Kurdish Asylum-Seeking Family Took Home Office to Court Over Their Small Oxford Home, But What The Judge Decided Was Unexpected

A Kurdish Iraqi family seeking asylum in the UK has lost its legal fight to remain in larger accommodation in Oxford after a High Court judge ruled that the Home Office is required to make sure asylum seekers are not left without basic necessities, rather than provide the best possible housing for their mental health and personal circumstances.

The family, made up of two parents and their three children, has been living in a cramped two-bedroom flat in Oxford since June 2022. They arrived in the UK from Iraq about two months before moving into the property.

The Home Office accepted that the flat had become too small for the family and agreed that they needed larger accommodation. However, instead of offering them another home in Oxford, officials suggested several larger self-contained properties in other parts of England, including Milton Keynes, Canterbury, Battle and Reading.

The parents refused to move, arguing that relocating away from Oxford would seriously affect both their own mental health and the wellbeing of their children. They said their family’s medical and educational needs could only properly be supported if they remained in the Oxford area.

One of their children, an eight-year-old boy, has special educational needs believed to be connected to trauma suffered during his journey to Britain. He is also thought to have autism and receives weekly psychotherapy through Refugee Resource, an Oxford-based charity that supports refugees and asylum seekers.

His mother is also receiving regular help from the same organisation. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, post-natal depression and anxiety and attends weekly therapy sessions.

The parents argued that moving to another part of the country could interrupt the support they and their son currently receive. They were particularly concerned that moving could mean changing their son’s school, losing access to his existing therapists and having to wait for new mental health services to become available.

They therefore brought a judicial review challenge against the Home Office, asking the court to examine whether the decision to offer them accommodation outside Oxford was lawful.

However, Deputy High Court Judge Alan Bates rejected their case in a ruling delivered at the Administrative Court on August 11.

The judge said the law did not require the Home Office to provide accommodation in the place that would offer the family the greatest possible benefit. Instead, under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the department’s responsibility was to provide accommodation that was adequate for their needs and allowed them to maintain a dignified standard of living without falling into destitution.

The judge recognised that remaining in Oxford would be the best outcome for the family in several respects. He accepted that moving could cause significant difficulties for both the mother and her young son, particularly because of their existing mental health and support needs.

However, he said those difficulties did not automatically mean that accommodation offered elsewhere would be considered unsuitable.

He described the disruption caused by moving as something that many families have to deal with, including families living in social housing. Changing schools, moving away from established communities and facing delays before receiving new services can all be difficult, but the judge said these problems did not necessarily make alternative accommodation legally inadequate.

The family also argued that the Home Office had failed to follow its own healthcare dispersal policy. The policy says that, wherever possible, moving someone to another area should not adversely affect their mental health when they are already receiving psychological treatment.

The judge did not accept that the policy gave the family an absolute right to remain in Oxford. He found that the wording of the policy made clear that it was subject to practical limitations and did not promise that a person receiving charity-funded therapy could remain in the same location indefinitely.

The Home Office had also argued that the family’s wish to stay in Oxford was simply a matter of personal preference and that the law prevented officials from treating such preferences as a reason to provide accommodation in a particular area.

Judge Bates took a less strict view of that argument. He said officials were allowed to consider relevant medical circumstances when deciding where a family should be housed. However, he concluded that the Home Office was still entitled to apply a high threshold before agreeing to keep an asylum-seeking family in its preferred location.

The judge said this approach was lawful, particularly because of the continuing pressure on the asylum support accommodation system and the limited availability of suitable housing.

Although the family had presented evidence about the difficulties they could face if forced to leave Oxford, the court ultimately found that the Home Office had acted within its legal powers.

The family’s judicial review challenge was therefore dismissed on all grounds.

The case highlights the difficult balance between the needs of asylum-seeking families and the Home Office’s responsibility to provide accommodation across a system facing significant pressure. While the court acknowledged that remaining in Oxford would be highly desirable for the family and that moving could cause real disruption, it ruled that the law did not require the government to provide the accommodation that would be most beneficial to their individual circumstances.

The family was represented by Olivia Beach of Turpin Miller LLP, while Gavin Dingley of the Government Legal Department represented the Home Office.