#nrpfteam

[whatdoesnorecoursemean]

“A mother and two young kids have been refused support & left street homeless by @lb_southwark's NRPF team tonight. The family & one of our volunteers spent the whole day trying to get support only to be told 10 mins before the office closed that none would be provided.”

https://twitter.com/NELMAcampaigns/status/1041748204230983680

Twitter thread posted by NELMA (North East London Migrant Action) on 17/09/18:

A mother and two young kids have been refused support & left street homeless by @lb_southwark's NRPF team tonight. The family & one of our volunteers spent the whole day trying to get support only to be told 10 mins before the office closed that none would be provided.

Decision made by @alexirvine77. We've seen Southwark's gatekeeping of s17 support from families with NRPF get worse and more hostile. These decisions to leave children street homeless are shameful. @peterjohn6 @helenhayes_

@lb_southwark has made it very clear that children living in families with no recourse to public funds do not matter to them. Rather than upholding their statutory duty to safeguard children in their area, they are failing some of the most vulnerable children in Southwark.

In the past we've seen @lb_southwark refuse support & wear a mother down so much so that she felt forced to enter into sex work.

[whatdoesnorecoursemean]

Street homeless parent and 17 month old baby being sent back and forth between Lewisham and Croydon's NRPF teams

Case study from ‘Making Change Happen: The impact of national policies on our clients’ lives… A report by Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network (LRMN)’, published March 2018

‘Seraphine* is a 25 year old woman from Cameroon* who has a British child. Seraphine and her 17 months old baby were recently made homeless and ended up on the street. Seraphine, who had been living in Lewisham took a train to Deptford hoping to get help from LRMN, and ended up sleeping at Deptford station for a couple of nights. A local woman, seeing Seraphine and her baby sleeping at the train station offered to host her for a few nights at her place, and contacted LRMN for help. We made an emergency appointment for her, and after assessing her situation advised her to go to Lewisham’s NRPF team, who is required to support her under Section 17 of the Children Act. We advised Seraphine about the likelihood of the NRPF team turning her away and told her to request the name of the person refusing to help and a copy of the decision in writing. Seraphine informed us that Lewisham’s NRPF team did refuse supporting her, and that they also refused giving out their name and the written decision. As a result we adviced Seraphine to contact Croydon’s NRPF team, as she had previously been living in that borough. She encountered the same issue as the team refused to help her and in addition they referred her back to Lewisham’s NRPF team. As a result we informed a solicitor about her situation to look into this matter. This case perfectly exemplifies the issue many of our clients face on a daily basis with their local NRPF team, which often refuses to support clients who have children, even though under Section 17 of the Children Act they are required to do so. The practice known as “gate-keeping” refers to people from Local Authorities refusing to help and instead signpost people elsewhere. This results in clients being sent back and forth across different Local Authorities and eventually being refused help altogether. This can be very stressful for people in addition to being expensive, and can leave people in vulnerable situations.

*Client's name and nationality have been changed to protect their identity’

[whatdoesnorecoursemean]

Mother continues living with abusive ex-partner due to being ignored by her council’s NRPF team

Case study from the Childrens’ Society’s report ‘Making Life Impossible: How the needs of destitute migrant children are going unmet’, published April 2016.

‘Ruth and her four year old son were living with her British partner. There was serious domestic violence between her and her partner which escalated – she was badly beaten up and the police were called. The case was put on record. Ruth desperately wanted to leave the property; a referral was made to social services and then the allocated social worker did an assessment and said the family needed alternative accommodation as it was not safe and the child was at risk. When the case was sent over to the NRPF team, there was no response for months and the team still haven’t done anything about the case. The mother has limited leave to remain so can work full-time but on minimum wage with NRPF, so she can’t earn enough money to raise a deposit and find somewhere to live for her and her son. They are being forced to stay living with her partner in the property. Now The Children’s Society has instructed a solicitor and the mother is going to challenge the local authority to take action.’