Strategic Social Justice Clinic
Strategic Social Justice Clinic
The Strategic Social Justice Clinic (SSJC) is a joint initiative between Central England Law Centre (CELC) and 糖心TV LinC. It specialises in using public law and other rights-based strategies to address systemic disadvantage and achieve effective change. Students work with the Public Law and Human Rights team at CELC on a variety of projects that CELC would be unable to pursue without our students鈥 support.
Working in small groups, student volunteers receive supervision, guidance and mentorship from Emma Austin, Solicitor and CELC's Rights in the Community Strategy Lead, alongside Dr Rebecca Munro, co-Director of 糖心TV LinC. Emma Austin was awarded the prestigious 糖心TV Awards for Teaching Excellence (WATE): Social Science Faculty Award for 2024.
Our projects are carefully selected to put legal learning into practice, find creative ways of using the law and develop leadership, communication and organisational skills in the social justice sector. Student volunteers are closely involved in devising and delivering project strategies, and not simply completing set tasks.
Strategic Social Justice Clinic Projects
The use of AI in UK public service delivery has grown significantly, with government and local authorities increasingly exploring AI to support public functions. While adoption in the public sector remained cautious due to associated risks, some Local Authorities began trialling AI in 鈥榝ront door鈥 customer service and advice lines, which act as gateways to key services such as homelessness, housing allocation, social care, and discretionary funding.
CELC identified concerns that vulnerable individuals - especially those with language barriers, disabilities, or learning difficulties - struggled to communicate with AI systems. This raised potential discrimination risks under the Equality Act 2010 and human rights frameworks, supported by emerging academic evidence of AI bias.
The project scoped AI use in West Midlands Local Authorities, reviewed relevant academic and legal literature, and submitted Freedom of Information requests to gather data on AI deployment and safeguards. Students applied discrimination law frameworks to analyse findings and produced a legal briefing and final presentation for CELC and University stakeholders. CELC鈥檚 work highlighted risks that AI-driven 鈥榝ront door鈥 services may disadvantage vulnerable users and sought to inform future policy, practice, and strategic litigation to ensure equitable access to essential public services.
In this project, students:
- Learned key principles of discrimination law and public law duties related to public service delivery.
- Conducted desk-based research and literature reviews on AI use in public services, examining academic articles, caselaw, parliamentary records, and third sector reports.
- Submitted Freedom of Information requests to West Midlands Local Authorities to gather data on AI usage in 鈥榝ront door鈥 customer service and advice functions.
- Applied discrimination law frameworks to analyse potential discriminatory impacts of AI on vulnerable groups.
- Produced a legal analysis briefing summarising findings on AI use and potential discrimination.
- Delivered a final online presentation of research findings to CELC and University staff, facilitating discussion on next steps for policy and practice improvements.
IMPACT
This project identified significant risks that AI-driven 鈥榝ront door鈥 services used by Local Authorities may disadvantage vulnerable individuals, particularly those with disabilities or language barriers. It highlighted emerging evidence of bias in AI systems that could lead to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and human rights law. The students鈥 work provided CELC with valuable insights to inform future strategic litigation, partnership engagement, and policy advocacy aimed at ensuring fair and equitable access to essential public services. More broadly, the project enhanced CELC鈥檚 understanding of how AI is being used in public service delivery and the potential implications for the communities it supports.
CELC often supports clients living in unsafe or poor-quality housing, and many face real barriers to securing stable, affordable accommodation. In 2024, with major regeneration projects planned in Druids Heath, Ladywood, and Spon End, the SSJC investigated the impact of these developments on low-income and marginalised communities. While regeneration can improve housing, it also risks displacing long-standing residents, particularly when schemes lack sufficient social housing or lead to higher local costs - a process often referred to as gentrification.
Through this project, law students have:
- Researched the legal duties of councils and developers involved in regeneration.
- Investigated risks of displacement and legal gaps.
- Visited the affected areas and mapped local community networks.
- Developed and shared a survey with residents and groups.
- Designed interviews to better understand local concerns.
IMPACT
This work helped CELC decide how best to respond to these issues - whether through advice, legal action, public education, or policy work - and to build stronger ties with communities facing change. It鈥檚 also helping CELC prepare for future developments under the government鈥檚 national housebuilding and regeneration plans.
This project explored experiences of everyday discrimination faced by disabled people, especially those with non-visible disabilities, when accessing public services. This work responded to the disproportionately high number of disabled clients supported by CELC and aimed to understand how laws designed to promote inclusion may not function effectively in practice.
Students examined potential discrimination in three key service areas:
- Homelessness and housing allocation
- Disability benefits
- Social care provision
The project combined legal analysis, community engagement, and research skills to support CELC in developing rights-based responses to issues affecting disabled people.
Through this project students have:
- Studied legal frameworks governing discrimination and public authority obligations.
- Collaborated with CELC legal specialists in housing, welfare benefits, and health & social care law.
- Engaged with the Social Model of Disability through a session led by disabled students from 糖心TV Enable.
- Developed and conducted qualitative research, including writing an interview schedule and running focus groups with disabled people and disability rights organisations in Coventry and 糖心TVshire.
- Analysed qualitative findings through a discrimination law lens.
- Produced:
- A Legal Analysis Briefing for CELC outlining potentially discriminatory policies, processes, and practices;
- A Summary of Issues note for local disability organisations;
- A presentation of findings to CELC, 糖心TV staff, and community partners, followed by a facilitated discussion.
IMPACT
These findings, especially those highlighting challenges for people with non-visible disabilities, were included in CELC鈥檚 formal response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission鈥檚 consultation on proposed revisions to the Services, Public Functions and Associations: Code of Practice in December 2024.
The project examined how service providers, ranging from local authorities and charities to shops, banks, transport services, and healthcare providers, are legally prohibited from discriminating based on nine protected characteristics. Students investigated how discriminatory policies, practices, and processes affect people鈥檚 ability to access goods and services across a variety of sectors, despite existing legal protections.
Through this project students have:
- Studied discrimination law principles and their application to goods and services
- Conducted desk-based research on national trends in discrimination against people with protected characteristics
- Designed four targeted Discrimination Scoping Surveys (one for each protected characteristic: race, religion, sex, age) for local welfare rights organisations and community members in Coventry and Birmingham
- Prepared an Emerging Themes Briefing summarising findings on potentially discriminatory policies and practices
- Presented their research and outputs to 糖心TV University and CELC staff
The surveys designed by students are being distributed by CELC partners for data collection. Several students have expressed interest in continuing this work as LinC Associates to analyse the survey data and further develop legal and community responses to discrimination in access to goods and services.
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a non-means-tested state benefit for adults with disabilities or long-term health conditions, who have difficulties with day-to-day tasks and/or getting around.
Following years of concerns raised by disabled people and disability and welfare rights charities about the quality of PIP assessment/consultation interviews and, specifically, about discrepancies between the content of these and the information recorded by assessors and provided to the DWP in their reports, in January 2022 Part 1 of the PIP Assessment Guide was updated at Paragraphs 1.6.58-1.6.63 to allow audio recordings to be made of PIP assessment/consultation interviews. It was hoped this would increase transparency and accountability of assessors and improve reliability of the information captured therein.
However, despite audio recordings being available for PIP assessment/consultation interviews since 2022, FOIA Data suggests very few interviews are, in fact, currently being recorded (less than 1%). The Work & Pensions Select Committee (鈥榃&PSC鈥) has collected evidence from disability and welfare rights charities about the quality of PIP assessment/consultation interviews and about discrepancies between these and the information provided by assessors to the DWP in their reports.
In March 2023 W&PSC recommended in its report, that pending implementation of long term changes to the disability benefits regime detailed in Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper, an opt-out, rather than opt-in, approach to audio recording for PIP assessment/consultation interviews should be introduced to: 鈥渆nsure an objective record of assessments exists, providing reassurance to claimants and enabling quality auditing鈥 (Paragraph 98). In June 2023 the Government rejected this recommendation in its Response to Committee's Fifth Report of session 2022-23 (Page 13) due to concerns this 鈥渃ould inadvertently cause additional concerns about the assessment process鈥︹ for some claimants where detailed, personal information is shared.
CELC was keen to understand whether the experiences noted in our client cases are reflective of broader decision-making practice by the DWP. This would support: (i) potential strategic litigation by CELC challenging the DWP鈥檚 non-compliance with Public Law legality and fairness principles in its PIP decision-making; and (ii) lay the groundwork for CELC to undertake further work in collaboration with our partners to seek changes to DWP practices and policies relating to the use of PIP assessment recordings in decision-making processes.
Part 1 - Project Activities and Outcomes:
鈥 Students completed a Public Law analysis of Welfare Benefits provisions and decision-making procedures
鈥 Students submitted FOIA requests to the DWP to establish how many recordings, if any, are listened to in the course of decision-making by the DWP and whether decision-makers have access to the right equipment to allow them to listen to recordings at first instance, at mandatory reconsideration stage and once appeals have been lodged (in order for them to decide whether to defend appeals).
鈥 Students surveyed welfare rights advisors, through the national NAWRA and Rightsnet networks, to gather qualitative evidence of case studies demonstrating discrepancies between assessment/consultation interview content and assessor reports provided to the DWP and harness practitioner viewpoints/experiences about any perceived or actual barriers to having recordings considered by the DWP in decision-making.
鈥 Students extracted useful information from their background reading materials to produce a Cribsheet for volunteers in the continuation project.
鈥 Students met with CELC practitioners and strategic leads from NAWRA and Rightsnet to broaden their contextual understanding and aid development of the project research outputs.
鈥 Presented their early research findings to representatives from CELC鈥檚 Welfare Benefits and Senior Management Teams and NAWRA, and facilitated a discussion on how this work might be developed to seek a change to DWP practice.
Part 2- Project Activities and Outcomes:
鈥 Students analysed responses received from the DWP to FOIA requests, considered strengths and weaknesses in the data gathered and identified gaps in information provided in responses. Students then devised and submitted further FOIA requests to DWP, Capita and ATOS to gather further information to bridge gaps in the data and clarify earlier responses provided.
鈥 Students examined responses received from welfare rights advisors to the survey distributed through the national NAWRA and Rightsnet networks. Students scrutinised this qualitative evidence, identifying themes and trends in responses, extracting practitioner viewpoints/experiences about any perceived or actual barriers to having recordings considered by the DWP in decision-making, and drawing out powerful case studies demonstrating discrepancies between assessment/consultation interview content and assessor reports.
鈥 Students conducted independent research of Hansard, Parliamentary Written Questions and Answers and the Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper to identify statements made by or on behalf of the SSWP/DWP as to the purposes of introducing audio recording for PIP assessment/consultation interviews, and to draw out wider concerns raised in parliament about the quality of DWP decision-making for PIP.
鈥 Students presented their findings in a Round Table Meeting to leading welfare rights practitioners from CELC, NAWRA and Rightsnet, and facilitated a discussion about what conclusions could be drawn from the research and how these might be used to develop recommendations for proposed changes to law/policy/DWP decision-making practice.
鈥 Prepared a Policy Briefing Report, which CELC will collaborate with Rightsnet and NAWRA to submit to the Work & Pensions Select Committee, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Disability and the Brimingham pilot team for the DWP鈥檚 Transformation Programme.
鈥 Presented their research findings to representatives from CELC鈥檚 Welfare Benefits, Public Law and Senior Management Teams.
CELC鈥檚 Housing Team reported an increase in enquiries from tenants about poor conditions in social housing properties due to damp and mould (a form of disrepair). CELC was concerned by how few tenants are able to avail themselves of LASPO provisions to successfully secure Legal Aid to bring disrepair claims against their landlords. The 鈥榮erious risk鈥 threshold seemingly disincentivises applications from Legal Aid providers like CELC (even in cases where disrepair claims may well succeed in Court) due to high administrative and evidential burdens that need to be overcome to satisfy the Legal Aid Agency that funding should be granted.
On 13 January 2023 DLUHC and DH&SC issued a joint letter to the Senior Coroner for Manchester North responding to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths issued following Awaab鈥檚 death. This was followed by a further announcement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove MP, on 9 February 2023 that Awaab鈥檚 Law would be enacted. The Government set out 4 key changes to improve protections for tenants living in properties with damp and mould, in recognition of the fatal consequences this form of disrepair had for Awaab:
1. The Decent Homes Standard would be reviewed, with a particular focus on how damp and mould is assessed.
2. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System would be reviewed to ensure damp and mould is properly captured.
3. DH&SC would produce new guidance on the health risks of damp and mould.
4. The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 would enact 鈥楢waab鈥檚 Law鈥, which requires landlords to fix reported health hazards (including damp and mould) within specified timeframes. The new rules form part of a Tenancy Agreement, so tenants can hold landlords to account if they fail to provide a decent home. Additionally, the powers of the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing are strengthened.
Project Activities and Outputs:
鈥 Students participated in a Public Law analysis of Housing Law and Legal Aid provisions,
鈥 Students considered LASPO and the Lord Chancellor鈥檚 Guidance on the current availability of Legal Aid for tenants
鈥 Students surveyed Legal Aid providers through the 鈥楲CN Housing Law Practitioners Group鈥 and the 鈥楬ousing and Immigration Law Practitioners Association鈥 networks to gather case studies and practitioner reflections on specific difficulties they encounter in overcoming the 鈥榮erious risk鈥 threshold under LASPO to secure Legal Aid for tenants seeking to bring claims for disrepair as a result of damp and mould in their properties.
鈥 Students considered proposed changes to the Decent Homes Standard Guidance, Housing Health and Safety Rating System Guidance, new DHSC Guidance on the health risks of damp and mould and provisions of the newly enacted Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 (passed on 20 July 2023) to analyse whether these could be deemed to reflect a fundamental Governmental shift in the 鈥榮eriousness鈥 with which damp and mould in social housing properties is viewed.
鈥 Students identified useful information from these materials that could be quoted in individual client cases by Legal Aid providers in applications or appeals for Legal Aid and/or used by CELC in evidence to support Judicial Review legality and rationality ground submissions that the 鈥榮erious risk鈥 threshold is met in a greater number of circumstances as a result of these changes.
鈥 Students presented their findings in a Round Table Meeting with the Deputy Chair of the 鈥楬ousing and Immigration Law Practitioners Association鈥 and the Head of CELC鈥檚 Housing Team and sought guidance on what conclusions could be drawn from the research and how these might be used to develop recommendations for Legal Aid practitioners.
鈥 Students produced a Cribsheet for Legal Aid providers on making use of new provisions / passages / sections providers in their applications or appeals for Legal Aid to demonstrate the 鈥榮erious risk鈥 threshold is met and to highlight useful new regulatory and monitoring methods open to support clients with damp and mould disrepair issues.
鈥 Students presented research findings to representatives from CELC鈥檚 Housing and Public Law Teams and facilitated a discussion on their findings
In a landmark judgment on 26 January 2023 the High Court in Birmingham held that CELC鈥檚 client, BCD, was discriminated against by Birmingham Children鈥檚 Trust in the way it provided him and his family, who had No Recourse to Public Funds (鈥楴RPF鈥), with support as a 鈥榗hild in need鈥 under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights - BCD v Birmingham City Trust [2023] EWHC 137 (Admin).
Since the judgment (a) enquiries received by CELC鈥檚 Health & Social Care, Public Law and Immigration Teams, (b) casework arising out of CELC鈥檚 Migrant Rights in Community, Health Justice Partnership and Coventry Women鈥檚 Partnerships, and (c) work undertaken by CELC鈥檚 partner organisations KIND and Project 17 indicated worrying patterns of poor (frequently unlawful) Section 17 provision to migrant families in other Local Authorities in the West Midlands Combined Authority area (and nationally). Additionally, CELC staff reported concerns about poor awareness and knowledge of the judgment amongst both frontline organisations working with migrants and migrant families themselves who might avail themselves of higher levels of support pursuant to it.
The Social Services Support Levels for Vulnerable Children Project aimed to explore and analyse the extent to which Local Authorities in the West Midlands Combined Local Authority areas were complying with the BCD judgment in the way they provided support to vulnerable children under Section 17 Children Act 1989, gain better data on the scale of demand for such support in these areas, and provide public legal education resources/tools that would increase knowledge and awareness of the rights families with NRPF had under Section 17 Children Act 1989.
Project Activities and Outputs:
鈥 Students learnt relevant Health & Social Care and Immigration provisions and explored how these operate in practice
鈥 Students drafted and submitted detailed FOIA requests to 8 Local Authorities in the West Midlands Combined Authority, and analysed responses to these requests,to gain greater insight into (a) the extent to which Local Authorities are compliant with the judgment in the way they provide support to vulnerable children and (b) the scale of demand for such support in each area.
鈥 Students conducted desk-based research analysing 鈥楴RPF Support Policies / Section 17 Support Policies鈥 to explore the extent to which these policies complied with the key tenets of lawful support outlined in the judgment.
Students produced a detailed Briefing Report for internal use by CELC and KIND summarising the findings of their analysis of policies:
鈥 Students considered how public legal education resources for professionals produced by CELC and KIND to disseminate knowledge about lawful levels of support for vulnerable children could be adapted / reworked to provide effective resources for families of vulnerable children. Students then produced a leaflet for distribution by CELC, KIND and our partners explaining key rights families have in accessing support under Section 17 Children Act 1989:
鈥 Students gained presentation experience, presenting project findings to representatives from CELC鈥檚 Senior Management, Public Law, Immigration, Family and Rights in Community Teams and to colleagues from KIND.
鈥 Students attended a Round Table Meeting convened by CELC and partners at KIND and Project 17 on 22 April 2024, exploring potential approaches to coordinating effective implementation of the BCD decision and considering how to build campaign movements around these. SSJC project research was presented at the meeting to national third sector organisations to help initiate discussions.
CELC鈥檚 Housing Team noted increasing difficulties by 2023-2024 in establishing 鈥榩riority need鈥 for homeless refugees under the provisions of Part 7 Housing Act 1996. CELC was of the view this may be due to a decline in the quality of Local Authority decision-making generally, increased demand for social housing (which may place pressure on Local Authorities to 鈥榞atekeep鈥) and/or could be related to changes made in recent years to *the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
To establish eligibility for Local Authority accommodation pursuant to the homelessness provisions under *Part 7 Housing Act 1999, applicants must show that they meet 5 general criteria: (i) they are homeless/statutorily homeless or threatened with homelessness (defined in *ss175-177 Housing Act 1996); (ii) they have British citizenship or an 鈥榚ligible鈥 immigration status; (iii) they are in 鈥榩riority need鈥 (*s189 Housing Act 1996); (iv) they are not 鈥榠ntentionally homeless鈥; and (v) they have a 鈥榣ocal connection鈥 to the respective Local Authority area where their application is made. When these criteria are established applicants are entitled to accommodation from Local Authorities under *s193 Housing Act 1996 and then *Part 6 Housing Act 1996. They may, additionally, be eligible for interim or temporary accommodation pending determination of their homelessness application under *s188 (1ZB) Housing Act 1996.
CELC鈥檚 Housing Team was concerned about increasing difficulties satisfying criteria (iii), namely establishing 鈥榩riority need鈥 for homeless refugees.
In CELC鈥檚 experience refugees often encounter considerable practical challenges in establishing they are in 鈥榩riority need鈥 under the homelessness provisions, owing to difficulties gathering evidence demonstrating vulnerability because of the nature of complex mental illnesses (disabilities) and/or for 鈥榦ther special reasons鈥 related to traumatic experiences in their country of origin or their journey to the UK.
The Priority Need for Homeless Refugees Project aimed to explore the extent of the difficulties homeless refugees now face in establishing 鈥榩riority need鈥 under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and will seek to create resources enabling refugees to demonstrate, pursue and enforce their rights more easily.
Project Activities and Outputs:
Students participated in a Public Law analysis of Housing Law and relevant International Refugee Law and Immigration provisions. This included presentations from CELC鈥檚 Housing and Public Law experts and Professor Dallal Stevens from 糖心TV University, whose expertise is in Refugee Law.
Student volunteers undertook qualitive research by writing an interview schedule and then interviewing representatives from several of CELC鈥檚 partner organisations based in Coventry and Birmingham, who work with asylum seekers and refugees, to better understand the problems actually faced by refugees in transitioning to mainstream housing following the grant of status, and to gain frontline agency views into how these problems might be tackled. Student volunteers also had access to anonymized CELC case studies, illustrating situations CELC clients have encountered.
Student volunteers attended a Round Table Meeting on Wednesday 5th June with a panel of experienced Housing Practitioners to present their initial research findings and to draw out insights on how 鈥榩riority need鈥 can be established in circumstances such as those identified through the qualitative and desk-based research.
During the CELC's Rights in Community (RIC) partnership with St Basils , concerns arose about support for care leavers. St. Basils works with homeless youth and care leavers. St Basils identified a clear knowledge gap in relation to care leavers, both amongst care leavers themselves who were often unaware of the duties the local authority held toward them, and amongst their front-line staff in terms of navigating this complex statutory framework.
What LinC did:
- Students interviewed St Basils staff and a CELC Health & Social Care Law specialist to understand care leavers' issues and the legal framework.
- Students researched legal provisions on care leaver鈥檚 rights and created a draft toolkit on Google Forms for St Basils, featuring questions for care leavers and support for St Basils staff.
- Students were given the opportunity to present the draft toolkit to Central England Law Centre for feedback on how their work could be improved to ensure its utility for care leavers, practitioners and frontline workers.
Project Results
We devised a project which would first research care leaver entitlements and then devised a tool to assist support workers and young people to navigate those rights. This tool was used to raise awareness and consciousness of those rights within the voluntary sector. It contributed to increasing the capacity of frontline workers to provide advice and support to a particularly vulnerable group.
In Term 2 the SSJC built on the work done during Term 1鈥檚 project. The project's first aim was to finalise the St Basils toolkit based on CELC feedback and present it to St Basils. Additionally, it sought to assess the local authority's 'Local Offer for Care Leavers' for its robustness, usage, and opportunities for improvement, with the goal of creating recommendations for constructive dialogue with the local authority regarding care leaver provision quality.
What LinC did:
- Students refined and finalised the Care Leavers Rights Toolkit for St Basils, comprising questions for care leavers and legal education for staff.
- Researched the legal framework related to Care Leaver Local Offers.
- Conducted desk-based research on the local authority鈥檚 Care Leaver Local Offer and compared it with 12 other local authorities鈥 offers.
- Created a table to document comparative research findings.
- Received training on drafting FOIA requests and submitted requests to local authorities for data on care leaver engagement with Local Offers.
- Prepared draft recommendations for the local authority based on research.
- Received presentation skills training and presented the toolkit to St Basil鈥檚 staff, including a Q&A session and a tour of St Basil鈥檚 accommodations.
Project Results
- Completed Toolkit which has been used by frontline workers to navigate complex statutory framework on care leaver鈥檚 rights and provide vital support to care leavers.
- Delivered PowerPoint presentation on the toolkit to St Basils.
- Created a table for local offer comparative research and developed draft recommendations for local authority on improving Care Leavers Local Offer.
- Obtained FOIA responses from local authorities on Care Leaver Local Offers.
The Student Finance Legal Briefing Project stemmed from CELC and Kids in Need of Defence鈥檚 (KIND) work advising young migrants on their access to UK student finance. The long residence criteria, which determine eligibility, have been a point of concern. The project aimed to research and create a briefing note for CELC鈥檚 Public Law Team, explaining how the criteria operate and suggesting areas for potential litigation.
What LinC did:
- Students researched student finance legislation, guidance, and case law.
- Reviewed We Belong鈥檚 report on barriers to student finance access.
- Drafted FOIA requests to Student Finance England for quantitative data.
- Created a Briefing Note for CELC鈥檚 Public Law Team.
- Received presentation skills training and presented the Briefing Note to CELC staff, followed by a Q&A session.
Project Results
- Briefing Note for CELC on student finance.
- PowerPoint presentations on Briefing Note, delivered to CELC.
- FOIA responses from Student Finance England.
Central England Law Centre deals with housing law, often helping clients facing delays in reviewing their priority status for social housing. The project鈥檚 aim was to establish a legal basis for challenging Coventry City Council鈥檚 delays in assessing change of circumstance (CoC) requests, referencing statutory regulations and the Council鈥檚 Allocation Schedule. The project aimed to draft a pre-action protocol letter for use by the CELC and a briefing note for staff.
What LinC did:
- Students researched the judicial review process, the legal framework and allocations policy of housing law and local authority guidance.
- Drafted a briefing note and pre-action protocol letter for use by the CELC.
- Staged a mock debate regarding the validity of judicial review.
- Received training and feedback on the presentation for CELC and partners and critiqued resources produced.
Project Results:
- Students produced a pre-action protocol letter and briefing note for CELC staff.
- Presented to CELC the results of research and outlined resources for use by CELC staff.
- Formed basis of a further housing project for SSJC in 23/24
The Local Housing Allowance and its Impact on Homeless Families: Assisting the Central England Law Centre in cases where decisions have been made to withdraw temporary accommodation, with an intention to influence systemic change.
Local housing authorities (like Coventry and Birmingham city Councils) owe a number of duties to homeless people. However, if a family is found to be what is termed 鈥榠ntentionally homeless鈥, a local authority鈥檚 duty is limited to providing them with temporary accommodation to give the family an opportunity to find their own permanent accommodation. Often, the family is dependent on private sector renting. But this can be made very difficult by the Local Housing Allowance (LHA). The LHA is a statutory limit on the amount of rent which will be paid by means-tested benefits (Universal Credit or Housing Benefit) if you rent from a private landlord. For families with children, the amount will depend on the size of accommodation that the scheme says is needed. This depends on the size of the family and the sex of the children (which determines whether they are able to share a room). If a family is unable to provide a home for the children, they are at risk of being taken into care. The extent of the Council鈥檚 duties (as both a housing and a social services authority) to continue to provide temporary accommodation arguably depends, in part, on how difficult it is to find alternative accommodation.
This project aimed to assist caseworkers in the Law Centre in individual cases where decisions have been made to withdraw temporary accommodation. In doing so, we hope to consider how the work undertaken might influence more systemic change to local policy and practice in the Council鈥檚 performance of their statutory duties.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 removed a swathe of key rights of those in need of adult social care. The Care Act 2014 created an absolute obligation on local social services authorities to meet the statutory eligible needs of adults with disabilities. This right was transformed by the pandemic legislation into acts to be performed unless and until the authority decided it would 鈥榓dopt easements.鈥 The idea was that easements would allow local authorities to limit their obligations so that they would be in a better position to deal with the pressures from the pandemic. Four of eight authorities across England who decided to adopt (what were called) 鈥榣evel 3鈥 easements (and therefore restrict the rights of disabled adults) were in the West Midlands. There were a number of legal challenges to the decisions and none of the authorities retained their level 3 easements for very long. However, anecdotally, it appears that a number of local authorities used lower-level easements and even, in effect, operated in the higher levels informally with resulting needs unmet.
The relevant provisions of the Coronavirus Act were withdrawn in July 2021, but were social care rights fully reinstated two years on from the introduction of this unprecedented emergency legislation?
This project carried out investigations to identify patterns of impact on key rights and the extent to which those may not have yet been fully reversed and need tackling strategically. For example, through public legal education campaigns, advice and litigation casework, data collection and policy influencing. This cannot be ascertained by simply analysing issues that arise for clients who approach the Law Centre. Those who were affected may not have known that they have relevant legal rights and they may not seek out specialist legal advice. We wanted to get a better sense of the extent and nature of the impacts through a survey of those organisations who provide various types of care and support to meet assessed needs under the Care Act.
This work formed part of a broader project (鈥楻ights in Peril鈥) undertaken by the Law Centre鈥檚 Health and Social Care Team and funded by the Barings Foundation.
Birmingham Food Justice Network (FJN) is a partnership of over 200 members from various organisations coordinated by the Active Wellbeing Society (AWS) with the aim of ensuring that people in Birmingham have access to sufficient and nutritious food. It was set up during the pandemic and responded to food needs across the city.
But the pandemic only exacerbated food poverty in the city. As the overall impact of Covid was lessening, FJN wanted to explore how to take a more rights-informed approach, helping those who had to continue to use the network to access not only emergency food, but also rights which may tackle the cause of their food crises.
The aim of the Rights and Food Justice Project was to assist FJN by developing effective and accessible public legal education and information about relevant rights that FJN members could use in their work.
Students participating on this project:
- Contributed to developing an effective, targeted public legal education strategy in conjunction with small liaison group from the FJN.
- Explored the concept of food justice and the importance of a rights-informed approach to food justice work.
- Explored the nature of relevant rights including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and domestic rights in fields such as welfare benefits and social care.
- Learnt about best practice and developed skills in public legal education by drafting and designing information resources that are useable by FJN staff and volunteers and which contributes to getting rights into the hands of those to whom they belong.
December 2022 Update :LinC's Strategic Social Justice Clinic has now published its report based on our 'Rights in Food Justice' project.
The report can be read here:
Tackling Poverty to Achieve Food Justice: Contributions from the Advice Sector
The report explores the extent to which the provision of welfare rights and debt advice and information can alleviate the need for food bank use by helping those who are struggling to buy food to access and manage the state resources available to them. This has potentially significant implications for central and local government strategies for tackling household food insecurity. The report's findings and conclusions have relevance throughout the UK.
Developing strategies to support the Central England Law Centre in addressing complaints regarding NHS services to influence local change.
Central England Law Centre is contracted to provide an independent advocacy service in Coventry to assist those who wish to make a complaint about NHS services. The advocate found that clients were raising issues about local mental health services which coalesced around some recurring themes, but the complaints investigation and resolution seemed to be solely focused on the individual case and that patient鈥檚 experience of dissatisfaction. The function of complaints mechanisms in the public sector is to use patient鈥檚 experience to improve service quality.
Our project team began by analysing issues raised in complaint cases about NHS mental health services to identify any underlying common themes. Those that emerged included complaints about failures to provide key information about diagnosis and treatment, lack of treatment choice and weaknesses in continuity of support.
The team then developed a strategy to try and improve the use of complaints by the health organisations concerned as a quality driver, taking into account the pressure on NHS resources which tends to operate as a counter-incentive. This process involved researching quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and identifying those standards which had something to say about the reoccurring concerns raised by complainants in the cases that had been considered.
The group produced an easy-to-use reference tool to incorporate relevant quality benchmarks into individual complaints to address recurring issues in the quality of service, and a monitoring tool which can be used by the advocate to observe patterns over time. Both tools are currently being trialled by the advocate and will be reviewed based on their experience. The data generated aims to provide other opportunities for influencing change locally.
Raising public awareness of judicial review in the Law Centre鈥檚 local communities.
On the 31st of July 2020, the Government launched an It established a panel of constitutional law experts 鈥渢o consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens and to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.鈥 The indications from the government were that, in its view, the balance needed shifting in favour of the latter.
Judicial review is the court process in which a judge decides whether a public authority has acted lawfully. This was the process that was used in 2019 to decide whether the prime minister鈥檚 decision to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful. It is also the process that might be used to challenge the lawfulness of a council鈥檚 decision that a disabled person is ineligible for social care services or to close a library.
Despite its vital role in protecting us against the abuse of power, very few have heard of 鈥榡udicial review鈥. Therefore, the aim of this SPLC project was to start to tackle the task of raising public awareness in the Law Centre鈥檚 local communities, at a time when the effectiveness of judicial review was under threat.
At the core of the project鈥檚 strategy were three elements: understanding and addressing common misconceptions judicial review; making the issue relevant to people鈥檚 everyday lives; and disseminating the information through organisations which tend to have contact with local people in connection to a range of issues where judicial review could be a useful tool.
Our project team created an accessible fact sheet about judicial review and a series of real-life case studies that consider the impact it can have in helping to resolve everyday unfairness. We also organised an event 鈥楥hallenging public authorities 鈥 using law to tackle everyday unfairness鈥 which was attended by representatives of 34 local organisations.
More information on the judicial review of public awareness campaign as well as the fact sheet
An investigation into systemic problems surrounding the issuing of the 鈥楿C50鈥 form and recommendations to help influence change in the UC system.
Universal credit (UC) was introduced in 2012 as a new welfare benefits system which was to be administered largely online. This project looked in-depth at one aspect of the administrative process in which the Welfare Benefits Team at the Law Centre has observed irregularities with significant implications for claims. The Law Centre had noticed a trend in the UC50 not being issued to claimants in cases where it would have been expected. If claims did not receive the form, it was likely that they hadn鈥檛 been referred into the process for accessing all the benefits to which they were entitled.
The project group undertook internet research to find publicly available information, submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the DWP and surveyed members of the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers (NAWRA).Our research found that there is a significant wide-spread national problem of non-receipt of UC50s, which appears to have been exacerbated by the pandemic. We identified a number of potential weaknesses in the administrative system which could be contributing to the problem, including a lack of automation at key points; a lack of systemisation of key steps; and issues with the training materials disclosed by the DWP. In addition, there is a lack of appropriate safeguards in place when something goes wrong - this has all the hallmarks of systemic unfairness, which is unlawful in public law terms.
The project concluded with a report on our findings and recommendations on how to address this and help influence change in the UC system, making it fairer for claimants. The report is now being used by a national organisation to advocate for changes through the Work and Pensions Committee and the DWP.
A detailed summary version of the report for the Universal Credit project can be accessed here:
Analysing the Impact of Care Easements
The Coronavirus Act 2020 removed a swathe of key rights of those in need of adult social care. The absolute obligations of local social service authorities to meet eligible needs were transformed, through guidance, into acts to be performed unless and until the authority decided it would adopt stage 3 or 4 鈥榚asements.鈥 The idea was that these levels of easement would limit statutory obligations so that local councils were better equipped to deal with the pandemic pressures.
However, these easements were only in effect for a short period of time. Anecdotally, it appeared that many local authorities informally operated what were, in effect, higher level easements with resulting unmet needs. In addition, the lower level easements, in any event, had the potential to severely impact adults with disabilities and their families. There was concern that those impacts would be felt beyond the end of the pandemic and the formal reinstatement of rights.
Therefore, the aim of this project was to develop a framework to assist the Law Centre鈥檚 Health and Social Care team to identify patterns of impact on rights which may need tackling strategically. Our project team worked to identify key rights within the Care Act and anticipate how they could be impacted, and then created an excel tool to assist the caseworkers in the Law Centre鈥檚 Health and Social Care Team to identify and record the impacts on rights.
This tool was then used to uncover systemic and continuing issues which will help target resources as part of the Team鈥檚 current Rights in Peril Project.
Community Equivalent Healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres
A continuation of the project which started in 2019-20. We worked closely with Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group to explore the reasons for persistent concerns about the quality of healthcare in immigration removal centres, in particular focusing on the role of community equivalence in the inspection regime.
We were supported by a group of student volunteers at the start of the year to conduct further research, and we have developed this into an extensive report detailing our findings and analysis, 鈥淭he Right to Community Equivalent Healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres: a Public Law Analysis of Systemic Issues in the inspection Regime.鈥
November 2022 Update :LinC, working in partnership with Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, have published a report based upon the work undertaken by LinC's Strategic Public Law Clinic in 2019-20 and 2020-21:
.
Anyone who is detained by the state is entitled to receive health care which is equivalent in quality to that enjoyed in the wider community. For many years there has been a persistent and consistent concern about the quality of healthcare in immigration removal centres (IRCs), but the findings of statutory inspections have tended to find provision to be satisfactory.
This report asks whether there are systemic elements of the inspection scheme which inhibit its ability to apply the community equivalence principle. The report makes comparisons between the scheme used by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to quality assess community healthcare provision and that adopted to respond to the overlapping responsibilities of the CQC and His Majesty Inspectorate of Prisons for inspecting healthcare in IRCs. Its recommendations call for fundamental reform not only to operational processes for gathering and analysing evidence, but also to the underpinning regulations which currently prevent the CQC from applying a 鈥榗ommunity equivalent鈥 approach.
Ensuring effective implementation of the Law Centre鈥檚 successful judicial review challenge to the exclusion of 2-year olds of certain migrant families from free nursery entitlement.
In 2019, the Central England Law Centre received the sealed court order settling a judicial review of the exclusion of children of families in receipt of 鈥榮ection 4鈥 migrant support from the right to free nursery education for 2 to 3 year olds. Section 4 embodies the very basic subsistence support provided to third country nationals in the UK who are prohibited from working or having access to public funds and who are not asylum seekers.
The aim of this project was to develop and implement a strategy to ensure effective implementation of the Law Centre鈥檚 successful judicial review challenge to the exclusion of 2-year olds of certain migrant families from free nursery entitlement. The settlement was such that the relevant regulations would not be amended immediately, creating a risk that local authorities would continue to refuse applications.鈥
Students working on the project found over 67% of the 150 authorities had not extended their published eligibility criteria.鈥 This research was used in a judicial review pre-action protocol letter sent by solicitors whose client had been unlawfully refused. The Department has now promised to undertake compliance monitoring.
Examining the impact of the Legal Aid Means Test on disabled people鈥檚 access to specialist legal advice.
Before the implementation of The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 [LASPO], a person who was in receipt of one of a list of means tested welfare benefits (known as 鈥榩assporting benefits鈥) automatically passed the means test for eligibility for legal aid.There was no 鈥榗apital鈥 test. Ifnotin receipt of a passporting benefit, there was a capital test. Passporting benefits included benefits such as income-related employment support allowance (IRESA) and guarantee pension credit.
The LAPSO introduced a differentcapital means-test to those in receipt of means-tested benefits. Equity in the home is included when assessing disposable capital. This has specific impacts on disabled people benefitting from the government鈥檚 specialist shared-ownership scheme which was established in response to significant difficulties in accessing suitable housing. One of CELC鈥檚 clients who used that scheme, and who has needed specialist legal help on a number of occasions, was found to be at increasing risk of Legal Aid ineligibility, solely because of an increase in the value of his home.鈥
The Ministry of Justice鈥檚 equality impact assessment didn鈥檛 identify these impacts when LASPO was introduced.鈥疶herefore, students working on this SPLC projectundertook research activities to contribute to detailed representations on the equalities issues to be submitted to the Government鈥檚 current review of the means test.
Researching and developing a complete toolkit for accessing home fees and student finance for students with humanitarian protection.
Initially, students who had been granted humanitarian protection in the UK were discriminated against in two ways. Unless theywere able to show that they had been a resident in the UK for 3 years before their course starts, they:
- Were charged overseas student fees which are much higher than home student fees; and
- Had not been entitled to student finance.
Following a legal challenge by one of the Central England Law Centre鈥檚 clients, the government agreed that the 3-year residence requirement is unlawful and discriminated against those who were granted humanitarian protection, and therefore should not be applied.
The Department of Education is notifying both the Student Learn Company and Universities about this change. However, we were concerned that students who have humanitarian protection would still face difficulties if the correct information were not well-publicised.
The aim of this SPLC project was to ensure that students who should benefit, do so without having to take legal action themselves. And should they run into difficulties, they would know where they might find specialist legal help. Students created a toolkit explaining the changes to the 3-year ordinary resident requirement and to also equip individuals who might be affected by this issue. The toolkit will also help students understand what their rights are when applying to university.
Investigating the quality of healthcare services provided to detainees in immigration removal centres.
There is a persistent discrepancy between reported concerns by detainees and the conclusions reached in formal inspection reports.鈥 The clinic has a team of students working with Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group (GDWG) on a year-long project investigating evidence of a breach of the 鈥榣egitimate expectation鈥 of community equivalence and supporting GDWG鈥檚 participation in a recently launched public inquiry into Brook House Immigration Removal Centre.鈥
Further information about the Strategic Social Justice Clinic
Recent student feedback:
- "I have developed my research skills, improved my scheduling and organisation, and developed my knowledge of the wider context surrounding public law."
- "Working within a small group as well as the larger project group, has helped me to improve my communication and teamwork skills. I have also developed my presentation, analysis and critical thinking skills. I have developed new skills, working on things that I have not done before, e.g. transcription and interviewing."
- "I think one of the core successes of the project was that it offered lots of insight into how public law works in practice, and how public law practitioners go about their work."
- "I'd like to thank the staff at CELC and the University who organised and facilitated the project - there was clearly a great deal of work and passion going into the project, against what were still inclement circumstances this year. Thank you for supporting us and offering us the opportunities to participate."
"I must say thanks to everyone here. This whole piece of work makes me feel very proud. It really is fantastic that the law centre is in a place where we can take on the initial piece of litigation and then complete a piece of work that brings that legal victory into the real world in order to amplify its effect. Brilliant." Michael Bates, Head of Services CELC Birmingham. Accessing student finance project
"The volunteers and interns we have worked with have been dedicated, passionate and really eager to make positive change. It has been a pleasure working with them and we are very grateful for all of their contributions鈥.. You listen and value our input." IRC Visitors鈥 Group Advocacy Co-ordinator
Strategic Social Justice Clinic Internships
Each year we aim to offer paid internship positions over the summer break for interns to gain a more intensive, in-depth experience working on SSJC projects and ensure the valuable work of the clinic is able to continue all year round. Internships this year will be supported by the generous donations of alumni, donors and supporters of the University via the 糖心TV Innovation Fund.
Visit this page for information on current opportunities and volunteering vacancies.
鈥淢y experience interning with CELC was incredibly beneficial. I felt the tasks challenged me to push myself further... The variety of topics I looked at allowed me to pursue my interests, while learning about areas of social welfare law I was not previously aware of.鈥
Summer 2024 Intern
"I really enjoyed the opportunity to work with an expert in the field, who has significant experience of delivering these kind of projects and really knew their stuff. I learned a lot by working in collaboration with them, and watching the project take shape under their guidance. I was also very pleased to have been able to contribute to such an impactful and significant project over the course of the internship. Finally, I found meeting the staff at the law centre, and the opportunity to gain insight into the kinds of work that they do incredibly valuable."
Summer 2022 Intern