No Accommodation Network finds refusal leads to homelessness, destitution, and declining physical and mental health
The No Accommodation Network (NACCOM) on Monday published a new report on the experiences of people refused asylum in the UK.
You can download the 60-page report here.
NACCOM is a national network of over 130 frontline organisations and charities, working to end destitution amongst people seeking asylum, refugees and other migrants who are unable to access public funds because of their immigration status.
In its new report, NACCOM reveals the devastating impact that receiving a negative asylum decision can have on people seeking sanctuary in the UK, including leading to homelessness and destitution, declining physical and mental health, being locked out of legal services, and struggles to access statutory and voluntary support.
The report draws on 27 in-depth interviews with people who had received a negative asylum decision in the past.
NACCOM found that people seeking asylum are often unaware of their legal options and entitlements after receiving an initial negative decision or a refusal on appeal. This pushed many people into destitution and homelessness when their asylum support was stopped.
Almost all of the 27 participants who took part in the interviews for NACCOM's report described becoming homeless following the refusal of their asylum claim.
Many of the participants described a decline in their physical and mental health following a negative decision, especially while experiencing homelessness. Many went on to describe a sense of all-consuming hopelessness.
One participant is quoted as saying: "Honestly your life is zero. Zero. After a negative decision. ... Your life is zero. You have no future. Every night is nightmare. Every day is bad for you. Because you are still in that dark room. There is no shine, no light."
The report adds: "The impact on people's mental health was often compounded by the sense of abandonment by the Home Office when they have come to the UK as a place of safety to escape violence and persecution, and often traumatic past experiences. … [M]any participants expressed a feeling that once your asylum case has been refused, the Home Office don't care about a person's wellbeing at all. Participants described this sense of abandonment as dehumanising."
Participants interviewed for the report said they perceived a widespread culture of disbelief at the Home Office, in which a presumption of dishonesty prevents the fair presentation and assessment of asylum claims.
People who had their asylum claim refused faced a multitude of barriers to progressing their asylum case, including patchy and insufficient legal aid provision, difficulties gathering and presenting evidence and the impossibility of navigating the system whilst also facing destitution and homelessness.
As the report notes, "the lack of consistent legal aid provision for asylum cases across the UK means that access to legal representation is often denied to people seeking asylum, especially following a refusal on their initial asylum claim."
Many asylum seekers are left without legal representation.
The report states: "This lack of access to legal services, due to insufficient legal aid provision and the unaffordability of private legal representation, combined with the imperative to appeal quickly to avoid destitution, detention or deportation, means that many participants ended up launching appeals with no legal representation at all. Given the complexity of immigration law and most people's lack of familiarity with the legal process, this has obvious consequences for people's chances of success. In these situations, many participants turned to informal community networks for advice, meaning the possibility of having a fair hearing is dependent on the knowledge and expertise of who participants happened to know."
Most participants had less success launching appeals on their own or with the support of friends.
When participants did have a legal representative, many expressed frustration over delays and poor communication.
"Much of the frustration seemed to stem from a sense that the success or failure of an asylum case could depend largely on the performance of a lawyer. The actions of solicitors, therefore, had huge consequences for the lives of our participants," NACCOM noted.
NACCOM does further note that it is important to emphasise that solicitors providing legal aid services for asylum seekers are under lots of pressure and are severely under-resourced.
The report highlights: "The interviews present a complicated picture of people's experiences dealing with solicitors after a refusal. Clearly, solicitors doing legal aid immigration work are facing extremely difficult circumstances, and in most cases, assertions that they are 'useless' and only motivated by money are undoubtedly unfair. However, it seems that often these perceptions are driven by a misunderstanding of the asylum system, how legal aid is administered and the role and limitations of solicitors in that process. This suggests that while many solicitors are undoubtedly doing their best by clients, there are issues in communication about the asylum process and support that solicitors can offer. Participants often felt that their solicitor did not help them to understand and have control over the process."
NACCOM also highlights participants' positive experiences, including assistance from community organisations and charities.
Accessing formal support services from a charity was often a pivotal point in the journey of participants following a negative decision, the report notes. It adds: "Participants reported that services that offer legal and casework support, whether through in-house legal services or through supporting clients to work with external legal services, often led to more positive experiences with solicitors."
NACCOM notes, however, that participants reported a number of barriers to accessing support from charities, with the biggest problem being the limitations caused by insufficient funding, resources and power of the charities.
The report makes plenty of recommendations in order that more inclusive and effective services can be developed for people refused asylum.
"No-one deserves to face the trauma and indignity of homelessness and destitution. By listening to and working alongside people with lived experience of claiming asylum, and working collectively to provide the support that's needed, we have the knowledge, expertise and tools to end homelessness and destitution in the asylum system - we just need to political will to do so," NACCOM concludes.