High Court Rules in Favour of Mother and Child in ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ Case Against Coventry City Council

On 07 January 2025, the High Court quashed an assessment made by Coventry City Council in a ‘no recourse to public funds’ case and ordered the authority to re-take the decision. They urged the Council to take into account why the children concerned were held to not have any unmet welfare needs given the updated evidence involved.

The case was brought on behalf of the child, LR, by her mother and litigation friend, LC.

The judge in the case stated that the case concerned “some of the poorest families in our community”, who had no access to the mainstream benefits and housing systems due to their restricted immigration status.

Facts of the case

LC is a national of Nigeria who separated from her husband in 2023 due to domestic abuse. She submitted an application to the Home Office for leave to remain in November 2023. The application is still pending at the Home Office.

The family received accommodation, bus passes and cash from Coventry City Council, with a weekly support of £196.72 per week for the four members.

When LC first applied in May 2023 for support, Coventry City Council initially placed her and her three children in emergency accommodation in a hotel and provided the family with £135 per week and travel vouchers to and from school.

In January 2024, LR’s solicitors wrote to Coventry seeking higher payments, pointing out that £135 was well below the revised Asylum Support figure of £49.18 per person per week, which would give the £196.72 figure.

Legal issues

The case looked at several legal aspects including statutory interpretation, the inter-relationship between statutory schemes, the lawfulness of a local authority’s policy of support to affected families and the lawfulness of an assessment of need in one individual family’s case.

Judgement

It was held that it was unlawful for Coventry City Council to fix support levels under s.17 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA) at the same rate as Asylum Support. The court quashed an assessment made by Coventry City Council in a ‘no recourse to public funds’ case and ordered the authority to re-take the decision taking into account why the children concerned were held to not have any unmet welfare needs given the updated evidence involved.

Next steps

The defendant can appeal the decision, but if the defendant decides not to appeal, then the new assessment must be conducted promptly to ensure the claimant family receive the appropriate support.

Based on the way that the judgment is written, I would be surprised if the defendant decides to appeal the decision.

My view

I hope that following this decision, all public bodies will not lose sight of the human aspect of life for all families in this difficult circumstance.

I think the assessment conducted by the local authority must be done on a case-by-case basis. They must consider the overall welfare of the children and not be restricted by the narrow interpretation of safeguarding concerns.

I think that all local authorities in the UK must ensure that support provided under s.17 ChA is adequate to meet the welfare needs of children regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

Taxpayer Fined After Relying on AI Legal Arguments in her Tax Appeal

Artificial intelligence is now a simple fact of many people’s every day life. However, one UK taxpayer recently found out that relying on AI without verifying the credibility of its information can be risky. In the case of Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC), the UK tax tribunal explored the dangers of using AI legal arguments. It also set out how it deals with capital gains tax (CGT) penalties and the limits of a “reasonable excuse” defence.

The Tax Penalty and Appeal

The Appellant, Ms Harber, sold a property but did not properly inform HMRC about her CGT liability. HMRC then penalised her £3,265.11 for failing to report it. She appealed, claiming she had reasonable excuses due to her mental health and lack of awareness of the tax rules.

In her submission, she presented nine tribunal decisions to support her argument. Each decision involved detailed case name, case date, and summary, all concerning taxpayers who had succeeded with similar defences. As illustration, here are two such summaries submitted by Ms Harber:

“Milner v HMRC’ (2020): The taxpayer successfully appealed against a penalty for late filing of a tax return on the basis of ignorance of the law requirements. The taxpayer argued that they had not been aware of the requirement to file a tax return as they had not received any correspondence from HMRC. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) found in their favour.”

“Oyesanya v HMRC’ (2020): In this case, the taxpayer successfully appealed against a penalty for late filing of a tax return. The taxpayer argued that they had a reasonable excuse for the late filing due to their mental health condition, which had prevented them from being able to manage their affairs effectively. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) found in their favor.”

But there was one major problem in Ms Harber’s submission – incredibly, none of those nine cases relied on by Ms Harber actually existed.

Fake Cases Generated by AI

When HMRC tried to locate the cases Harber cited in official legal databases, it found nothing. The tribunal’s own search revealed the same result: the cases were seemingly fake. They appeared to be generated by AI.

When questioned, Ms Harber said she got them from “a friend in a solicitor’s office.” She also admitted she did not know how to verify the cases on official websites like on the published decision site of the First-tier Tax Tribunal, or on BAILII which listed UK court decisions.

Although the fake cases did not change the outcome, the tribunal took the matter seriously. It warned that relying on AI-generated legal references without proper checks is dangerous, especially in formal proceedings.

Reasons for Dismissing the Appeal

Coming back to the case itself, the tribunal decided that Ms Harber had no valid excuse for failing to notify HMRC of her tax liability. It noted she was able to handle the property sale, work with solicitors, and set aside money for tax. If she could do all that, she could have contacted HMRC or a professional tax adviser. The tribunal also rejected her claim that ignorance of the law was a defence. She had already contacted HMRC about rental income rules in the past, and she also knew she had made a capital gain. The tribunal concluded that any reasonable taxpayer in her position would have asked for advice instead of waiting for HMRC to contact her.

Her appeal was dismissed, and the penalty remained in place.

Key Takeaway

AI cannot replace proper legal research or professional advice. This Tax Tribunal case showed that AI can be useful, but it should never be trusted blindly. Relying on unverified AI-generated information is a recipe for trouble.

As AI technology continues to evolve, it will play a larger role in every industry, including law. Still, caution is crucial. Anyone involved in a dispute should verify all legal references through official sources. They should also seek guidance from qualified professionals before presenting arguments to a court or tribunal. AI offers speed and convenience, yet it lacks the human judgment needed to interpret and confirm complex legal issues.

At Lisa’s Law, we understand the importance of accurate, thorough, and timely legal support. Our team of experienced solicitors and legal specialists can help you navigate complex disputes, research authoritative case law, and ensure your arguments are backed by verifiable sources.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

Who Pays Business Rates, the Landlord or Tenant?

During my practice in commercial property transactions, clients including commercial property landlords, tenants, and business owners often raise questions around the topic of Business Rates. But what are Business Rates? How are they calculated? Who is responsible for paying these, landlord or tenant? Or someone else relevant? Today, let us discuss these questions with the hope of providing some insight to those individuals affected.

What are Business Rates and how are they calculated?

Business rates are a tax for businesses that occupy commercial properties. The amount you pay is based on the rateable value. The government uses a specific formula to calculate how much you owe each year.

Rateable value is like an estimate of how much rent a commercial property could earn if it were rented out, namely its open market rental value. This value is set by a government agency called the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). The formula of VOA’s calculation is open information so you can easily find on the gov.uk website. I enclose the link if you are interested in the formula details: Valuation Office Agency – GOV.UK.

One thing to note is that the rateable value is checked and updated from time to time. If you think your rateable value is too high, you can ask the VOA to review it.

There are also some ways to lower your business rates, like small business rate relief. If you are a business owner, it’s worth checking to see if you qualify for these discounts. Similarly, I attach the link on business rates relief for reference here: Business rates relief: Types of business rates relief – GOV.UK.

Who Pays Business Rates?

Usually, the occupier of the business premises is responsible for paying these rates. It could be the owner, the tenant, or even a sub-lessee, depending on who occupies the property. This should be clearly stated in the lease agreement, or any other sub-lease or contract of occupation you sign. As a tenant or sub-tenant, it is important to read your lease or agreement carefully and if in doubt, to seek advice from a professional on the relevant terms. These terms should explain whether you have to pay business rates and if there are any limits on how much they can go up.

Sometimes, especially in certain types of leases, the landlord pays the business rates but will charge you for them later through rent or service charges. Again, make sure you understand your lease terms clearly on those terms.

In some cases that we had dealt with, it turned out the sub-tenant was the actual liable party to pay the business rates as they were the true occupier of the business premises, whilst the tenant was not.

What are the other scenarios of the liability to pay?

Besides the sub-tenant scenario I have mentioned, it is also possible where multiple tenants share a property, the landlord might take responsibility for the business rates of common areas. These expenses are subsequently recovered through service charges. In other situations, landlord and tenant may negotiate business rate responsibilities by fixed rate terms or percentage terms, as part of the lease agreements.

As business rates are collected by the local council, if you happen to be the tenant, or occupier of the business property, and are responsible to pay for the business rates, it would be a good idea to keep in contact with the council to stay informed about what you owe and any changes that might happen. And if there is any issue or changes on the premises, please do communicate with the council officer as soon as possible to avoid delay in actions which may cause unnecessary costs or dispute.

Finally, I would like to remind you that when the business premises becomes vacant, the liability for business rates may change. If the tenants leave but retain the lease without formally surrendering it, they remain responsible to pay business rates. It may also be the case that the tenant vacates without continuation, or the lease ends, then the landlord becomes liable to pay.

The conclusion of who pays business rates, tenant or landlord, is essentially based on occupancy and lease terms. Every case is different depending on the specific lease terms. Understanding your lease and your responsibilities regarding business rates is important for both landlord and tenant. It can save you money and help avoid surprises later. If you are unsure, do get professional advice when finalising a lease or dealing with property issues. With our expertise in commercial properties, we are able to provide advice on these type of commercial lease terms to suit your business needs.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

Major Change to the UK Work Visa Sponsorship Guidelines

The UK government has recently updated its guidance for work sponsors. The changes focus particularly on the practice of employers passing certain costs onto employees. With millions of foreign workers in the UK, the changes are set to have a significant impact on work visa sponsorship.

What do employers have to pay for?

When employers sponsor foreign workers, they incur various costs, including:

Employer sponsorship licence application fees and associated administrative costs
Certificate of Sponsorship fee
Immigration Skills Charge
Skilled worker visa application fee
Immigration Health Surcharge

Employers must now cover the following costs themselves

Previously, due to the high costs involved, many employers required employees to cover these expenses or to recoup some of these costs if they left their job before their sponsorship period ended. This practice led to worker exploitation, particularly in the care sector, where employees felt financially trapped in poor working conditions.

On November 28, 2024, the UK Immigration Minister announced stricter rules to prevent this issue. From December 31, 2024, employers must cover the following costs themselves and cannot require employees to pay or reimburse them:

Employer sponsorship licence application fees and associated administrative costs
Certificate of Sponsorship fee
Immigration Skills Charge

Some expenses must still be paid by employees

While employers are no longer allowed to pass on the above three costs, some expenses may still be reasonably paid by employees, including:

Skilled worker visa application fee and Immigration Health Surcharge (as these directly benefit the employee)
Associated administrative costs on assignment of a Certificate of Sponsorship or visa application (such as priority service or legal costs, depending on the specific situation)

Employers must also follow employment law when seeking reimbursement from employees. Any clawback agreement must be fair, and employers cannot unreasonably demand repayment—especially if the worker loses their job due to company-wide layoffs. Employers must ensure they comply with the new rules. Any violation could result in revocation of their sponsor licence.

Employees should be aware of their rights and should not be forced to pay costs that employers are required to cover.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

University withdraws student sponsorship over false bank statements

We have recently reviewed the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Prabhjot Kaur and another) v Birmingham City University [2024] EWHC 3185 (Admin). The case sheds light on the responsibilities of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as licensed student sponsors and highlights how allegations of fraudulent documentation can lead to the withdrawal of student sponsorship, often resulting in visa cancellations by the Home Office.

In this matter, two claimants, Ms. Prabhjot Kaur and Ms. Amandeep Kaur, both Indian nationals, had secured places at Birmingham City University (“the Defendant”). Despite having initially been assigned Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), issues arose when the University discovered that certain bank statements used to evidence their financial status were not genuine.

As a result, the University withdrew the student sponsorship, prompting the Home Office to cancel both claimants’ student visas. Both individuals challenged this withdrawal and the subsequent decision, ultimately seeking judicial review.

Grounds for Judicial Review

Both claimants sought judicial review, relying on five principal grounds to challenge the University’s decision:

1. Fraud

They argued there was no proper basis to accuse them personally of fraud or dishonesty.

2. Bad Faith / Improper Motive

The claimants suggested the University acted in bad faith, allegedly to protect its own sponsor status and deflect blame for poor oversight of its agents

3. Irrationality

They contended that withdrawing sponsorship was an irrational step because, in their view, not every use of a false document automatically proves the student’s complicity.

4. Procedural Fairness

The claimants argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations before sponsorship was withdrawn.

5. Article 8 (Right to Private Life)

High Court’s Decision

At a renewed permission hearing, the High Court again refused permission for judicial review. In short, the Judge held:

1. Withdrawing Sponsorship Was Lawful: The University acted within its rights and in line with the Home Office’s Student Sponsor Guidance, which demands scrupulous vigilance against misuse of the immigration system. When credible evidence of fraudulent documents emerged, the University was justified in withdrawing the CAS.

2. No finding of dishonesty against the claimants was required: The rules allow for permission to be refused or cancelled if fraudulent documents are provided, irrespective of whether the applicant personally knew about the falsity. Since the sponsor duties are strict, it was not necessary for the Defendant to establish the students’ direct complicity.

3. Procedural Fairness was not breached: The claimants had enough notice that the verification process was taking place and were explicitly asked not to travel. They nonetheless entered the UK and were given opportunities to explain themselves during campus meetings. The Court also noted that any further representations would not have changed the fact that the bank statements were false.

4. No arguable Article 8 Claim: Neither claimant provided a viable argument as to why they had a private or family life claim that should override the University’s decision or the Home Office’s subsequent action.

5. Claimants’ own duty of candour: The Court highlighted that the claimants had not produced full disclosure, particularly regarding their communications with the alleged agent/sub-agent who submitted the fraudulent documents. This further undermined their position.

Overall, the Court concluded that the University’s actions were legally sound, and the Secretary of State was similarly within her powers to cancel the claimants’ permission to enter.

Our Comments

This case clearly demonstrates how the High Court balances the duty of educational institutions to uphold immigration control against the need for fairness to individual students. When suspicious documents surface, especially on a large scale involving the same bank or agent, universities have little choice but to alert the Home Office and withdraw their support.

In the face of strict sponsor obligations, it is vital that students take every step to verify the authenticity of their financial proofs. Moreover, a thorough trail of communication with any educational agent should be maintained, ensuring that students themselves understand every part of the documentation being submitted on their behalf.

For those faced with sponsorship withdrawal, it is crucial to seek prompt legal advice. As seen in this case, once a CAS is cancelled and the Home Office is notified of suspected fraud, the path to overturning visa revocations can be extremely challenging.

Ultimately, R (on the application of Prabhjot Kaur and another) v Birmingham City University serves as an important reminder: ensuring accuracy and transparency in all visa-related documentation is not merely a formality, but an absolute necessity to safeguard both the student’s status and the sponsor’s licence.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

Richard Hammond’s costly divorce – who gets the family home when a marriage breaks down?

The cost of divorce in the UK is quite high. In fact, many people joke that divorce is so unaffordable these days that no one dares to get married. In today’s article, we look at a high-profile celebrity case involving the division of a family home, as well as what happens to a family home in the event of a divorce.

While rich celebrities might not receive the pity of the public when it comes to headline divorces, they can often be financially crippling for those involved. Recently, the world-famous British TV host, Richard Hammond, of Top Gear fame announced on social media that he was going through a painful divorce with his wife Mindy.

After their marriage, the couple moved to Weston-under-Penyard, Herefordshire, where they live in the luxurious Bolete Castle, an estate worth £7million.

The castle is a Grade II listed building in the UK and was built in the 18th century. It has six bedrooms, a swimming pool and 20 acres of land.

After a long marriage, which deteriorated over time, Richard Hammond moved out and was forced to rent a house nearby. Now, Mindy has also stated that she will propose to keep the family home in the divorce settlement.

How it will be divided in the end depends on how they reach an agreement.

How is the house divided during a divorce in the UK?

Many people will probably encounter the situation described in this article when they are getting divorced. The family home is an important asset for both parties to meet their housing needs in the future. But who gets to keep the house? You have many options when deciding how to divide the family home, including:

Buy out your spouse’s share of the property;
Selling the house (this also depends on the specific circumstances of the loan);
Put off selling until your children are grown (if you have any, until they are 18).
Depending on the value of the other assets, it may also be possible to use one person’s equity in the home to offset another asset. For example, perhaps one of you keeps the family home while the other keeps a pension fund or holiday home.

There are many reasons why one party may want to keep the property outright, but the extent to which this is possible depends entirely on the individual case. In England and Wales, there is no fixed formula for asset division, and the courts have wide discretion to make orders based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Generally speaking, the division of assets (including the family home) is usually based on what is considered fair and reasonable in each case, for example, taking into account factors such as the duration of the marriage, the financial contribution of each spouse, and the needs of the children involved.

Assets acquired will be considered marital property

In general, there are other assets that need to be considered in any divorce financial settlement, such as inherited property, buy-to-let property, or holiday homes. Therefore, you must disclose any property that you own, own in your own name, or own jointly with your spouse. You must also disclose interests in assets that you own jointly with people outside of your marriage. Once both parties have made full and candid disclosures, your solicitor will let you know which assets will be included in the division.

Generally speaking, any assets you acquire or accumulate during your marriage will be considered “marital property” and considered for division. If a property is jointly owned by someone other than you and your spouse, only your share of that asset will be considered. A house that you and your spouse use as your primary residence will definitely be considered “marital property” because it is the family home, regardless of who paid the deposit or mortgage.

If you have a prenuptial agreement, it is important to give this document to your solicitor. Generally, we will check that it covers all property and that no significant changes have occurred since the prenuptial agreement was signed. If there is no prenuptial agreement, our family law solicitors will advise clients on the composition of their property.

Who can stay in the home during a divorce?

If you are a legal co-owner of the property, both parties have the right to continue to live in the property during the divorce, until the court approves a financial order. This means that you cannot be forced to move out of the property unless there is a court order (or, in the case of domestic violence allegations, police bail conditions restricting you to a specified distance from the property; or you voluntarily want to move out).

In many cases, the parent who is the primary caregiver of the child has the right to live in the family home after a divorce, so who gets the house is closely tied to child custody.

How to divide the house in a divorce with children?

There is no general rule as to who gets to keep the family home. The court must consider several factors when deciding this, including:

children’s needs and arrangements;
The couple’s age, health, and earning ability;
assets and available resources;
what each spouse needs;
the length of the marriage and the contributions made by each spouse;
The standard of living of each spouse; and
Any negative behaviour would be unfair if ignored by the court.

If I move out of my home, will I lose my rights?

No. If you decide you no longer want to live in your previous home, you can rest assured that moving out now will not deprive you of your rights to the property. In some cases, it may be a wise choice to protect your mental health. It may even benefit relationships in the long run, especially when children are involved, as you can protect them from witnessing your parents’ arguments.

If you leave your home, we recommend that you take your personal belongings and financial records with you. Although you still have a legal interest in the home, we recommend that you do not return without notice. If you must return for any reason, it is best to make arrangements with your spouse. If you have experienced domestic violence, you may need to move out to prevent further harm. In this case, you should seek urgent legal advice as you may be able to get a court order.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

What reasons can landlords use to dispute a lease extension?

We have recently received many enquiries about commercial lease renewal procedure, as well as issues around a lease extension not being granted. This can cause a great deal of stress and anxiety for business owners regarding their future.

But what reasons can a landlord use to dispute a lease extension? Keep reading to find out more.

Granting of a new lease

In English law, there are two primary processes for extending the term of a commercial lease: granting a new lease and lease renewal by reference.

For the process of granting a new lease, the parties negotiate and agree upon the terms of the lease and security of tenure afresh. The new lease often incorporates provisions for rent reviews, allowing the rent to be adjusted periodically during the term based on agreed-upon mechanisms (e.g., market value, fixed percentage increase).

Lease renewal by reference

Lease renewal by reference refers to the process of renewing an existing lease by incorporating the terms of the original lease, as varied and updated with statutory provisions.

However, it may be the case that neither extension or renewal appeals to the landlord, and they seek to gain vacant possession. If the lease falls under sections 24-28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which is the case for many leases, the tenant has an automatic right to extend. This right can only be challenged if the landlord successfully presents one of the statutory exemptions.

Section 30(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

This section provides the grounds for evicting a tenant based on tenant fault and no-fault grounds.

1. Tenant fault grounds (A-C):

A: Property in disrepair
B: Persistent delays in rent payment
C: Breach of other lease obligations by the tenant

2. On the other hand, no-fault grounds (D-G) allow landlords to reclaim possession for reasons unrelated to tenant misconduct:

D: Suitable alternative accommodation available
E: Sub-letting issues where the superior landlord needs possession
F:Landlord plans to redevelop the property, making tenant occupation impossible
G: Landlord intends to use the property for themselves

Each ground has specific evidentiary requirements. If a no-fault ground is used, the tenant may be entitled to compensation based on the property’s ratable value and their duration of occupancy.

That said, we would highlight a precedent case for opposing a lease extension. Gill (as trustee of the Gillcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Ltd, was a case in which the tenant sought a new tenancy under section 26 of the Act.

However, the landlord opposed, citing multiple grounds (A, B, and C). The tenant challenged this opposition, initiating court proceedings to secure the new lease. Prior to the hearing, the tenant made good on the disrepair issues raised by the landlord. On appeal, the judge emphasised that the timing of the tenant’s remediation is crucial, but the overall history of the tenant’s performance throughout the tenancy should also be considered.

What factors determine whether a tenant should be granted a new lease

The court highlighted three key factors in determining whether the tenant should be granted a new lease:

1. Breaches should be assessed collectively rather than individually, as multiple smaller breaches can collectively justify opposition.

2. The fairness to the landlord in having to grant a new lease is essential, alongside consideration of the tenant’s potential hardship.

3. The tenant’s conduct during litigation can be a significant factor in extreme cases.

The tenant’s current compliance and their historical conduct in tenancy disputes are to be considered as a whole when opposing the extension.

We would be happy to provide relevant legal advice to navigate the complexities of such a procedure to suit your specific circumstances.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

Automatic Upgrades for Pre-Settled Status Holders to Settled Status: A Policy Update

The Home Office is set to introduce a significant policy change aimed at streamlining the transition of eligible pre-settled status holders towards settled status under Immigration Rules Appendix EU.

This new approach seeks to finalize the implementation of the judgment in R (Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3274 (Admin), which clarified the government’s obligations under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).

Key Features of the Policy

Starting from late January 2025, the Home Office will begin issuing automatic upgrades from pre-settled to settled status for those who meet the eligibility criteria. This automated process represents a significant administrative shift designed to ensure compliance with legal requirements while simplifying the pathway for eligible individuals.

Notification and Timeline

Pre-settled status holders nearing the expiry of their status will receive email notifications informing them of their potential eligibility for an automated conversion to settled status. Importantly, individuals will not be required to take any action; the Home Office will handle the upgrade process on their behalf. If, for any reason, an individual cannot be granted settled status, they will be informed accordingly.

Automated Eligibility Checks for Settled Status eligibility

The Home Office will rely on existing government-held data to assess whether pre-settled status holders are eligible for settled status. This includes verifying that individuals have maintained continuous residence in the UK and reviewing records for evidence of criminal conduct. These checks will mirror the processes undertaken during initial applications to the EUSS, ensuring consistency and fairness in determining eligibility.

Expanding the Scope of Automation

In the latter part of 2025, the Home Office plans to broaden the scope of this initiative, allowing a larger number of eligible pre-settled status holders to benefit from automatic upgrades. This expansion will further enhance the efficiency of the EUSS and ensure that individuals who meet the requirements for settled status can transition seamlessly.

Addressing Non-Compliance with Conditions

For pre-settled status holders who no longer meet the conditions of their status—such as those who have not maintained continuous residence in the UK—the Home Office is considering appropriate next steps. Further guidance on how these cases will be handled is expected to be released in due course.

Ensuring Legal Compliance and Simplification

This policy marks an important step in fulfilling the Home Office’s legal obligations under the EUSS and ensuring the rights of individuals covered by the Citizens’ Rights Agreements are respected. By automating the upgrade process, the Home Office seeks to reduce the administrative burden on applicants and ensure timely and accurate decisions.

What This Means for Pre-Settled Status Holders

1. No Action Required: Eligible pre-settled status holders will be automatically considered for settled status without needing to submit a new application.

2. Transparency: Individuals will be notified of their status upgrade or informed if they do not meet the criteria for settled status.

3. Future Updates: Further information will be provided on handling cases where individuals no longer meet the conditions of their pre-settled status.

Our thoughts

This proactive approach underscores the government’s commitment to simplifying the EUSS process while safeguarding the rights of individuals. Pre-settled status holders are encouraged to monitor communications from the Home Office and remain informed about future developments as this policy continues to be implemented.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

UK Government Proposes Increases to Home Office Fees and Temporary Transit Exemption for Airports

The UK government has revealed plans to raise certain Home Office fees. However, the implementation date remains undecided, as the draft regulations must undergo debate and approval in both Houses of Parliament. Additionally, a temporary exemption from electronic travel authorisation (ETA) requirements have been granted for specific airport transit passengers.

Temporary Transit Exemption

In response to feedback from the aviation industry, the government has introduced a temporary exemption from ETA requirements for passengers transiting airside without passing through UK border control. This exemption primarily applies to Heathrow and Manchester airports, the only UK airports currently offering transit facilities. The policy will be subject to ongoing review.

Proposed Fee Increases

The draft regulations, titled The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025, set out the maximum allowable increases for various immigration and nationality fees. Actual charges may be lower than the specified maximums. Key changes include:

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Fee increases from £10 to £16 (maximum fee previously set at £15).
Provision for Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man to implement similar charges when their schemes are introduced.

Nationality Fees

Naturalisation as a British Citizen: Increase from £1,500 to £1,605.
Naturalisation as a British Overseas Territories Citizen: Increase from £1,000 to £1,070.
Reconsideration of Naturalisation/Registration Applications: Increase from £450 to £482.
Renunciation of British Citizenship: Increase from £450 to £482.
Amendment of Certificates of Registration or Naturalisation: Increase from £400 to £428.
Right of Abode Document: Increase from £550 to £589.
Duplicate Certificates: Increase from £400 to £428.

Sponsorship Fees

Certificate of Sponsorship: Increase from £239 to £525; the £25 fee rises to £55.
‘Sponsor a Worker’ Approval: Maximum fee increase from £300 to £525, reflecting the phased rollout of the new process.

Next Steps

We will provide updates once the implementation date for these changes is confirmed. In the meantime, passengers and applicants should prepare for the increased costs and check the latest guidance on eligibility and exemptions.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

Unlawful payments made by an accountant – tort of conversion or a breach of the duty of fidelity?

In today’s case, Mr. Edward Hamish Millar, a former accountant and employee of 108 Medical Limited (the Claimant), was accused of making unlawful payments to himself totalling £127,370. This was an amount which exceeded what he was entitled to under his employment contract.

The Defendant argued that the payments were either salary sacrifices or agreed with the majority shareholder, however, no documentary evidence supported this claim.

So, what conclusion did the court arrive to? Let’s take a look at the case in more detail.

Judgement

The court found that the payments made through the payroll had no legitimate purpose or authorization and ruled that the Defendant had made unauthorized payments beyond his agreed salary.

Additionally, the court found the Defendant liable for conversion, a legal term for the unauthorized taking or misappropriation of property, as his actions had deprived the Claimant of money rightfully belonging to them.

The court concluded that the Defendant had violated his duty of fidelity, which requires employees to act in good faith and not undermine the trust of their employer. As an accountant, the Defendant had a fiduciary duty to act responsibly, which he breached by misappropriating the company’s funds.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s actions were both a breach of his contractual duties and a violation of legal principles concerning the misappropriation of assets, and he was ordered to repay the excessive payments.

Final thoughts

This case highlights the importance of maintaining integrity and transparency, especially for individuals in positions of trust such as accountants.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

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

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

Sumit Singh

See Full Bio

News and Insights

Facts of the case

Legal issues

Judgement

Next steps

My view

Have questions? Get in touch today!

The Tax Penalty and Appeal

Fake Cases Generated by AI

Reasons for Dismissing the Appeal

Key Takeaway

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What are Business Rates and how are they calculated?

Who Pays Business Rates?

What are the other scenarios of the liability to pay?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What do employers have to pay for?

Employers must now cover the following costs themselves

Some expenses must still be paid by employees

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Grounds for Judicial Review

High Court’s Decision

Our Comments

Have questions? Get in touch today!

How is the house divided during a divorce in the UK?

Assets acquired will be considered marital property

Who can stay in the home during a divorce?

How to divide the house in a divorce with children?

If I move out of my home, will I lose my rights?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Granting of a new lease

Lease renewal by reference

Section 30(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

What factors determine whether a tenant should be granted a new lease

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Key Features of the Policy

Notification and Timeline

Automated Eligibility Checks for Settled Status eligibility

Expanding the Scope of Automation

Addressing Non-Compliance with Conditions

Ensuring Legal Compliance and Simplification

What This Means for Pre-Settled Status Holders

Our thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Temporary Transit Exemption

Proposed Fee Increases

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Nationality Fees

Sponsorship Fees

Next Steps

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Judgement

Final thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Subscribe to our newsletter