UK Visitor Visa Refusal? How Lisa’s Law Overturned an Unfair Home Office Decision

At Lisa’s Law Solicitors, our immigration team recently achieved success for a client whose UK visitor visa application was wrongly refused – despite his genuine circumstances and extensive supporting documentation.

Background

Our client, a Chinese national living and working in New Zealand, wanted to visit his elderly parents in the UK with his young son. His mother is seriously ill and unable to travel, so the visit was incredibly important to him and his family.

However, the client faced a big challenge – he had four previous visa refusals over the years, including both visitor and work visa applications. Despite this, he was determined to make a genuine visit to see his parents and applied for a standard UK visitor visa again in August 2024.

The Refusal

To his disappointment, the Home Office refused his visa application, claiming that he had not shown proof of his right to stay in New Zealand and that he had no family ties there.

This was completely incorrect – the client had in fact submitted his valid New Zealand work visa and provided evidence that his wife and home were based there. The visitor visa refusal clearly showed that the caseworker had not properly reviewed the documents.

How Lisa’s Law Helped

Our experienced caseworker at Lisa’s Law immediately identified that the decision was unreasonable and unfair. We took prompt legal action by submitting a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the Home Office, which is a formal step before starting a judicial review. This PAP letter set out exactly how the decision breached immigration rules and fairness.

In the PAP letter, we highlighted that:

The Home Office failed to review key evidence properly;
The client clearly met the “genuine visitor” requirements, with a stable job and home in New Zealand;
His wife would remain in New Zealand while he visited the UK, showing strong reasons to return; and
His financial situation was well-documented, with funds from both himself and his family sponsor in the UK.

We also guided the client to prepare detailed explanations and documentary evidence for each of his previous refusals. This helped the Home Office see the full picture and understand that the past issues were unrelated to his current, genuine circumstances.

The Outcome

Following our intervention, the Home Office reconsidered and overturned the decision and the visitor visa was granted. Our client was finally able to visit his parents in the UK after years of refusals and uncertainty.

This case demonstrates how careful preparation and strong legal representation can make all the difference.

Visitor Visas: Why Expert Help Matters

Many people think a UK visitor visa is simple to apply for, however that’s not always the case. Visitor visas are discretionary, meaning that even with the right documents, it’s ultimately up to the Home Office caseworker to decide whether they believe an applicant is a “genuine visitor.”

To strengthen your application, you must be ready to provide:

Full financial evidence showing you can fund your trip,
Proof of family and employment ties to your home country, and
A clear explanation of your travel purpose and plans to return home.

At Lisa’s Law Solicitors, we know how to present your story effectively, highlight key evidence, and challenge unfair decisions when necessary.

Conclusion

This case is a perfect example of how persistence and professional legal support can turn things around, even after multiple refusals.

If you have had a UK visa refused or believe your application wasn’t fairly assessed, get in touch with Lisa’s Law Solicitors today. Our experienced immigration team is here to guide you every step of the way.

Find out more about our UK visitor visa services here.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

Lisa’s Law Retains Legal 500 Ranking for 2025

We are delighted to announce that Lisa’s Law Solicitors has retained its Tier 4 ranking in the Legal 500 UK 2025 directory for Immigration: personal, reaffirming our place among the leading law firms specialising in immigration in the country. This follows our inaugural entry into the Legal 500 rankings in 2024.

This continued recognition reflects the consistent professionalism and client-focused approach of our immigration team. We are also proud to have retained the Legal 500 Client Service accolade, awarded to firms demonstrating exceptional client care and outstanding client feedback. With over 1,000 Google reviews and an average rating of 4.9, client satisfaction remains central to everything we do at Lisa’s Law.

Lisa’s Law continues to offer expert advice across a range of practice areas including Wills & Probate, Residential and Commercial Conveyancing, Family Law, Litigation, and Business Law. We remain focused on achieving recognition for more practise areas in future Legal 500 editions.

You can view our Legal 500 profile here: [https://www.legal500.com/firms/236911-lisas-law-solicitors/r-england/rankings]

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

Presumption of Parental Involvement Scrapped to “Protect Children From Abusive Parents”

A landmark change in the law will see family courts working from a starting point of no longer presuming that having contact with both parents is in the best interests of a child, commonly known as presumption of parental involvement.

Presently, under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989, courts in England and Wales work under the principle that children should have contact with both parents providing that there is no evidence that a parent could put the child at risk of harm.

According to family lawyers and campaigners, this “pro-contact culture” has meant that in many cases, the family courts have placed the rights of abusive fathers over the safety and wellbeing of children.

This has often put children at risk, with a report published last month for the domestic abuse commissioner’s office finding that even in cases where domestic abuse was present, unsupervised overnight contact had been allowed. A review of the presumption of parental involvement was originally launched in November 2020 by the then Conversative government, which concluded in 2024, however the results were not published by the Ministry of Justice until now.

While the change isn’t immediate, the government has confirmed that it would repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 “when parliamentary time allows”. Campaigners have called for the immediate repeal of the presumption of parental involvement following the decision.

The government also recently announced plans to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where a personal with parental responsibility has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, or in cases where a child has been born of rape. These measures form part of their plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

What did “parental involvement” look like under the previous law?

The presumption of parental involvement applies to any kind of parental involvement. This can be direct (such as face-to-face contact) or indirect (such as letters, messages, or phone calls) – provided it is consistent with the child’s welfare.

This principle was introduced through the Children and Families Act 2014, following concerns that some parents, particularly fathers, were being unfairly excluded from their children’s lives after separation. The reform was intended to reinforce the importance of both parents maintaining a meaningful role in their child’s upbringing.

The approach has since proved controversial and is now at the centre of debate, with critics arguing that it has, in practice, led to unsafe contact arrangements in cases involving domestic abuse.

The Chief Executive of the charity, Women’s Aid, Farah Nazeer, commented on the decision:

“Women’s Aid warmly welcomes the decision to remove the presumption of contact in family court cases. This archaic presumption has put the lives of women and children at risk for far too long, and this must stop now.

Contact with an abuser is deeply harmful to children, with it not only risking their physical and mental wellbeing, behaviour, and development, but also their lives, in the most extreme of cases.

Decision makers need to recognise that abuse is a pattern of behaviours, and that the potential for escalation and risk of harm is there even after the parent’s relationship has ended.”

Family Solicitor Explains

Family Law Solicitor, Xinlei Zhang, explains the legal implications of the decision and its impact on clients.

While the intention behind the presumption of both parents’ involvement in a child’s life is to promote parental relationships – so that the child can grow up knowing both parents and maintaining relationships with each after separation – it was originally believed to be in the child’s best interests. However, this approach often overlooked the fact that the child’s safety must remain the paramount consideration, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, where the courts have at times still permitted contact despite risks.

Following recent changes, the courts must now carefully assess any allegations of harm towards the child and weigh the presumption of parental involvement alongside the other factors in the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. This approach provides a more balanced and effective way to safeguard children’s welfare.

Allegations of harm, including any past abusive behaviour, are now taken very seriously by the courts. Judges will carefully consider whether contact or shared parenting is safe. Parents can take comfort in knowing that the law aims to protect children while still allowing them to maintain safe and meaningful relationships with both parents wherever possible.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

Successful Settlement Application Following British Nationality Renunciation

Our client first entered the UK in 1999 to join her husband. On 23 September 2004, she was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). In March 2006, she successfully naturalised as a British citizen.

With the UK’s transition to the digital eVisa system, individuals holding leave to remain or settlement status must now register for an eVisa. The old ILR vignette stickers in passports are no longer accepted.

Previously, some individuals holding both Chinese and British passports travelled between the two countries using their Chinese passport with an ILR vignette when they left China, and their British passport to enter the UK. However, this approach is no longer feasible, as both Chinese and UK border officials now require eVisa verification. Moreover, China does not recognise dual nationality, so individuals cannot legally hold both a Chinese and a British passport at the same time.

The only viable options are:

Relinquish Chinese nationality, retain British nationality, and apply for a Chinese visa when visiting China.
Relinquish British nationality, retain Chinese nationality, and reside in the UK under settled status.

Importantly, individuals who renounce their British nationality do not automatically regain ILR. They must apply for settlement again, typically through the 10-Year Long Residence Route (SET LR), provided they meet all relevant requirements.

10-Year Long Residence (SET LR) Requirements

To qualify for ILR under the 10-Year Long Residence route, applicants must:

Have continuously resided lawfully in the UK for a period of at least 10 years.
The total absences must not exceed 548 days during any part of the 10-year qualifying period before 11 April 2024.
Single absences must not exceed 184 days at any one time during any part of the 10-year qualifying period before 11 April 2024.
From 11 April 2024, absence days outside the UK must not exceed 180 in any rolling 12-month period.
Have no serious criminal convictions or breaches of immigration laws;
Demonstrate sufficient knowledge of English language (at least B1 level);
Pass the Life in the UK Test;
Intend to continue living in the UK;

Case Timeline

09 December 2024 – Our client submitted a British nationality renunciation application independently. However, our client was not aware of the SET(LR) requirements when submitting the application. Our client did not consult an immigration solicitor before taking this action.
11 December 2024 – Our client instructed our firm to assist with the SET LR application after submitting the renunciation form.
02 January 2025 – Our client stated that she finds it difficult to prepare for the Life in the UK test and the English language B1 test due to memory difficulties. The application allows the use of a Life in the UK test taken a long time ago, but a new English language B1 test must be provided. However, our client passed the Life in the UK test before 2006 and has lost the letter. According to Home Office guidance, we can explain to the Home Office if the Life in the UK letter has been lost, provided the test was taken before 17 December 2019.
03 January 2025 – Our client has decided to cancel her British nationality renunciation application. We submitted an email to the Home Office requesting the cancellation of our client’s application, as our client is still not confident about passing the English language tests. However, we have advised our client to continue preparing for the Life in the UK and B1 tests.
02 February 2025 – Our client successfully passed the Life in the UK test.
10 February 2025 – Our client located her old B1 English certificate, but we advised her to take a new test to meet current Home Office standards.
03 March 2025 – Our client passed her new B1 English language test. Our client decided to proceed with renunciation, and we notified the Home Office to ignore the cancellation request.
29 May 2025 – After several months, our client still hadn’t received her Declaration of Renunciation. We discovered she hadn’t sent the required original documents for her British nationality renunciation application. According to British nationality renunciation requirements, our client is required to submit her original documents to the Home Office. We advised her to do so as soon as possible. Ultimately, our client posted her original Chinese passport and naturalisation certificate to the Home Office.
22 July 2025 – Our client received her declaration of renunciation, issued on 6 May 2025. According to Home Office requirements, she must submit her ILR application within 14 days of renouncing her British nationality. The 14-day deadline therefore, started on 6 May 2025. However, our client only received her declaration of renunciation on 22 July 2025, which exceeded the 14-day deadline due to late delivery. For British nationality renunciation applications, the Home Office does not notify applicants of the result by email; the outcome is only known upon receipt of the physical declaration. We provided evidence to the Home Office showing that our client’s declaration of renunciation was only posted on 21 July 2025 and was received by our client on 22 July 2025, despite being issued on 6 May 2025.
24 July 2025 – We submitted the ILR (SET LR) application under standard service.
11 August 2025 – Our client attended a biometric appointment. At the time, she only had her British passport and an expired Chinese passport with her. Upon arrival at the biometric appointment centre, the staff informed her that none of the passports she presented matched the records in their system. Our client explained that her valid Chinese passport was held by the Home Office. One staff member requested proof that her valid Chinese passport was with the Home Office, and our client presented an email from the Home Office confirming that her Chinese passport had not yet been returned. Ultimately, the staff accepted this and allowed her to complete her biometric enrolment.
02 October 2025 – Our client’s ILR (SET LR) application was granted successfully.

Advice

We strongly advise clients to ensure that they fully meet all the requirements for settlement before submitting a British nationality renunciation application. Failing to do so is extremely risky, as relinquishing British nationality without having valid leave to remain in the UK could result in the loss of the right to live in the UK.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

James Cook

See Full Bio

How To Evict a Commercial Tenant for Non-Payment of Rent in the UK: A Landlord’s Guide

When a commercial tenant stops paying rent, it can place significant financial strain on landlords. Knowing the correct legal steps to take is essential, both to recover your property quickly and to avoid costly legal pitfalls. At Lisa’s Law, we help landlords navigate the complex process of commercial lease eviction with precision, efficiency, and full legal compliance.

Understanding Your Right to Evict a Commercial Tenant

Most commercial leases contain a forfeiture clause, giving landlords the right to terminate the lease if rent remains unpaid after a certain period (often 14 or 21 days). This is the foundation for taking action, but before proceeding, it’s crucial to confirm that the right to forfeit has arisen and that you comply with all legal requirements.

Step 1: Reviewing the Lease and Rent Arrears

The first step is to review your lease terms to determine:

Whether a forfeiture clause exists;
How much rent is overdue; and
Whether any previous agreements or notices affect your position.

This assessment ensures the eviction process begins on firm legal ground.

Step 2: Choosing the Right Eviction Method

There are two main ways to regain possession of commercial premises when a tenant fails to pay rent:

a) Peaceable Re-Entry

If the property is unoccupied, landlords may take back possession by peaceable re-entry- typically by changing the locks. This must be done carefully and lawfully to avoid breaching the peace or exposing the landlord to claims of unlawful eviction. We always recommend using certified enforcement agents and legal oversight for this approach.

b) Court Possession Proceedings

If the premises are occupied, or if you prefer a more secure legal route, you can apply to the court for a possession order. This involves serving a forfeiture notice (if required under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925) and then issuing proceedings if the rent remains unpaid. Once the court grants possession, enforcement officers can lawfully remove the tenant.

Step 3: Relief from Forfeiture

Tenants can sometimes apply to the court for relief from forfeiture — essentially asking for the lease to be reinstated if they pay the arrears and associated costs. We help landlords respond effectively to such applications, ensuring your rights are protected.

Step 4: Alternative Options

Eviction isn’t the only remedy. Depending on your objectives, we can advise on alternatives such as:

Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR): Recovering unpaid rent by seizing the tenant’s goods.
Debt recovery proceedings: Taking court action to recover the money owed while allowing the tenant to remain.
Negotiated settlements or lease surrender: Achieving a practical and cost-effective resolution without litigation.

Evicting a commercial tenant is not simply about changing locks or sending a notice. Missteps can lead to claims of unlawful forfeiture or damages. With our expert team, you gain peace of mind knowing every step, from notice to possession, complies with the law.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

Upper Tribunal Reduces Insurance Service Charge in Victory for Leaseholders

The Upper Tribunal has delivered a significant victory for residential leaseholders, overturning a lower court’s decision and substantially reducing a landlord’s disputed insurance service charge in the case of Shah v Assethold Ltd.

Background

The case involved Priyanj Shah, a long leaseholder of a flat in Edgware, London, who challenged the dramatic and seemingly unjustified increases in the building’s insurance premiums after the freehold was acquired by Assethold Limited in 2018. Under the previous landlord, the premium was £1,631 in 2017/18, but it increased to £3,803 by 2019/20, reaching a high of £5,840 in 2022/23.

Mr. Shah argued that these costs were unreasonable and provided key evidence to support his claim. He pointed out that the increases were well above the rate of inflation, supplied an alternative quote for a significantly lower premium, and referenced a prior decision by the same tribunal concerning a different tenant in the same building, where the insurance charges for 2019/20 had already been found to be unreasonable.

The initial First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed Mr. Shah’s arguments, ruling that the landlord was entitled to use its chosen insurer and that the tenant had not provided “persuasive evidence” to challenge the charges.

Upper tribunal

The Upper Tribunal, led by Judge Elizabeth Cooke, found that the FTT had committed a series of legal errors. The judgment stated that the FTT had ignored the tenant’s arguments and failed to explain why it had disregarded the alternative quote and the reference to the prior decision. The ruling emphasized that while a tribunal is not legally bound by its own previous decisions, it cannot simply “ignore so obviously relevant a decision” concerning the same service charge at the same property.

Crucially, the Upper Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that a leaseholder only needs to present a “prima facie case” – a credible reason or evidence – to challenge a service charge. The court determined that Mr. Shah had met this low bar, which then shifted the burden of proof to the landlord.

As a result, the Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s decision. It found the reasonable cost for Mr. Shah’s share of the insurance for the years in question to be £259.38 on each occasion, a significant reduction from the landlord’s requested amount. This final figure was consistent with the amount previously deemed reasonable in the earlier case involving the other tenant, ensuring a fair and consistent outcome.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

Visitor Visa Granted Despite Historic Overstay and Two Previous Refusals

We were instructed by a Chinese national (“the Applicant”) to assist with a fresh UK Standard Visitor visa application to visit her daughter (“the Inviter”), who lawfully resides and works in the United Kingdom with an Innovator Founder visa.

The case was particularly complex. The Applicant had previously overstayed in the UK for more than six months following the expiry of her prior leave, and had also been refused a visitor visa twice, in August 2023 and August 2024, on the basis that the Home Office was not satisfied she would leave the UK at the end of her visit under Appendix V paragraphs 4.2(a) and (c).

Our task was to thoroughly analyse her immigration history, address all previous refusals through full disclosure, and design a persuasive legal strategy capable of restoring credibility in a challenging context.

Our involvement (what we did)

Case audit and risk mapping

We reconstructed the Applicant’s entire immigration timeline and verified all relevant dates relating to her prior stay, departure, and refusals. We identified potential issues of credibility and compliance under Appendix V, and ensured all details were accurately and consistently disclosed in the online form and supporting materials.

Legal representations and explanation of circumstances

We prepared a comprehensive representation letter that addressed each refusal point, explained the background and causes of the historic overstay, and included the Applicant’s sincere written apology for previous mistakes.

We then reframed the narrative — moving away from the historic “weaknesses” of the case and instead building upon the Applicant’s and Inviter’s strong present-day circumstances with details: stable finances, long-term property ownership, consistent income, and established family ties in China.

Strategy: shifting the focus to present-day low risk

A key element of our approach was to change the evidential focus. Rather than centring the application on past difficulties, we demonstrated that the Applicant’s current overstay risk was objectively low.

We evidenced her and the Inviter’s robust financial position, stable home base, and positive travel history, linking these to a clear, time-limited itinerary and strong family motivations for a short visit. This strategy directly targeted what the Home Office truly assesses — not to punish historical non-compliance, but to determine whether the applicant now presents a low risk of overstaying.

By grounding our argument in transparency, logical evidence and present circumstances, we built a clear case for approval.

Supporting documents and submissions

We prepared and quality-controlled all supporting documentation: proof of property ownership, pension and savings records, family certificates, and medical evidence illustrating her continuing responsibilities in China.

We also assisted the Applicant in drafting a personal statement and the Inviter in preparing a consistent invitation letter, both aligned in language and purpose.

Outcome

Visitor visa granted – 2 years multiple entry
Decision issued on 26 May 2025
No further enquiries or document request
Processing time: within 10 working days

The visa was approved without additional questions, confirming that our approach — combining legal precision, transparent disclosure, and strategic reframing — effectively addressed all previous Home Office concerns.

Key takeaways for similar cases

The Home Office focuses on risk “now”, not punishment for the past. Even where a client has previous overstays or refusals, approval is achievable when current circumstances clearly demonstrate low risk of non-compliance.

Reframe from weaknesses to strengths. Lead with positive, objective evidence – finances, assets, family ties, and travel record – while acknowledging the past honestly.

Consistency is credibility. Alignment between all documents (application form, representation, personal statement and invitation) is essential to rebuild trust.

Evidence with empathy. Objective documentation supported by a sincere, human explanation carries significant persuasive weight.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

When is a Family Holiday Too Risky? Temporary Relocation to Non-Hague Countries

For separated parents with international ties, planning a family holiday can quickly turn into a legal battleground. While trips to see relatives or explore a child’s cultural heritage may seem innocent, if the destination lies outside the Hague Convention on child abduction, the courts treat them with extreme caution. This was demonstrated in two recent family-court cases, WO v RO [2017] and F v M [2025], which highlight how judges assess the real risks of non-return from non-Hague countries and the limits of international legal protection.

The legal test

Both judgments draw from Re R (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1115. When a parent seeks to take a child to a non-Hague Convention country, the court must weigh three connected elements:

Risk of breach: the likelihood that the child will not be returned.
Consequences of breach: the impact if non-return occurs.
Effectiveness of safeguards: whether practical, enforceable protections exist.

These factors sit under the overriding duty in section 1 of the Children Act 1989: the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration, and every case turns on its own facts. The court must be positively satisfied that the advantages of travel outweigh the risks. If in doubt, it must err on the side of caution and refuse permission.

WO v RO [2017]: a moderate risk was still too much

Mr Justice Baker was asked to decide whether a mother could take her two sons, aged eight and six, to China for a 21-day visit each year. The family had a history of conflict, allegations of domestic abuse, and involvement by social services. The boys lived with their mother but saw their father regularly.

The parents’ positions

Mother: a Chinese national who had obtained British citizenship. She wished to take the children to visit their maternal grandfather in China. The mother also offered to travel on her British passport, to renounce her Chinese nationality, and her father even offered £10,000 as security. She said her life was now in England.

Father: aged 74, a dual UK-Australian national. He opposed the trip, pointing to her limited financial stability, insecure housing, and continuing links to China, including a property in Sanya. He argued there was a real risk of non-return.

Expert and guardian evidence

An expert in Chinese law confirmed that China is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and has no bilateral arrangements with the UK. English child-arrangement orders are not recognised or enforceable in China. If the children were retained, the father would have to start fresh proceedings under Chinese law, with no guarantee of success.

The children’s guardian recognised the cultural value of a visit but described the risk of non-return as “finely balanced” and advised that travel should not yet take place.

The outcome

Mr Justice Baker refused permission. He found:

a “moderate, not insignificant” risk that the mother might not return the children;
proposed safeguards, including renouncing nationality and the £10,000 bond, were inadequate; and
the consequences of non-return would be devastating: loss of relationship with their father, removal from their home and school, and isolation in a country whose language they did not speak.

Although the court accepted the cultural benefits of visiting China, these could not outweigh the risks. The application was refused.

F v M (2025): court confirms a very high risk

Eight years later, F v M came before His Honour Judge Marin in the Central London Family Court. The echoes of the previous case, WO v RO, were unmistakable.

The background

The case concerned two boys, aged ten and eight. Their mother, born in China, had lived in England for over twenty years and renounced her Chinese citizenship. The father was from Northern Ireland. After a difficult separation and prior litigation over contact and school fees, the children lived with the mother but saw the father regularly until 2023, when she stopped contact following an allegation he had hit them. A local-authority assessment found no safeguarding concerns.

The father applied for a child-arrangements order to restore contact. During proceedings, the mother applied first to relocate to Thailand for two years, then, after withdrawing that plan, sought permission to take the children to China for a five-week summer holiday, citing her parents’ ill-health as the reason for travel.

Expert evidence

As in WO v RO, an expert in Chinese family law was instructed. He confirmed that:

neither Hague nor bilateral enforcement mechanisms exist;
English orders cannot be “mirrored” or enforced in China;
if a parent remained there with the children for a year, the Chinese courts could assume jurisdiction based on habitual residence; and
any new proceedings would be heard de novo, applying Chinese law, with uncertain outcomes.

He warned that enforcement in China remained “sluggish”, and even agreed safeguards could not guarantee a return.

Welfare evidence

Two independent social-work reports were before the court. The 2025 report concluded that the children had been exposed to adult conflict, were aligned with the mother, and that there was a flight risk given her past behaviour, including an earlier unsanctioned trip taking the children from China to Thailand.

The court’s findings

Judge Marin found the mother’s evidence dishonest and unreliable, noting repeated breaches of court orders and her unauthorised travel to Thailand despite a previous agreement limiting the trip to China. He found that she “felt she could do as she liked” and showed “no regard for court orders or the authority of the court.”

Applying the same Re R test and explicitly citing WO v RO, the court held:

Risk of breach: very high. The judge said he had “no faith that she would respect any order made by this court.”
Consequences: equally grave. China’s lack of Hague participation meant that if she kept the children there, recovery proceedings would be slow, expensive, and uncertain. Expert evidence suggested the father’s chance of success was “small.”
Safeguards: worthless in practice. The mother’s offer to place an £800,000 London flat in escrow was rejected; she could sell or remortgage it, and Chinese courts might still not enforce a return.

The court accepted that visiting elderly grandparents and exploring cultural roots were genuine benefits, but held that these were outweighed “by far” by the risk of non-return. Permission to travel was refused, and the prohibited-steps order remained in place.

Outcome – continuity of principle

Both decisions confirm the same principle: the court will not permit travel unless the risk of non-return is truly minimal.

In WO v RO, a moderate risk with no enforceable safeguards was enough to bar travel. In F v M, where the parent had breached orders and acted dishonestly, that risk was classed as very high.

The outcome was the same, but the court’s language was firmer: even substantial financial or property-based bonds could not overcome the absence of enforceable legal remedies abroad.

Both judges emphasised that cultural and familial benefits, however sincere, cannot outweigh a serious or unmitigated risk to a child’s stability and relationships.

Lessons for families

Non-Hague destinations carry exceptional scrutiny

Without the Hague Convention’s return mechanisms, English orders have little or no effect overseas. Courts will examine every connection – financial, residential, and personal – before granting permission.

Safeguards must be real, not symbolic

Bonds, passport undertakings or property pledges mean little if the foreign jurisdiction will not enforce them. Courts look for practical, reliable mechanisms – often impossible in non-Hague countries.

Credibility decides outcomes

Both cases turned on whether the court trusted the parent seeking permission. Inconsistencies, incomplete disclosure or past breaches of orders weigh heavily against any application.

Welfare remains paramount

Even genuine cultural and familial benefits abroad will not outweigh risks of non-return, loss of contact, or emotional harm to the children.

Final thoughts

From WO v RO, to F v M, the message is consistent and clear. International travel can enrich a child’s life, but where the destination lies outside the Hague framework, the courts proceed with extreme caution. Unless the risk of non-return is truly minimal and the safeguards genuinely enforceable, permission is unlikely to be granted.

For parents and practitioners alike, these cases underline one truth: what may seem like a short family holiday can, in legal terms, be judged simply too risky to allow.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

English Language Requirement Raised to A-Level Standard as Home Office Unveils Wide-Ranging Immigration Changes

The Home Office released an extensive update to the Immigration Rules under Statement of Changes HC 1333 this week, implementing wide-ranging amendments across visit, work, study, and family routes. While many provisions were anticipated following earlier policy announcements, several new measures and clarifications including a stricter English language requirement have now been confirmed.

Key Changes

Visa Requirements and Recognition:

Nationals of Botswana now require a visit visa with immediate effect (from 14 October 2025);
From 11 November 2025, Palestinians will also require a visa to enter the UK following the recognition of Palestine.

Youth and Education:

German students aged under 19 travelling as part of a group will be permitted visa-free entry from 11 November 2025, with the use of ID cards permitted for EU, EEA, and Swiss nationals aged under 19 in such groups;
The financial requirements for Student visa applicants will be increased for the 2025 – 2026 academic year, effective from 11 November 2025.

Dependants of Stateless Persons:

From 11 November 2025, partners and children of stateless individuals may apply for entry clearance or permission to stay under Appendix Statelessness if they formed part of the family unit before status was granted. Post-grant dependants may apply under Appendix FM.

Work and Economic Migration:

The Immigration Skills Charge will rise by 32% to £1,320 per sponsored year, adding further cost pressures to employers. The parliamentary process to implement the increase to the charge is scheduled to commence later this week so there is no set date yet;
English language requirements for Skilled Worker, Scale-up, and High Potential Individual routes will increase from B1 to B2 CEFR level (A-level equivalent) from 8 January 2026. This change will not affect individuals who are already on the relevant route prior to the implementation date.

High Potential Individual Route:

The number of eligible global universities will double, but the route will be capped at 8,000 places per year from 4 November 2025, with the aim of attracting up to 4,000 graduates annually.

Global Talent Route:

From 11 November 2025, the Global Talent route will be expanded to include a wider range of eligible prizes and to broaden the evidential criteria for demonstrating achievement and contribution, particularly for architects. Further amendments are anticipated in 2026 to extend similar enhancements to researchers, designers, and creative professionals in the film and television sectors.

Graduate Route Duration:

From 1 January 2027, the Graduate visa will reduce from 2 years to 18 months (still 3 years for PhD graduates).

Student to Innovator Founder Transition:

Effective 25 November 2025, students who have completed their course may switch directly to the Innovator Founder route and engage in self-employment.

General Suitability Rules:

The long-standing Part 9: Grounds for Refusal and Appendix FM suitability rules will be replaced with a new unified Part Suitability from 11 November 2025, consolidating overlapping refusal provisions into a single framework.

Seasonal Worker Route:

From 11 November 2025, workers may now spend up to 6 months in any rolling 10-month period instead of 12, introducing a 4-month cooling-off period before re-entry under the same route.

Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme:

From 11 November 2025, minor adjustments will be made to align a child’s leave with that of a legal guardian as well as parents.

Conclusion

These latest changes reflect the government’s continued tightening of the immigration system, balancing economic needs with political commitments to reduce overall migration. Employers and education providers should prepare for increased compliance costs, particularly due to the higher Immigration Skills Charge and B2 English language requirement, while students and recent graduates face reduced post-study work opportunities under the revised Graduate route.

The introduction of Part Suitability represents a significant procedural shift that will require careful analysis of how refusal criteria are applied in practice.

With many of the changes arriving imminently, some as soon as next month, we recommend that sponsors, employers, and migrants review their immigration strategies well in advance of the relevant commencement dates to ensure compliance and mitigate any potential disruption to visa planning or recruitment timelines.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

The Renters’ Rights Bill Becomes Law – What Landlords and Tenants Need to Know

The UK government is pressing ahead with major reforms to the private rental market through the upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill, expected to be one of the most significant changes in housing law for more than 30 years.

The Bill aims to strengthen tenants’ rights and rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants. It will also introduce new compliance duties and procedural rules that all landlords and letting agents must understand and prepare for.

Below, you will find a summary of the key reforms and their implications.

Abolition of “No-Fault” Evictions (Section 21)

One of the most important reforms is the abolition of Section 21 notices, which currently allow landlords to evict tenants without providing any reason once a fixed term ends.

Under the new regime, landlords will only be able to seek possession under specified statutory grounds such as:

Serious or repeated rent arrears;
Breach of tenancy obligations;
The landlord wishing to sell the property;
The landlord or a close family member intending to occupy the property; or
The property requiring substantial refurbishment.

This change is designed to give tenants greater security and stability in their homes, while ensuring landlords retain legitimate grounds for possession when genuinely needed.

End of Fixed-Term Tenancies

The Bill will abolish the concept of fixed-term Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs). All new tenancies will instead be periodic (rolling) tenancies, typically running from month to month.

This means tenants will have the flexibility to end their tenancy with a two-month notice, while landlords can only regain possession using one of the statutory grounds.

For tenants, this reform enhances mobility and prevents being “locked in” to long contracts.

For landlords, it reduces predictability and may require greater attention to cash flow and tenancy management.

Restrictions on Rent Increases

The Renters’ Rights Bill will limit rent increases to once per year and require landlords to give at least two months’ notice of any proposed increase.

Tenants will be able to challenge excessive rent increases through the First-tier Tribunal, which may substitute a market-based rent if the increase is deemed unreasonable.

Pre-set rent escalation clauses and rent bidding (accepting offers above the advertised rent) will be prohibited.

Landlords will therefore need to adopt more transparent pricing policies and maintain evidence of local market rates to justify rent adjustments.

Reform of Upfront Payments and Deposits

The Bill is expected to restrict landlords from demanding rent or deposits before the tenancy agreement is signed.

In most cases, the maximum deposit will remain capped at five weeks’ rent (six weeks where annual rent exceeds £50,000).

The Bill also contemplates clearer regulation of additional deposits for pet ownership, allowing landlords to request a reasonable extra amount to cover potential damage, subject to an upper limit.

These measures aim to reduce financial barriers for tenants at the start of a tenancy and prevent unfair pre-payment practices.

Strengthened Housing Standards – “Decent Homes” and Awaab’s Law

The government intends to extend the Decent Homes Standard (previously applicable only to social housing) to the private rented sector.

This means all rented properties must be safe, warm, and free from serious hazards such as damp, mould, or structural disrepair.

The Bill also incorporates principles from Awaab’s Law, which requires landlords to address health and safety hazards within strict time limits after being notified.

Landlords will face stronger enforcement powers from local councils and could face penalties for failing to maintain satisfactory housing conditions.

New Landlord Database and Ombudsman Scheme

The Bill will establish a national landlord and property database and a Private Rented Sector Ombudsman.

The database will require landlords to register their details and their rented properties. This is intended to improve transparency and help tenants verify whether a landlord is compliant.
The Ombudsman scheme will provide tenants and landlords with a quicker, lower-cost alternative to the courts for resolving disputes such as repair issues or deposit disagreements.

Failure to register or cooperate with the Ombudsman could lead to enforcement action and fines.

Protection Against Discrimination

Landlords and letting agents will be prohibited from imposing blanket bans on tenants who receive benefits or have children.

This provision aims to tackle widespread “No DSS” or “No children” policies and ensure fairer access to rental housing.

Implications for Landlords

The Renters’ Rights Bill represents a significant shift in the balance of rights between landlords and tenants.

Landlords will face:

Greater procedural hurdles for possession;
Stricter rent controls and challenge mechanisms;
Heightened repair and maintenance duties;
Increased administrative burden through registration and compliance systems; and
Potential financial pressure from delayed evictions or higher upkeep costs.

However, compliance with the new framework will also promote professionalism in the private rented sector and help maintain stable long-term tenancies.

Transitional Arrangements and Timeline

At the time of writing, the Bill will be back in the House of Lords for consideration of amendments on 14 October 2025 and it is expected to receive Royal Assent in late 2025, with most provisions coming into force during 2026 in phases.

Existing tenancies are likely to convert automatically into periodic tenancies after the commencement date, subject to transitional rules.

Section 21 notices issued before the effective date may still be valid for a limited period.

Landlords should therefore audit their current tenancy portfolio, update tenancy templates, and review rent review clauses, deposit terms, and maintenance procedures to ensure compliance once the Act comes into force.

Practical Advice for Clients

The advent of the Renters’ Rights Bill means that close attention should be paid to its changes by both tenants and landlords.

For Tenants

Review your tenancy agreement carefully before signing.
Keep written evidence of all communications with your landlord.
Report disrepair or safety issues promptly and in writing.
Do not pay rent or deposits before signing a written tenancy agreement.
If you receive a rent increase notice, check whether it complies with the new rules and consider seeking advice if it seems excessive.

For Landlords

Update tenancy agreements to comply with the new legal framework.
Register your properties as required and familiarize yourself with the Ombudsman process.
Keep clear maintenance records and respond promptly to repair requests.
Seek professional legal advice before serving any eviction notice or raising rent.

Conclusion

The Renters’ Rights Bill marks a new era for the UK rental market. While the reforms are primarily designed to protect tenants, landlords who prepare early and act transparently will be best placed to adapt and continue operating successfully under the new regime.

With the Bill now law, our firm will continue to monitor its progress and provide updates once the final version of the legislation and its commencement timetable are confirmed.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

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

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

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

James Cook

See Full Bio

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

Subscribe to our newsletter

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