The Home Office failed to properly exercise its discretion and delayed to provide Section 95 accommodation for the claimant, her toddlers and husband for five weeks. The Home Office then provided initial accommodation – one room in a hotel (for a family of 4), miles away from the claimant’s support system. The claimant felt her mental health plummet as her anxiety and insomnia worsened and her toddlers, accustomed to their home-cooked cultural foods, struggled with the unhealthy takeaways and fast food provided by the hotel and developed rashes. Inaam served an urgent pre-action letter, following which the family were moved back to London in a suitable property, where they will reside long-term until the claimant’s asylum claim is decided.

After serving the pre-action letter, Inaam’s refugee client and his seven children, two suffering from asthma, were moved out of the small, mouldy house they were in and into a larger property free from mould and more suited to their needs.

Inaam settled a JR for an asylum seeking client and her two month old baby resulting in suitable accommodation being procured for the claimant in her area of choice. The claimant, whilst pregnant, had developed a support network in her area, before the Home Office moved her to unsuitable hotel accommodation in London where she felt isolated and depressed. After issuing the JR, the Home Office, despite allocating accommodation on a ‘no choice basis’, accepted the claimant’s need to be accommodated long term in the area where she has her support network and midwife, and procured a flat for the claimant to stay in with her baby.

Asylum Support Tribunal Appeal – Successfully argued that an asylum claim cannot be deemed withdrawn without proper notice. SSHD withdrew their refusal to provide support under section 4 IA 1999 to Inaam’s client and her two toddlers, and granted support under section 95, deeming the applicant an asylum seeker on the basis that the applicant’s asylum claim was not properly withdrawn by SSHD.

Following Inaam’s representations submitted to the National Referral Mechanism, the applicant was issued a reasonable grounds decision on her trafficking case.

The NRM had failed to account for the applicant’s vulnerability and the fact she had been interviewed by a male officer after having been sex trafficked. Inaam served a PAP on the National Referral Mechanism, following which the applicant was issued a reasonable grounds decision on her trafficking case.

The Home Office attempted to move a vulnerable victim of torture to the Napier Barracks despite the High Court’s ruling in NB v SSHD [2023] ruling that survivors of torture are unsuitable for accommodation at Napier. Inaam served the pre-action letter and  supporting medical evidence, following which the Home Office agreed our client was unsuitable for the move.

Appeal and preparation of action against the LAA’s refusal to provide funding to a high-profile litigant with Counsel’s advice substantiating the high merit of the claim and satisfaction of the cost-benefit ratio.

Damages of £21,500 for 101 days of unlawful detention.

Damages of £10,000 for 47 days of unlawful detention.

Public law and discrimination matter with international elements, arising from the Secretary of State for Justice’s unlawful and irrational treatment of the Claimant, who was prevented from speaking in his native language with non-English speaking family members, and disallowed media in his native language, appropriate medical treatment and pastoral visits. Inaam drafted extensive pre-action correspondence, representations submitted to the President of the relevant IRMCT on behalf of Lead Counsel, and the Statement of Facts and Grounds.

Successful appeal in the FTT on Article 3 grounds of inhumane treatment and poor access to healthcare in Ghana for those suffering from schizophrenia.