a 20% reduction of the salary requirement. The Home Secretary has announced that this reduction will end.

The above announcement is scheduled to take place in Spring 2024. We are still awaiting further information as to what will happen to those who are on the above routes presently, when applying for extension applications. Follow our social media platforms for further updates.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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 to the UK? A helpful guide for new arrivals

Coming to the UK may be a daunting experience for some. For new arrivals, it may be difficult to know how to begin your integration into the UK. Here we provide a guide for those who have moved to the UK on how to register for services and how to start your life in the UK.

How to set up a bank account

To set up a bank account, you can do this either online or you can visit a branch in person. You will need to provide proof of identification and proof of address. The bank may require other documentation. If you cannot provide the documentation the banks require, then the bank may accept a letter from a professional person who has known you such as a teacher, GP, social worker or solicitor.

All banks usually have an account that they offer which can be used for free.

Citizen Advice Bureau have a very useful guide that can be found here (https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/getting-a-bank-account/)

How to register with a General Practitioner (doctor)

Everyone in the UK regardless of immigration status is entitled to register with a GP. It is free to register. You do not need proof of address or immigration status, or ID.

You will need to attend your local surgery close to your home and complete a registration form. Your local surgery may not be accepting new patients and if this is the case, you can attend the next closest surgery to you.

If you are also registering your children, you will need to complete a separate form.

The NHS provide a very helpful guide that can be found here (https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/gps/how-to-register-with-a-gp-surgery/)

How to register your children for school

The most important registration for all parents is registering their child for school. You do not need to have immigration status to do so. You will need to apply for registration via your local council’s website. You will usually be asked to list a few schools that you wish your child to attend.

The above process is for both children applying for primary school and secondary school.

The UK Gov website provide a very useful guide on how to apply which can be found here (https://www.gov.uk/schools-admissions/how-to-apply)

Learning English

After arriving to the UK, you may wish to improve your English. The British Council offer affordable courses to help migrants learn English. The link to the courses can be found here (https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/)

If you cannot afford to pay for English courses, you can contact non-profit organizations who may be able to offer you classes for free. One such organization is refugeecouncil.org.uk.

National Insurance Number

To apply for a national insurance number, you need to apply online. A national insurance number is required for you to work in the UK and can take four weeks for you to receive. You can legally start work without the number as long as you can prove you are allowed to work. However, you must obtain the National Insurance number within 3 months of starting employment.

You can apply using the gov.uk website, a link can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/apply-national-insurance-number

Contacting the Police

If you wish to report a crime, then you must contact the Police. You must call 999 on your telephone if it is an emergency. If it is not an emergency, then you should call 101 on your telephone. Calls to both numbers are free from all phones.

Should you prefer to report a crime online, this can be done via the Police.uk website. The link can be found here (https://www.police.uk/pu/contact-the-police/report-a-crime-incident/)

We hope that the above helps all that are new to the UK.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

Why does my biometric residence permit expire in 2024?

Many of you will have noticed that the expiry date showing on your Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) card is 31st December 2024, prior to many of your visa expiry dates. The good news is that this doesn’t mean that your leave to remain will expire on 31 December 2024. Instead it means that your card itself will simply expire on that date.

The reason for this is that UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) division of the Home Office is developing a digital immigration system. The Home Office is replacing the Biometric Residence Permit with an online record of people’s immigration status, which is known as an eVisa.

What is an eVisa?

An eVisa is an online record of your immigration status and the conditions of your permission to enter or stay in the UK. Updating your physical document to an eVisa does not affect your immigration status or the conditions of your permission to enter or stay in the UK.

With an eVisa, you’ll be able to travel to the UK without carrying a physical document in the future, except for your current passport, which must be registered to your UKVI account. Until then you will need to continue to carry your physical document if you have one.

You can use your UKVI account details to log in to the view and prove service to see your eVisa. You can also use the UKVI account to share your immigration status information with third parties, such as employers or landlords.

How do I get an eVisa and a UKVI account?

Please note that if you currently have leave to remain in the UK and have either a BRP, a BRC or other physical documents to prove your immigration status, you do not have to take any action at the moment.

According to the Home Office guidance, if you have leave to remain in the UK, you will be able to see your eVisa by generating a share code in the view and prove service once you’ve completed your UKVI account registration. This will give people temporary access to your immigration status information.

You can get a new share code whenever you need one, so you do not have to remember a single unique code to prove your status. The Home Office will also continue to share relevant information about your immigration status automatically with other public authorities, so you won’t need to interact with online services very often to prove your immigration status.

Further updates on when you need to register for a UKVI account, and what you need to do will be provided by the Home Office in 2024.

For further updates on eVisa in 2024, follow Lisa’s law for the latest immigration news.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

Harmonious Resolution: Neighbour Dispute Over Party Wall Overcome Through Mediation Mastery

We have recently been involved in a case that was put before the Bristol County Court. The case featured neighbours embroiled in a dispute over a proposed extension by neighbouring building owners. Due to the disagreement between the neighbouring parties it, eventually led to a legal challenge against an Award made by surveyors. Both parties were signatories to the Party Wall Agreement governed by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

This article explores the complexity of the case and the transformative power of mediation in resolving complex neighbour disputes and saving parties’ costs and time.

In this case, I led alongside my exceptional assistant, Krystal Yan. We provided support in calming our client and bridging the language barrier among the various parties involved, including clients, counsel, mediator, and neighbours with their legal team. Our client chose the experienced Mr. Carl Fain from Tanfield Chambers, a specialist in property and chancery, to lead the mediation.

The mediation was further enriched by the appointment of independent Harry Spurr (agreed by both parties) from St John’s Chambers in Bristol who was an adept mediator with excellent interpersonal and listening skills, as well as an ability for creative problem-solving.

Together, all parties played a crucial role in successfully navigating and resolving the complexities of this dispute. This is also with the cooperation and willingness from the neighbour and their legal team.

Background of the Dispute

The appellant, our client who is the owner of the adjoining property, voiced his concerns when his adjoining neighbour sought to construct an extension within three metres of our client’s property. A dispute emerged as our client claimed that the extension trespassed onto his property, causing damage and loss.

The Award

Surveyors were appointed by both parties which rendered an Award on 15 May 2023 determining that there was no trespass and allocating costs unevenly, with 60% to be borne by our client. Our client was dissatisfied with the outcome. He instructed our firm to initiate an appeal, citing procedural errors, impartiality concerns, and disputes over jurisdiction.

Grounds for Appeal

The grounds for appeal included procedural errors, raising questions about the impartiality of the Award, and disputing the jurisdiction of the surveyors. It was our client’s position to argue that the surveyors overstepped their authority by determining the boundary and asserting no damages occurred. Additionally, the appellant contested the fairness of the cost distribution.

The Mediation Breakthrough

Although convincing our client to participate in mediation posed challenges, my colleague, Krystal Yan, showcased exceptional persuasion skills. Her ability to keep the client calm and encourage attentive consideration of our advice ultimately led to the client agreeing to engage in the mediation process.

The Transformative Power of Mediation

The resolution not only brought an end to the protracted costly legal battle but also alleviated almost a year of sleepless nights and anger experienced by our client. Mediation, often viewed as an alternative dispute resolution method, showcased its effectiveness in addressing complex neighbourly disputes. The parties left the mediation session with a renewed sense of understanding and satisfaction.

Conclusion

This case highlights the challenges inherent in neighbourly disputes, the intricacies of legal proceedings under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, and the transformative impact of successful mediation. As neighbours move forward, the resolution achieved through mediation serves as a testament to the value of alternative dispute resolution in fostering amicable solutions and rebuilding neighbourly relationships.

Mediation has demonstrated its effectiveness in handling intricate cases by allowing parties to focus not on the legalities but on discovering common ground and mutually acceptable solutions. The mediation process transcends the concept of winning or losing.

It’s also evident that choosing the right mediator place a vital role. It is evident that Mr Carl Fain and Mr Harry Spurr demonstrated exceptional mediation skills, embodying the qualities essential for a mediator. They have both played a pivotal role in navigating and successfully resolving the complexities of the dispute. We would highly recommend Mr Carl Fain (who is now appointed as a Recorder to sit on the South Eastern Circuit (Crime) https://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/person/carl-fain/ and Mr Harry Spur if you have any boundary disputes https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/profile/harry-spurr.

Please feel free to contact myself, Evveline Ziwei Loh at e.loh@lisaslaw.co.uk or Krystal Xu Yan at k.yan@lisaslaw.co.uk as it is always great to receive review as the ones below when we achieve client’s goal in resolving their issues. That is our firm’s pivotal role.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

Latest asylum seeker statistics paint a complex picture – what can we learn?

The Home Office has published the latest asylum and resettlement statistics for the year ending September 2023. These latest statistics show that there were 40,571 asylum grants in the year ending in September 2023. This is the most asylum grants since 2010. For comparison, the second highest amount of grants were in 2021 where the grants totalled 31,339. 2022 was the third highest year, with grants totalling 24,050.

Many people may lack confidence in claiming asylum due to lack of evidence or other issues. Contrary to this, the statistics show that if you have a genuine claim then a claim should be presented to the Home Office, as a clear and well-presented case may lead to an asylum grant.

Let’s take a look at some other areas within the asylum seeker statistics, such as asylum claims granted following the substantive interview stage, as well as the number of overall asylum applications.

Huge increase in Asylum claims being granted by the Home Office

There has also been a huge increase in the number of asylum claims that have been granted by the Home Office following the substantive interview.

The statistics show that 31,443 asylum claims were granted following the substantive interview this year ending September 2023, with 10,415 claims being refused. This means that approximately 75% of claims considered by the Home Office this year were successful. When compared with all years since 2010, this is a huge increase compared the second highest year (2022) where the total grants were 14,370. However, the percentage of grants were slightly higher at 76%.

The statistics appear to show that the Home Office are now comprehensively considering claims made by applicants. Previously, the likelihood of grants at the initial stage was very low and claims would need to be made at tribunals for fair consideration. To put this in context, between the years 2010 to 2018, the median percentage of grants to refusals was 34.78%.

Decrease in overall asylum applicants

However, the latest asylum seeker statistics also show that there has been a decrease in the number of asylum claims made in the UK for the year ending September 2023. The total number of claims was 75,340, slightly lower than the number of claims made last year which amounted to 76,094 overall.

It is no secret that the UK Government believes migration to the UK is a serious concern and crossings over the channel must be addressed to stop asylum claimants. However, the published statistics clearly show that contrary to the UK Government’s opinion, the number of claims made is decreasing, albeit by a small amount.

The decrease in the number of claims could be down to a number of reasons. Fewer migrants may be coming to the UK, or people may have had obstacles in applying for asylum due to waiting times for screening interviews taking longer than previously.

You can read the full statistics here.

Should you wish to obtain further advice in relation to the asylum process, then please contact us.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

India and Georgia to Be Added to Safe Countries List

On November 8, the UK Home Office announced the draft legislation procedure of adding India and Georgia to the safe countries list within Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This means that if individuals from these countries seek asylum or make human rights claims in the UK, those claims would be considered inadmissible unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

What is the Safe Countries list?

The Section 80 AA safe countries list was introduced by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The upcoming regulations aim to expand this list.

According to Section 80A of the 2002 Act, any asylum claims made by EU nationals will be deemed inadmissible unless there are exceptional circumstances. Once the Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is fully enacted, Section 80A will be expanded beyond EU nationals and will apply to nationals of all countries on the list at section 80AA.

According to Section 80AA of the UK law, the Home Secretary can add a country to the safe countries list if there is “no serious risk of persecution of its nationals, and removal of nationals to that country cannot go against the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Convention”, revealed the UK government.

The section 80AA list is also referred to in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 at Section 4 (unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions) and 6 (removal for the purposes of section 2 or 4), although neither section is yet in force. Section 6 provides that where the duty to remove applies, a person who has claimed asylum cannot be returned to their country of origin unless it is on the list in section 80AA. They could be returned to a country listed in the Schedule to the Act, but this would require those countries to agree to accept third country nationals.

Why are India and Georgia being added?

The Home Office justified including India and Georgia in the safe countries list based on asylum statistics, showing a significant number of asylum claims from these countries. This is despite the UK government claiming that people from there are not at risk of persecution.

For the UK government, there are two separate reasons for adding countries to the ‘safe’ list. The first one is that if the duty to remove was brought into force, an Indian national who claimed asylum could not be returned to India if it was not on the section 80AA list, but they could be sent to Rwanda (if there was a functioning transfer agreement in place). As there is no functioning agreement, it makes more sense for the government to add India to the section 80AA list so that Indian nationals can be returned there if the duty to remove is brought in.

The second reason is that even without the duty to remove, adding these countries to the list means that asylum and human rights claims made by their nationals must be deemed inadmissible under section 80A of the 2002 Act, absent “exceptional circumstances”.

Our Comments

By expanding the safe countries list, the UK government hope to strengthen the UK immigration system. In their view, this can be done by preventing unnecessary protection claims from asylum seekers as part of their goal to reduce migration.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman said expanding the ‘safe’ countries list will enable the UK government “to more swiftly remove people with no right to be here and sends a clear message that if you come here illegally, you cannot stay”.

However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential repercussions of this policy shift. Despite recognizing nationals from India and Georgia as refugees, the UK government recognizing nationals from India and Georgia as refugees, the process becomes more challenging for individuals from these countries seeking asylum. The apprehension is that this adjustment may result in some people being sent back to their home countries, possibly exposing them to persecution. This concern is heightened by the stringent requirement of “exceptional circumstances” needed to resist the return. This policy shift, while aiming to strengthen immigration control, raises human rights considerations and the potential risk of returning individuals to precarious situations.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

Judicial Wake-Up Call: A Tale of Late Notices, Non-Compliant Statements, and Inadequate Time Estimates

The recent judgment in the case of Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Hung & Anor [2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm) underscores the importance of adhering to the Civil Procedural Rule. It highlights the duty of all parties involved to promptly inform the court of any emerging complexities and to reassess previously agreed time estimates for substantive submissions. Failing to do so may result in costly adjournments during substantive hearings.

Our firm had the honour of representing the second and third respondents in this case, with Mr. Roger Masefield KC as the leading counsel and Mr. Nicholas Yell serving as the senior counsel for our clients. I had the privilege of serving as the leading solicitor on this case, working alongside my colleague, Paul Cheuk, whose valuable assistance greatly contributed to our efforts.

Key Issues

Judge Mark Pelling KC, who presided over this case, was unimpressed with various aspects, including the claimant’s late service of a notice under CPR 32.19, challenging document authenticity nearly two weeks before the hearing, the fourth defendant’s non-compliant witness statement filed nearly two weeks before the hearing, and the collective failure of the claimant and second, third, and fourth respondents to recognise the inadequacy of the time estimate.

“12. The need for an adjournment in large part arises from a failure on the part of the claimant (i) to issue the relevant notices challenging authenticity in time, (ii) to issue an application for relief from sanctions until two weeks before this hearing was due to commence, and (iii) the claimant requiring the application to be listed at the start of the trial.

13. By the same token, some responsibility must rest on the shoulders of each of the second, third and fourth respondents for their failure to engage directly with the court and/or with the claimant in relation to the time estimate once it became apparent that the time estimate was plainly inadequate. Had that been addressed, then an application for directions could have been made at short notice and the wasting of at least some of the court time could have been avoided.”

The judgment thoroughly examined the intricacies of the adjournment and assigns responsibility to each party for the resulting costs.

Background

The case involved an application to make a charging order absolute, which was originally scheduled for a three-day hearing with half a day’s judicial reading time. However, it became apparent that the hearing would require a longer duration, and all parties agreed on a period of five days with one and a half days’ judicial reading time. The primary issue revolved around determining the ultimate beneficial owners of the property subject to charging orders, specifically focusing on the second, third, and fourth respondents.

Complications and Relief from Sanctions

The issue arose when two applications for relief from sanctions were made by the fourth respondent and the claimant which added complexity to the proceedings. The fourth respondent sought relief due to the Mandarin-speaking nature of their witnesses, whose statements were initially presented in English without proper translation from Mandarin. The Claimant also filed an application for relief due to the late service of notice to challenge the authenticity of the underlying agreements relied upon by the second, third and fourth respondents were non-authentic and sham.

Insufficient Time Estimate

The time estimate of three days was considered inadequate and later adjusted to five days. The hearing became increasingly problematic with the addition of the seventh respondent, Mandarin-speaking witnesses, and the time-consuming relief from sanctions applications. Recognising the impracticality of the original time estimate, all parties agreed to an adjournment.

Judge’s Critique

Judge Pelling expressed strong disapproval of the last-minute adjournment, emphasising the unacceptability of cramming a vast amount of submission in a short time. Such a practise could potentially lead to unfairness. Furthermore, such inadequacy in time estimate wasted three full days of the Commercial Court time. The Judge highlighted the responsibility of all parties, except the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, for failing to address the inadequacy of the time limit.

Costs Allocation

The central question addressed in the judgment was the allocation of costs resulting from the adjournment. The claimant argued for cost reservation pending the determination of the substantive issues. However, the judge rejected this, asserting that the adjournment costs are distinct from the substantive outcome.

Responsibility Attribution

Judge Pelling determined that the claimant bore primary responsibility for the adjournment due to late issuance of notices challenging authenticity and the delayed application for relief from sanctions. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the shared responsibility of the second, third and fourth respondents for not addressing the time estimate issue promptly.

Costs Award

The judge ruled that the second and third respondents were entitled to recover 75% of their adjournment costs from the claimant, reflecting their share of responsibility. The fourth respondent, facing additional issues related to the relief from sanctions application, was awarded 50% of her adjournment costs. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, with a limited role and no direct responsibility for the time estimate, were entitled to recover their adjournment costs in full.

Conclusion

I am glad that our clients were happy with the outcome above but it is imperative to bear in mind the critical importance of complying with the Civil Procedural Rule and timely procedural adherence in legal proceedings. The last-minute adjournment, though regrettable, necessitated a fair allocation of costs. The court acknowledges the primary responsibility of the claimant for procedural lapses leading to the adjournment. However, shared responsibility is recognised concerning the inadequacy of the time estimate.

In determining costs, a balanced approach was adopted. The second and third respondents are awarded 75% of their adjournment costs, reflecting their proportional responsibility. The fourth respondent, facing additional complexities, is awarded 50% of her costs. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, with a limited role and no direct impact on the adjournment, are entitled to recover their costs in full.

The judgment above serves as a reminder to all practitioners of the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness and the need for parties to engage proactively in addressing time estimates and compliance issues. It serves as a great reminder that all parties share the responsibility for efficient case management, failing which it will reflect dearly when it comes to allocation of costs.

It is evident that the case was successful being led under the guidance of Mr Roger Masefield KC https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/our-people/profile/roger-masefield-kc and Mr Nicholas Yell https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/912631B093D13865AE6EA50D81F049B6.html. We would highly recommend their expertise in both civil and commercial disputes.

Please feel free to contact myself, Evveline Ziwei Loh at e.loh@lisaslaw.co.uk or Paul Wai Ho Cheuk at p.cheuk@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

Debt Recovery Legal Considerations: Strategies for Disputed and Undisputed Debts

This article will focus on legal considerations for debt recovery. There are two ways to proceed when a debt is owed. If it’s disputed, we would advise that a pre-action letter is issued, and claim issued to the court. For undisputed debt, statutory demand can be considered.

A statutory demand should not be employed as a means of recovering debts under dispute. If a creditor issues a statutory demand for a disputed debt or fails to retract it upon the emergence of a dispute, they may be liable to cover the debtor’s legal costs. These costs could arise when the statutory demand is set aside for an individual or when an injunction is granted to prevent the creditor from presenting a winding-up petition.

The expenses incurred by the creditor in such situations, whether in setting aside the demand or obtaining an injunction, can range from £2,000 and upward, even if, in the end, the debt is deemed valid. It’s crucial for creditors to understand that withdrawing the demand does not imply an acknowledgment that the debtor is exempt from payment. Instead, it signifies an acknowledgment of a genuine dispute or an issue that the court must adjudicate.

Pre-action Letter

The pre-action protocol is not applicable to debts between businesses (except when the debtor is a sole trader). If you, the creditor, are a “business” seeking payment from an individual, it applies.

A Pre-Action Letter (PAL) is a formal communication sent by your legal representative on behalf of a potential claimant to a prospective defendant. It articulates specific demands, such as debt payment, and acts as a warning of impending legal action if these demands aren’t met within a reasonable timeframe.

Typically dispatched after unsuccessful prior payment requests, the PAL provides the other party with an opportunity to respond, either by addressing the demands or presenting a dispute before the situation escalates. Non-compliance with outlined demands may lead to the initiation of legal proceedings.

The sending of a PAL adheres to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and Pre-Action Protocols, governing the conduct of involved parties and outlining necessary steps before initiating a claim. In litigation, the court expects compliance with the relevant Pre-Action Protocol, with potential consequences for non-compliance in case directions and cost awards.

While the specifics of each PAL may vary based on the claim’s nature and applicable protocol, a general template includes the debtor’s details, background summary, debt breakdown with interest, a reasonable response time (typically 14 days or 30 days depending on whether the debt claim pre-action protocol applies), relevant document annexation, and a clear statement that legal proceedings will commence if no response is received within the specified timeframe.

A PAL is a valuable tool for demanding payment or notifying the other party of breaches. It allows for a detailed presentation of anticipated losses, giving them an opportunity to rectify the breach. Alternatively, if the issues are not addressed, it establishes the groundwork for initiating court proceedings.

Statutory Demand

If the debt faces no dispute, an alternative is to dispatch a formal statutory demand to the debtor, whether an individual or a company, stipulating payment within 21 days in a specified format.

Failure by the debtor to adhere to the demand—whether by not paying, failing to negotiate an acceptable arrangement with the creditor, or disputing the demand (in the case of an individual)—can be grounds for supporting a bankruptcy or winding petition, citing the debtor’s inability to settle debts. Statutory demands are assertive tools and should not be misused solely for debt recovery, as such misuse can be criticized by the court.

Consider the following key points concerning statutory demands:

1. There’s no obligation for a creditor who issued a statutory demand to initiate insolvency proceedings.

2. If insolvency proceedings commence, note that secured creditors take precedence over those with unsecured debts.

3. For individual debtors, the demanded debt must be an undisputed liquidated sum of at least £5,000.

4. A statutory demand and winding-up petition are valid only if:

a) The debt exceeds £10,000.

b) Debts related to rent or other sums under a ‘relevant business tenancy’ are unaffected by COVID-related financial issues.

c) The creditor issues a “schedule 10 notice” with prescribed information, giving the debtor 21 days to propose debt repayment.

d) The debtor fails to provide a satisfactory proposal within 21 days from the delivery of the schedule 10 notice.

Using a statutory demand is a quicker method to recover payment compared to a PAL and debt recovery proceedings. However, it is a forceful tool and should not be used if the debt is genuinely disputed; in such cases, the appropriate route is the PAL.

Please note that the debtor could apply to set aside the statutory demand if disputed within 18 days of it being served on.

Please see the below forms for your perusal:

1. Demand immediate payment of a debt from a limited company: Statutory Demand Form (Form SD 1)

2. Demand immediate payment of a debt (‘statutory demand’: Statutory Demand Form (Form SD 2)

3. Debt payable at a future date: Statutory Demand Form (Form SD 3)

4. Debt for liquidated sum payable immediately following a judgment or order of the court (Statutory Demand Form (Form SD 4)

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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 Policy held to be unlawful by UK Supreme Court

Recently, the UK’s immigration policy faced a crunch moment when the Supreme Court decided that the government’s Rwanda policy is unlawful. The highest court in the UK has spent a month deliberating the legality of the plans to remove asylum seekers to the East African country.

Today, the Supreme Court released its final judgement, declaring that the Rwanda plan is unlawful because of risks to asylum seekers being sent there.

Keep reading to learn more about the decision and its consequences.

Supreme Court Decision

In court, Lord Reed, president of the supreme court, set out the details of the Rwanda policy. According to Lord Reed, the policy is not about letting Rwanda decide if people get asylum in the UK. Instead, it is about sending people to Rwanda, where they can claim asylum to stay there.

The central issue in the present case is therefore not the good faith of the Rwandan government at the political level, but its practical ability to fulfil its assurances (at least in the short term) in the light of the present deficiencies of the Rwandan asylum system. In addition, its past and continuing practice of refoulement, as well as the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required.

Furthermore, Lord Reed emphasized the importance of the non-refoulement rule, stating that refugees should not be returned to their country of origin if they could face prosecution there. This rule is a principle of the UN refugee convention, endorsed by the UK and other conventions. This demonstrates that the European Convention on Human Rights is not the only obstacle to unjust repatriation.

Despite the Home Secretary’s claim that Rwanda can be relied on based on the Memorandum of Understanding it has agreed with the UK, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UNHCR) presented evidence challenging Rwanda’s treatment of asylum seekers. The UNHCR also raised concerns about how the Rwandan judicial system operates. Furthermore, it highlighted instances of non-refoulement violations in a prior agreement with Israel.

Rwanda has also received criticism for carrying out extra-judicial killings, and the British police has had to caution Rwandan refugees about death threats. Such evidence indicates that Rwanda may not be adhering to its international obligations. As it stands, the evidence establishes substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin under the Rwanda plan.

Given this evidence, the court of appeal concluded that there were good grounds for thinking asylum seekers going to Rwanda were at risk. The Supreme Court is unanimously of the view that the court of appeal was right.

Details about the Rwanda Policy

The Rwanda policy is a central plank of the Conservative party’s immigration policies under the governments of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. These immigration policies give ministers powers to detain anyone who arrives in the UK illegally and deport them to a safe third country such as Rwanda or their home country.

In April 2022, following a drastic increase in the number of people crossing the Channel, then-prime minister Boris Johnson announced a plan to deport migrants arriving in small boats to Rwanda for their claims to be processed, presenting it as a “very considerable deterrent”. Responding to the Channel migration issue, in April 2022 the then home secretary, Priti Patel, signed an agreement to send “tens of thousands” of “irregular” asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The five-year agreement set out a memorandum of understanding for which the UK government has so far paid £140m. In exchange, the Rwandan government said it will house and settle the refugees and process their claims. There is no official route back to the UK if the refugees’ asylum claims are deemed to be genuine.

However, the courts, domestic and European, have so far held up the removal of anyone to Rwanda under the scheme. In June 2022, the first deportation flight to Rwanda was cancelled just minutes before take-off following a ruling by a judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Legal challenges against the Rwanda policy

Legal challenges ensued. The High Court ruled the Government’s Rwanda policy was lawful, but ordered the cases of the first eight deportees to be reconsidered. Subsequently, a High Court judge ruled that asylum seekers facing removal to Rwanda can appeal against the Home Office’s decisions over alleged errors in the consideration of whether relocation poses a risk to their human rights, dealing another blow to the plan.

Despite this, the Court of Appeal ruled against the government on a single issue of safety, saying there was a real risk of asylum claimants being returned to their country of origin where they could face inhumane treatment.

In July 2023, the government sought approval to elevate the legal battle over its Rwanda deportation policy to the Supreme Court. Starting on October 9, the Supreme Court conducted a three-day hearing on the Government’s challenge to the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are unlawful.

What are the consequences of the decision?

This marks a victory for reason and compassion for many, preventing asylum seekers from facing forced deportation to Rwanda.

With the unlawful ruling on the Rwanda policy, asylum seekers don’t need to worry about being placed on planes against their will and sent 4,000 miles to Rwanda by the government. Lawyers representing those facing deportation to East Africa argue that Rwanda has an “authoritarian, one-party state” with a “very poor” asylum system. Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy at Freedom from Torture also highlighted the terror that this plan inflicts on survivors of torture who have fled unimaginable horrors and are trying to rebuild their lives in the UK.

However, the government’s attempts to tackle the migrant issue are evident. The Prime Minister has warned of the unsustainable pressure on the asylum system, as the taxpayer bill nearly doubles to almost £4 billion. With the UK government recently adding India and Georgia to the ‘safe’ countries list, the government may potentially expand the list of countries under the Illegal Migration Act. Such a move could lead to swift deportations, as claims from affected nationals could be automatically rejected.

In conclusion, the announcement of the Supreme Court is a sign that the government should pledge to create an asylum system that works, which should be one with clear, open, safe and legal routes for applicants, quick and efficient determinations and support for resettlement into local communities with properly funded local services.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

Success in Recognition of Dependants – Decade-Old Error Corrected

There are numerous pathways to securing immigration status in the United Kingdom. Each individual’s unique circumstances often leads them to selecting specific visa routes, and at times they may even possess multiple legal foundations for achieving Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Dependants in particular can sometimes face a harder route to secure immigration status.

Due to the intricate and subtle legal complexities within the UK immigration system, it’s important to note that the Home Office may consider these different ILR grounds differently. The Home Office might also make mistakes, such as failing to recognise a migrant’s dependants. If the Home Office gets it wrong when applying the immigration rules, it can significantly impact individuals seeking ILR under different grounds.

The case we’re discussing today, R (on the application of Shantay Seneke Blake) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), shows the importance of accurately interpreting and applying immigration laws. It also demonstrates the importance of knowing what we can do to protect our rights if the Home Office made a mistake in applying the law.

Background of R v SSHD

The applicant, a Jamaican national, arrived in the UK with her mother (M) and brother as visitors in 2000 when she was just three years old, and her brother was less than a year old. They overstayed upon the expiry of their leave.

In 2006, M was convicted of drug offenses and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, leading to deportation proceedings against her commencing in 2007. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) later granted M humanitarian protection under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2013, M was granted Leave to Remain (LTR) as a refugee, issued a UK Residence Permit (UKRP). The applicant and her brother received UKRPs which wre valid until 2018.

In 2018 and 2021, the applicant applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), which required LTR in a specific category. This emphasises her eligibility as a dependant on her mother’s asylum claim and eligibility under Immigration Rules Paragraph 339R. However, both applications were rejected by the Secretary of State because the LTR had been granted under Article 8 of the Convention, and she wasn’t considered to have LTR in a qualifying capacity.

The SSHD stated that as the applicant has never been granted permission to stay as a refugee or person granted humanitarian protection, the application under paragraph STP 1.4 of the Settlement Protection Annex, which requires an applicant for ILR in that capacity to have leave to remain in a specific category, was invalid and should be rejected.

Application for judicial review

The applicant applied for judicial review, challenging the lawfulness of the Secretary of State’s decision to reject her application for settlement as invalid. The applicant contends that she was her mother’s dependant and ought to have been granted leave as such. Finally, the applicant contended that the SSHD erred in failing to grant her leave as the dependant of a refugee and that every subsequent consideration of her immigration status, including the decision under challenge, was tainted by that error.

While the SSHD acknowledges that the applicant’s mother was granted leave to remain as a refugee in 2013, it disputes that the applicant was her dependant at that time. Moreover, the SSHD asserts that the applicant did not have leave that entitled her to ILR under the Immigration Rules.

Court Decision on R v SSHD

The Upper Tribunal allowed the applicant’s judicial review application, challenging the Home Office’s decision to reject her application for settlement. They mainly assessed whether the Secretary of State’s continued refusal to treat the applicant consistently with the 2013 decision of the FTT (as someone who had been granted or should have been granted five years’ LTR as the dependant of a person granted leave as a refugee) had been unlawful.

The tribunal considered not only the claims made by the applicant and her mother over the last fifteen years or more, but also the departmental records concerning those claims.

The tribunal’s decision in relation to the claimant’s dependants

1. The applicant and her brother had not been expressly named as dependants. However, there had been no suggestion anywhere in the record of the FTT proceedings that the applicant and her brother were to be separated from M.

2. The senior caseworker who had approved the refusal decision failed to explain the basis to grant leave to the applicant and her brother only pursuant to art 8 of the Convention. In the absence of any explanation, the decision appeared to be unlawful, in that it had not been in accordance with the Immigration Rules and the respondent’s published policy.

3. While it had been correct that the Secretary of State had not been obliged to treat the applicant as if having leave under para 339Q of the Immigration Rules, that had not been a complete answer to the applicant’s complaint. It had ill-behoved the Secretary of State to rely on the applicant’s delay and her failure to challenge the 2013.

The Tribunal also clarified why it was incorrect to consider the case as one where the applicant passively accepted an erroneous LTR grant in 2013.

there had been no notice in 2013 that she received anything other than refugee-dependant leave;
the applicant was a child at that time and could not properly be criticised for not recognizing the wrong decision;
finally, the first indication of a different ground of leave other than as a dependant of a refugee had been in 2018 when her ILR was denied.

Error made by the Home Secretary

The 2013 error led to the refusal of the 2018 ILR application under Immigration Rules and the invalidation of the 2021 application. But the Secretary of State erred in failing to consider, in the exercise of the discretion, whether to grant the applicant ILR outside the Immigration Rules so as to correct the error it made in 2013. The outcome for the applicant would likely have been different had the Secretary of State properly considered her submissions in this regard. Given the 2013 error, the applicant had a valid case for leave outside the Immigration Rules.

The tribunal finally held, among other things, that the applicant had been included as a dependant on M’s application for asylum and that she had been treated as such by the Secretary of State. She should have been granted LTR under para 339Q of the Immigration Rules as a result, and it had been erroneous to grant her LTR pursuant to art 8 of the Convention only.

Our comments

This case deals with the years of litigation that resulted from the Immigration Department’s mistaken belief that the applicant was not a family member of a refugee. Fortunately, the story has a good result, although it comes 10 years late.

According to this case, we can see that the Home Office also makes mistakes. The SSHD’s persistence in these errors has caused huge losses to the parties and resulted in years of litigation, so it is important for the SSHD to fully consider the actual situation of the parties when exercising its discretion.

Moreover, the appellant’s victory in this case is a good example for other immigrant family members in similar situations. A real cohabitation and the age of civil behaviour should also be considered when assess the identity of dependants of immigrants.

Finally, this case highlights the need for clarity in the application of immigration rules to ensure that the rights of individuals seeking residence in the UK are protected.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and 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

News and Insights

Have questions? Get in touch today!

How to set up a bank account

How to register with a General Practitioner (doctor)

How to register your children for school

Learning English

National Insurance Number

Contacting the Police

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is an eVisa?

How do I get an eVisa and a UKVI account?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background of the Dispute

The Award

Grounds for Appeal

The Mediation Breakthrough

The Transformative Power of Mediation

Conclusion

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Huge increase in Asylum claims being granted by the Home Office

Decrease in overall asylum applicants

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is the Safe Countries list?

Why are India and Georgia being added?

Our Comments

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Key Issues

Background

Complications and Relief from Sanctions

Insufficient Time Estimate

Judge’s Critique

Costs Allocation

Responsibility Attribution

Costs Award

Conclusion

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Pre-action Letter

Statutory Demand

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Supreme Court Decision

Details about the Rwanda Policy

Legal challenges against the Rwanda policy

What are the consequences of the decision?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background of R v SSHD

Application for judicial review

Court Decision on R v SSHD

The tribunal’s decision in relation to the claimant’s dependants

Error made by the Home Secretary

Our comments

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar