AC-2025-LDS-000036 - [2025] EWHC 2641 (Admin)

The Claimant is a Malaysian national who states that he arrived in the UK some time in 1999 on a 6-month tourist visa. He did not return to Malaysia on expiry of that visa and he states that he has remained in the UK ever since. There are four Witness Statements from him in the hearing bundle (E207-239, unhelpfully in reverse chronological order), none of which has been made in Cantonese despite his claims to have little English. Only one has been formally translated into written Cantonese, but even that does not comply with the CPR. The statements should have been in Cantonese (his language) and then translated into English for the Court. Mr Ogilvie-Harris assured me that the inadequacies in these statements had already been raised by him with his instructing solicitors, and I say no more about them. The position might have been different if the Defendant had challenged their admissibility.

It appears from his Witness Statements that during the first 5 – 6 years that the Claimant was in the UK, he moved around the country working illegally in various Chinese takeaways which provided him with accommodation. He was somewhat nomadic because of his various employers’ concerns as to his immigration status and his working illegally. He states that in August 2006 he moved to Southend to join another Malaysian male and remained there until 2024, working part time to reduce the risk of being arrested or getting his employer into trouble. (E234-236). Working enabled him to pay rent and basic expenses (E236, paragraph 21).

On 22 August 2024 the Claimant was arrested when Immigration Officers came across him when they attended his address looking for another resident. He was taken into detention at Tinsley House IRC pending removal. On 6 September 2024 the Claimant was served with Notice of Removal to Malaysia on 20 September 2024. On 26 September 2024 the Claimant lodged an application for further leave to remain (“FLR”) under the 20 years private life route. This application has not yet been determined. Removal directions were withdrawn and on 11 October 2024, the Claimant was granted immigration bail with suitable accommodation to be notified.

On 26 September 2024 the Claimant also applied for Immigration Bail Accommodation and Schedule 10 Support (D180 -205). The application included a request to be located in Essex, preferably near Southend

“…as this is the location of all his support networks. Given the extensive length of time our client lived in this area, we submit that a request to be accommodated clearly engages Article 8, therefore substantive and considered reasons must be provided should the Home Office seek to refuse this location request” (D197).

The application refers to the Claimant having lived at his previous address in Benfleet (from where he was arrested) for nearly 20 years and provided GP records from 2004 to August 2024 (D197). The application notes that the Claimant is a 69-year old man with high blood pressure, occasional dizziness and leg swelling (D196). The covering email from the Claimant’s solicitors states:

“Please note the location request: our client requires accommodation in the Essex area near Southend, as prior to his detention …he has been living there for over 20 years.” (D178).

On 23 October 2024 the Home Office issued the First Decision letter agreeing to grant the Claimant accommodation under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, and acknowledging that the provision of accommodation was necessary to avoid breach of the Claimant’ human rights under Article 3 of the ECHR. The Home Office accepted that the Claimant did not have the means of obtaining adequate accommodation and that his outstanding application for FLR was a legal and practical obstacle to his returning home (i.e to Malaysia). However the Claimant’s request to be accommodated in Essex was refused in the following terms:

“Your individual circumstances have been carefully considered. However your request has been refused as we do not consider there are compelling circumstances that make it appropriate to agree to your request. Dispersal will now be on a no choice basis.” (D170).

On 30 October 2024 the Defendant notified the Claimant that he would be released from detention to accommodation in Sheffield. On 31 October 2024 the Claimant’s solicitors emailed the Defendant requesting accommodation be allocated in Essex, preferably near Southend, but if no accommodation was available then it would be adequate to offer accommodation in the south east of England. It was asserted that the offer in Sheffield was not compliant with the Claimant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR (C159). On 6 November 2024 the Defendant responded by email that without a valid medical reason the Section 10 accommodation unit cannot accept location requests. The email states that medical reasoning and medical evidence must be provided which would then be assessed by an in-house medical adviser (C158).

On 22 November 2024 the Claimant was relocated by the Defendant to an address in Sheffield. Various pre-action protocol letters and responses passed between the parties during November and December 2024. By a letter dated 9 December 2024 the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant and, amongst other things, explained the Claimant’s links to Essex, his medical conditions, the support he received from friends in that regard, and the impact and social isolation that he was experiencing as a result of being located in Sheffield (C127-142). On 13 December 2024 the Defendant’s legal representatives responded (C121-126) stating, amongst other things, that the request to be accommodated in Essex had been refused “.. following the outcome of the home office medical advisers assessment…. and on the basis of “the evidence submitted to us and your client’s individual circumstances”. The letter states that the Claimant’s old age and health conditions have been taken into account and that there was no reason that his health conditions would deteriorate or that he could not obtain medical and support services elsewhere in the UK. It refuted the Claimant’s suggestion that the decision was in breach of the public sector equality duty. The letter refers to the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation Policy, a matter I shall return to when considering the Claimant’s Grounds.

On 12 June 2025 the Defendant filed and served an Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds in Response in these proceedings. Attached was the June 2025 Decision. In the June 2025 Decision the Claimant’s request to be accommodated in Essex was refused in the following terms:

“The Home Office has carefully considered the circumstances of your application, including your request to be allocated accommodation in Essex, specifically near Southend, on the basis that you have lived in the area for nearly 20 years and have established support networks there. In support of this request you have provided three witness statements … dated 8 October 2024.. …31 October 2024… and 23 January 2025. These statements including assertion of community ties in Essex, have been considered as part of the overall assessment of your individual circumstances. However, it has been determined that the evidence provided is not sufficient enough to warrant an allocation of accommodation in Essex and your request has therefore been refused.

Whilst a support network does not fall within the typical reasons for granting an accommodation request outside of the general principle that Asylum Support accommodation under Schedule 10 is offered on a no choice basis, we have carefully considered your request.

It is noted you were able to establish a support network within the area despite having no previous connection to it on arrival and that you are capable of establishing a similar network in an area of relocation. As a result, it is not accepted that access to your raised support network is sufficiently exceptional to displace the no choice accommodation policy.

Your individual circumstances, including your long-term residence in Essex and the support network you have established there, have been carefully considered in light of your rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. While we acknowledge that relocation may impact your private life, we have balanced this against the Secretary of State’s duty to manage asylum accommodation fairly and efficiently, in line with the principle that Schedule 10 accommodation is provided on a no choice basis.

Having considered the evidence provided, we conclude that while there may be an interference with your Article 8 rights, any such interference is proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring the effective operation of the asylum support system and the economic well-being of the state. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the current accommodation arrangements are adequate and proportionate. The obligation to accommodate does not require provision in a specific locality in the absence of exceptional or compelling circumstances. The evidence provided does not establish that relocation to Essex is necessary to prevent a disproportionate interference with your Article 8 rights. Accordingly, your request for accommodation in Essex has been refused and dispersal will proceed on a no choice basis.

Your individual circumstances have been carefully considered. However your request has been refused as we do not consider there are compelling circumstances that make it appropriate to agree to your request. Dispersal will now be on a no choice basis.” (B111-112).