Section 17 — council MUST help
You have no money for food and housing. You have children. The council must help — regardless of your immigration status. This is called Section 17 Children Act 1989. It is NOT immigration. It will NOT harm your case. It is the law — and the courts have confirmed it.
- Council MUST help — it is the law
- This is NOT immigration — Children Act, not NIAA
- Will NOT harm your asylum case or future applications
- This is NOT a «public fund» in the immigration rules sense
- Council cannot refuse just because of your status
Project 17 specialises in Section 17 for NRPF families — it is their main work. Call them first.
«I am requesting a Section 17 child-in-need assessment for my child under the Children Act 1989. I am unable to access benefits or housing because of my immigration status. My child is in need of support to safeguard and promote their welfare. I need interim support including accommodation and financial assistance while the assessment is carried out. Please confirm in writing if you refuse.»
After the call, immediately send the same request in writing to the children's services email of the council — then you have proof of your request with a date.
What the Children Act 1989 says
The council must «safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need» — this means providing services, including housing and financial help.
A child is «in need» if without the council's help they cannot maintain a reasonable level of health or development. This is a broad definition — it covers hunger, homelessness, lack of clothing.
It explicitly says: «accommodation and assistance in kind or in cash». The council can pay money directly — this is not a matter of discretion.
Schedule 3 restricts help for some categories of adults — but the council's duty to assess the needs of the child always remains. Under Schedule 3 there is a check for breach of ECHR rights (if there is a pending immigration claim, children, country circumstances).
What they say — and what to reply
Reply: The Children Act duty belongs to the council regardless of whether the family has Home Office support. R v LB Barnet ex p G [2003] UKHL 57 — Lord Hope: the council has no right to pass the duty to another body.
Reply: For Section 17 only physical presence in the area matters, not «local connection» as in housing law. R (BC) v Birmingham CC [2016].
Reply: Separating the family is disproportionate to the child's rights (BASW). If the family is not provided for, the child is also in need. Courts have repeatedly found separation unacceptable.
Reply: This requires a full ECHR assessment: pending immigration claim, the child's right to family life (Article 8), conditions in the country of origin. R (TMX) v Croydon [2024] EWHC 129.
Reply: LR v Coventry CC [2025] EWHC 20 (Admin) — HHJ Tindal: mechanically applying asylum rates to Section 17 is unlawful. The level of support must meet the child's welfare standard.
Arsenal of cases — for each type of refusal
Prohibits mechanically capping Section 17 at asylum support rates. The level of support must meet the child's welfare standard.
Distinguishes between welfare-standard (for families with lawful status) and subsistence-standard (minimum floor for all). [verify: date and neutral citation on BAILII]
Leaving a family with a child in clearly unsuitable housing = breach of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of inhuman treatment).
Reducing someone to extreme destitution = inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR.
For Section 17, physical presence in the area is enough. Local connection under Housing Act does not apply.
Lord Hope: Section 17 is a «target duty», the threshold for assessing need is low. The council cannot apply a high cut-off.
Courts support an individualised reasoned refusal — if the council carried out a full assessment and gave reasons. This is a counterexample: not every refusal is unlawful, only mechanically applying a policy is.
Pregnant and no help — Care Act, not Section 17
Section 17 only applies to «children» — that is, children already born. Before the baby is born Section 17 does not work. If you are pregnant with NRPF and have no support — use Care Act 2014 s.19(1), which covers pregnant women in need. After birth — immediately request Section 17 for the child.
Call: Maternity Action (maternityaction.org.uk) — they specialise in the rights of pregnant women with NRPF and asylum seekers. Migrant Help 0808 8010 503 can also help with a Care Act request.
How many families get Section 17 in the UK
Source: NRPF Network, October 2025.
Pre-Action Protocol — before court
If the council refused or is providing insufficient help, you can apply for Judicial Review (a court check of the lawfulness of the decision). Deadline: 3 months from the date of refusal. Before that — Pre-Action Protocol: a letter to the council asking them to reconsider. Legal Aid is available for families without means — contact a community-care solicitor.
- Project 17 — 020 7138 8662 — specialists in Section 17 NRPF
- Coram Children's Legal Centre — 020 7636 8505
- NRPF Network — nrpfnetwork.org.uk — resources and templates
- Community-care solicitor — via solicitor finder at lawsociety.org.uk
Frequently asked questions
Does this harm my immigration case?
NO. Section 17 — Children Act 1989, not immigration law. NOT a public fund. Does NOT affect your status. Recognised by the courts.
Council says: «Go to the Home Office» — what to do?
That is unlawful. Children Act duty — council's duty, regardless of Home Office. Reply: «Please confirm your refusal in writing.»
What is a Child-in-Need assessment?
Free assessment by council: acknowledgement 1 day, assessment up to 45 days. Council may give: housing, money, childcare, food, clothing.
Council says: we only pay at asylum rate — what to do?
LR v Coventry [2025] EWHC 20 (Admin): mechanically capping at asylum rate is unlawful. Quote that case.
Pregnant and have NRPF — what to do before birth?
Before birth: Care Act 2014 s.19(1) — for pregnant women in need. After birth: immediately Section 17.