Newborn baby made homeless by Home Office in frenzy to clear asylum backlog

A father with a newborn baby and a mother with two children are among the asylum seekers made homeless by the Home Office after it wrongly withdrew their claims, it can be revealed.

The families were ordered to leave their accommodation and had financial support cut off for failing to attend interviews that they had not received invitations for because of the Home Office’s own errors.

The department has been ordered to reconsider the cases after the asylum seekers won a legal challenge at the first-tier tribunal, alongside two men from Iraq and Sudan, while 13 similar cases are yet to be heard.

The claimants are among more than 14,000 asylum seekers who had claims withdrawn without consent during a frenzied drive to meet Rishi Sunak’s pledge that he would clear the “ legacy backlog ” by the end of 2023.

Data obtained by the Observer under freedom of information laws shows the “implicit withdrawal” process, which removes the right to remain in the UK or receive housing and financial support, was used for one in six decisions made in the push – a dramatic rise on previous years.

Tribunal judge Sehba Haroon Storey said people must not be “deprived of protection through no fault of their own” and extra caution should be exercised for vulnerable people and children.

Referring to the mother in the case, who is a 39-year-old woman from India, the judge said: “She is a lone parent of two children but no consideration was given to this by the Home Office when deciding to treat her asylum claim as withdrawn and directing her to vacate her accommodation with immediate effect.”

The court heard that although the woman lived at her authorised address, all letters regarding her asylum interview were returned to the Home Office as undelivered by Royal Mail, and it removed her claim from the system even after she informed officials they had not been received.

In a separate case, a 40-year-old asylum seeker from Hong Kong temporarily left his accommodation when his partner was due to give birth to their son, and did not receive his interview invitation until he returned and the date had passed. The court heard he was told his asylum claim had been withdrawn at the same time and ordered to leave the accommodation, despite being responsible for a then six-week-old baby.

Storey said: “He and his son are currently provided with subsistence and accommodation by friends on a temporary basis. They are destitute.”

Under Home Office policy, implicit withdrawal can be triggered for people deemed “non-compliant” with the asylum process, for reasons such as failing to attend interviews or return questionnaires, or leaving official accommodation. But lawyers and charities believe a significant number of the decisions are unlawful because the Home Office has been sending communications to the wrong addresses.

Katie Nelson, of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, said: “We have represented dozens of individuals who have found themselves on the brink of destitution, due to be evicted from their asylum support accommodation, on the basis that they are no longer an ‘asylum seeker’ because their claim has been withdrawn. For most, this is the first time they have learned of the decision to implicitly withdraw their claim due to mistakes in Home Office systems [on] addresses and contact details.

“Several have minor dependants, are victims of trafficking or torture, and are faced with navigating getting their claim back in the system, while also trying to avoid street homelessness.”

Nelson said that official eviction letters wrongly claim that there is no right to appeal, despite the first-tier tribunal hearing numerous cases, meaning many people may not have attempted to challenge the decisions.

The Care4Calais charity said it had referred more than 30 people to legal representatives after they lost housing and financial support because their claims had been withdrawn. Hannah Marwood, the charity’s head of legal access, called the situation “a total mess” and said many asylum seekers did not realise their applications had been cancelled until they were evicted. “They get a letter saying ‘you need to leave in seven days’ time’ and then it’s matter of trying to figure out what on earth has happened,” she added. “We have incidents where people have become homeless.”

The most common reasons for implicit withdrawal being recorded include failure to complete asylum questionnaires, but Marwood said recipients were often unable to understand or complete English-only forms.

Another common reason is the failure to attend interviews, but Marwood said: “A lot of them hadn’t received the invite or it was sent to the wrong address.” Others had been classed as “absconders”, even while living in official accommodation.

“The Home Office appears not to have the systems in place to know where anyone is,” she added.

The Home Office said: “We are carefully considering the court’s findings and will respond in due course.”