Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

High Court orders Home Office to provide Schedule 10 accommodation to destitute migrants


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

The High Court has stepped in to order the Secretary of State for the Home Department to accommodate a family who have lived in the UK for over 20 years and were facing homelessness after being evicted from their previous accommodation. The case of R (Ganpot) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 197 (Admin) has been reported in the Independent and Evening Standard.

The Home Office had refused to provide accommodation because they had not imposed immigration bail conditions on the family and therefore the family were not entitled to Schedule 10 accommodation. The family argued that this was a technicality and that the Home Office was obliged by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to impose immigration bail conditions in order to ensure that the family were entitled to Schedule 10 accommodation to avoid a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge made the mandatory order requiring the Home Office to provide accommodation on the same day to ensure that the family did not become homeless in the middle of winter:

“In my judgment, therefore, it is strongly arguable that the Defendant has acted unlawfully by exercising her Schedule 10 powers in a way which puts the Claimants to this choice: either choice involves a real risk of contravening the Claimant’s Convention rights: article 3, if they stay in the United Kingdom and become “street homeless”; or article 8, if they have to return to Grenada.”

Alex Schymyck was instructed by Rachel Stower and Victor Buehring at the Luton Law Centre.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Alex Schymyck

Alex Schymyck

Alex is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers