Home Office’s Asylum Schemes to take over children into custody

Currently there is a scheme in place to target Asylum Seekers and their families including children.  The Home office National Asylum ~Support Service makes direct communication with Local authorities’ children services by targeting children to be taken into custody for no reasons whatsoever. We urge the society in UK to be mindful because this is not only happening to Asylum Seekers but to normal British citizens who are vulnerable.  for asylum seekers, it is more easy to do so by ceasing their supports and allowing them to be in hunger and providing degrading and inhuman treatment.  another scheme is to evict them from their houses and put them street homeless, in hunger with children and babies.  Social services prevent access to eligible services and those are assisted by police and the courts.  Vulnerable asylum seekers are tortured physically and mentally and are given inhuman treatment against Article 3 ECHR.  They are even prevented to have access to basic healthcare.

To

Ms Doreen Umeadi

Asylum Support

Home Office

 

Mr Sean Wilson

TSOL

 

 

Dear Madam,

 

Re:  NASS 10/10/00644/003

Court of Appeal:  C1/2013/3600

 

We refer to your letter received on Saturday 26th April 2014 which contains an accommodation offer for Birmingham and an order for us to disperse on Monday 28th April 2014. Your letter also refers to subsistence allowances which should be collected from a designated post office in Birmingham.  It is with great concern to note the time limit (only 1 day) to disperse which is in contrary to Policy Bulletin 17.  As far as our case is concerned, you have not demonstrated any public interest issue which requires an urgent dispersal.

 

We have reflected upon the contents of your letter and took the time to talk to our family which comprises of 5 people including 3 children born and brought up in UK.  Unfortunately, the first two children refuse to travel to Birmingham and they simply do not wish to leave their day to day lives to go elsewhere. They are in the position to make their own choices.  We have attached their letters which they have written and they can be interviewed if required.  It is not in our capacity to compel them to disperse when they are refusing and we cannot abuse their rights by doing so forcefully.

 

Please note that our second child, Usman Ismail, has an appointment on Tuesday 29th April 2014 at Royal London Hospital.  There are also many other medical appointments and other health issues.

 

As indicated in the further submissions provided to the Asylum Team on 24th February 2014, Mr Ismail is the Secretary of an organization, The Sri Lankan Muslim Council of Britain.  It is not practical to expect him to disperse as the community interest organization and diaspora activities are based in London.

 

Further, you should be aware that there is an appeal pending in the Court of Appeal, Royal Court of Justice with respect to the accommodation issues. This has been constantly indicated to you.  The case concerns the dispersal to Birmingham and the fact that you have cancelled Mr Ismail’s leg operation by being in close contact with Barts Health NHS.  Hence, while this appeal is pending, it is not possible for us to disperse.  In this regard, Justice Eder directed you through his order dated 11 March 2013 to continue to provide Subsistence Support until determination of the case.  Hence, in both circumstances, it is in your best interests to continue to provide subsistence supports and to respect the court’s order.

 

We understand that you have misled Mr Stephen Timms MP by your false representations and documents.  This was carried out deliberately and recklessly to create rifts between the MP and us.  We believe that the MP is fully aware of the law but you have attempted to act in a fraudulent way to convince him for your unlawful aims.  We have been provided with a copy of an Asylum Support Tribunal Decision by the MP’s secretary, Mr Peter James, for verification. You apparently rely upon that decision as evidence to manipulate people.  We have clearly indicated to you that there is an appeal pending in the Court of Appeal and by relying upon a Tribunal decision which specified that there is no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against dispersal is illegal.   The jurisdiction lies in the High Court and Appellate Courts.  Please see attached explanation of the procedure of tribunals and their jurisdictions sent to you as a goodwill if you are unaware.

 

In such circumstances, it is humbly requested that you resume subsistence supports and to refrain from continuously violating a court’s order and your policies, Children Act 1989 and Human Rights Act 1998 and other conventions.  

 

Please note that if you are in the intention to cease support pending the dispersal to Birmingham, it will be in the best interest of our family and yourself to terminate all supports with an appropriate notice as per your guidelines and give full explanation in a decision which can be appealed to the Asylum Support Tribunal and further.  As a result, you will be able to make your representations and submit evidences with regards to your several adamant accommodation offers.  However, if the tribunal does not have jurisdiction, they will transfer the case for Judicial review in the high court as we have met all the criteria to stay in East London.

 

We will be grateful if you refrain from using several strategies to compel our family to disperse by any means.  This may cause substantial public expenses.  You are aware that we are fully able to pay our rent and accommodate ourselves, but due to the fact that you have prevented us to take any employment, we are today relying upon the Secretary of State.  

 

We therefore await any necessary arrangement to provide subsistence support which has expired on Sunday 27th April 2014 and an interim court of appeal application will follow if no support has been resumed by evening of Monday 28th April 2014.  At all material times, we have attempted to resolve these matters through alternative resolutions but you have failed to cooperate.

 Yours faithfully,

 Mr and Mrs Ismail

______________________________________

Dear MR ISMAIL

 

This letter is a response to your emails sent on 27th and 28th April 2014 in which you stated that your family will not be travelling to the accommodation arranged for you in Birmingham.

 

Please note that your family has been given two opportunities to travel on 14th and 28th April 2014 and transportation was arranged for you on both occasions. In addition you were informed that your family’s regular subsistence support would be provided after you arrived in Birmingham.

 

Over a lengthy period time you have sought accommodation from the Home Office on the basis that you are not able to stay at your existing address (47B Colchester Avenue London E12 5LF). You have not explained why this position has changed.  Our understanding, in fact, is that you have been served a Notice To Quit Order by the letting agency who owns the property and there are proceedings in the County Court requiring you to vacate the property.

 

Section 95(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides the Home Office with a power to accommodate asylum seekers who are destitute. Section 95(3)(b) of the 1999 Act defines a person as destitute who has “adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his essential living needs”.

 

Section 95(6)(a)_of the 1999 Act provides that in determining whether accommodation is “adequate” the Secretary of State may take into account “that the person concerned has no enforceable right to occupy the accommodation”.

 

On the information available we are not satisfied that your current accommodation is adequate – since it appears that you have no enforceable right to remain there. Additionally, it is not clear how you propose to cover rent and other accommodation costs. We are not therefore prepared to provide you with subsistence support to cover you and your family’s essential living needs while you remain at your current address.

 

We remain willing to provide you with subsistence support at the accommodation in Birmingham that has been arranged for you. You should contact us urgently if you still require support.

 

Please note that the accommodation made available for you cannot be left unoccupied for more that a short period of time.
Yours sincerely

Doreen Umeadi

__________________________________________________________

homeaffcom@parliament.uk, gbrlo@unhcr.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached letters and I will be grateful if you could contact me with regards to the suspension of my support by UKVI.  As an asylum seeker, I have no right to work and my children have been left starving.  The UKVI individuals are relunctant to make my family move to Birmingham and failure to do so has suspended my subsistence supports for my entire family.

There isno law which allow the Asylum support Team to suspend support due to non-dispersal when full reasons have been provided and when the chidlrne invovled are refusing to travel.

I await your understanding and any necessary actions to be taken for the above letter.  There is a high level of discrimination and racism in this case.  the reason for the UKVI to act in this way is due to a court of appeal application made against dispersal and cancellation of my leg operation in 2013 in collaboration with Barts Health NHS Trust.  The Home office wants this case to be withdrawn automatically by using the strategy of dispersal and suspension of subsistence supports.

Regards

Mr/Mrs Ismail and 3 minor children
 ____________________________________________________

TO:

 

  • Doreen Umeadi
  • Clifford Kirsch
  • Marion Isted
  • Jeremy Oppenheim

 

Asylum Support Team

UK Visas & Immigration

 

  • Sean Wilson

Treasury Solicitor

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Response to your letter dated 29 April 2014

Proposed Claim for Judicial Review: Pre-Action Protocol Letter Before Claim

 

This is a letter before claim sent in accordance with the Queen’s Bench Division pre-action protocol.

 

  1. To: Asylum Support Team (Home Office Immigration & Visa Service)

Mr Sean Wilson (Treasury Solicitor)

 

  1. The claimants are Mr Afham Ismail, xxxxx

 

  1. Reference: NASS – 10/10/00644/003

 

  1. The details of the matter being challenged:

 

  • Failure to provide subsistence supports
  • Perverting and interfering with the course of justice
  • Misrepresentations to the court
  • Breach of policies and statutory duties

 

  1. The claimants are in process of filing a judicial review claim against the Asylum Support Team of the Home Office for the non-compliance with their legal obligations, statutory duties and severe violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention rights including Section 55 and Children Act 1989. Abuse of duty and severe pressures / racist attacks have been put on this vulnerable family to achieve illegitimate aims. It is noted:

 

  1. Section 11 of Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 (Treatment of claimants) provides that:

 

Accommodation for asylum seekers: local connection

 

At the end of section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (local connection) add—

A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he was (at any time) provided with accommodation in that district under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (support for asylum seekers).

 

 

Pursuant to the Treasury Solicitor’s letter dated 16 April 2013, the accommodation above (47b Colchester Avenue E12 5LF) has been provided by the Home Office and the claimants are continuing to be accommodated by the Home Office under Section 95. Hence, as the accommodation provided is in the borough of Newham, the claimants have local connection to the area and should be provided with accommodation in the same district under Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.

 

 

  1. Pursuant to Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill approved by the Parliament, subsistence support and dispersal should not be merged. The Home Office’s pilot strategy of withdrawing subsistence only supports are unfair and in contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights where the United Kingdom is an active member.

 

That clause proposed by the Home Office’s pilot scheme allows the Secretary of State to make an order restricting the provision of essential living needs to those asylum seekers provided with accommodation by the Secretary of State, which seems to compel asylum seekers to accept dispersal.  Taken as a whole, the clause would therefore abolish the current option of applying for, and receiving National Asylum Support Service Subsistence support Only, that is, without receiving NASS-provided accommodation on dispersal.  Parliament has considered this scheme to be unfair, unjust and counter-productive.  In some cases, it could result in the undesirable separation of asylum seekers from friends or relatives able to accommodate them but not to support them financially, causing unnecessary distress to the asylum seekers concerned.  The pilot scheme also targets those asylum seekers who have community links and relatives in a particular area to cause more victimisation and sufferings.

 

In line with the Bill approved by Parliament, the Defendant has acted illegitimately and against the Human Rights Act 1998 by indicating in clear wordings:  “We are not therefore prepared to provide you with subsistence support to cover you and your family’s essential living needs while you remain at your current address”.  This act proves that the Defendant is attempting to force the claimants to disperse to an unknown region where the claimants do not have any friends, families and communities. This act amounts to aggressivity.  The Defendant has not provided any law or policies which allow them to do so.

 

  1. Pursuant to Healthcare Needs Policies for dispersal issued on 15 April 2014, This document provides guidance for Home Office staff when dispersing asylum seekers/failed asylum seekers and their dependants who have health needs, following an application for asylum support under the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 (“the1999 Act”). This instruction replaces Policy Bulletin 85: Dispersing Asylum Seekers with Health Care Needs and Policy Bulletin 61: Pregnancy.

 

  • This instruction does not cover asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers who have ‘care needs’ over and above destitution and the provision of accommodation. Local Authorities are obliged to provide suitable residential accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (“the 1948 Act”) where an individual has a care need which requires some additional help over and above provision of accommodation, for example, assistance with personal care or household tasks. To do so, the Secretary of State may direct the Local authority to provide accommodation in line with Section 100 of Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

 

 

  • If the applicant is receiving treatment in the UK for a severe or complex healthcare need, the Routing Team should, if possible, route the applicant to the IA closest to where the applicant is being treated.

 

  • When routing families with children, the Routing Team caseworkers should take into account the Secretary of State’s obligations under Section 55 of the 2009 Act.

 

  • Caseworkers should assess whether the applicant has any special medical needs that will affect dispersal; this may include a need to be accommodated in a particular location or in a certain type of accommodation, or in the case of applicants accommodated in IA, information about ongoing treatment for a medical condition which requires deferred dispersal from IA.

 

  • Each application should be assessed on its individual merits. Careful consideration must be given to the specific circumstances of each case. Decisions must be taken against the circumstances of the applicant’s entire household who have been granted support, and where required, be based on guidance of medical experts.
  • There may be cases where particular issues on their own would not require special arrangements as to accommodation location, but when taken together the combination may warrant special arrangements. For example, a member of the household is receiving ongoing treatment for a pre-existing medical condition, has lived in a location for a considerable period of time, and has an existing network of support from family and friends.

 

  • Where, on advice from the Asylum Support Medical Advisor, out of area dispersal is assessed as being suitable, but treating clinicians/midwives need to make continuity of care arrangements, it may be appropriate to temporarily accommodate the applicant within the area he can access his current treating medical facility. This will give the treating clinicians/midwives suitable opportunity to make appropriate arrangements, before dispersal commences.

 

  • Confidentiality rules prevent treating clinicians from disclosing medical records to the Home Office without the applicant’s permission. Therefore, if the Home Office requires a treating clinician to disclose medical information about the treatment of an applicant in order to make a decision on appropriate dispersal arrangements, explicit written permission from the applicant must be obtained before the treating clinician is contacted. The “Requesting Consent to Approach Treating Clinician Letter” must be used.

 

  • The disruption of therapy with a trusted clinician may be detrimental to an individual’s mental health and compromise his capacity for recovery in the long term. Where an applicant is engaged in psychological and psychiatric services, consideration should be given to deferring dispersal out of the area the applicant can access treatment at his current medical facility, in order to allow treatment to continue and be completed. Where an applicant is receiving ongoing treatment from a psychiatrist, clinician, doctor, or nurse, and the medical practitioner states that an individual is at high risk of suicide, serious self-harm or risk to others, if the Home Office plans to disperse the applicant out of the area the applicant can access treatment at his current medical facility, the caseworker with the assistance of the Asylum Support Medical Adviser, must liaise with the relevant treating clinician prior to dispersal.

 

 

  1. c) Under the provisions of sections 99 and 100 of Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Part VI, the UK Visas and Immigration acting on behalf of the Secretary of State should liaise with the local authority to make arrangements to provide support under Section 95. This section applies if the Secretary of State asks –
  2. A local authority,
  3. A registered social landlord
  4. A registered housing association
  5. The Executive

to assist him to exercise his power under Section 95 to provide accommodation.

 

This means that the Local authority in which the asylum support applicant ordinarily resides should liaise with the Secretary of State if care needs have been assessed.

 

  1. d) Article 8 – Right to respect private and family life ; Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

  1. The Children Act 1989 introduced the concept of significant harm as the threshold that ‘justifies compulsory intervention in family life, in the best interests of children’ (para 5.49 Working Together 2010).

 

  1. Under Section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989, Development means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development.

 

  1. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the UK Border Agency and Local authorities to carry out its existing functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.

 

  1. Pursuant to Policy Bulletin 31 of UKBA, asylum seekers may ask to be allocated accommodation in London or the South East. When this happens, caseworkers should assess:

 

  • whether it is reasonable to allocate accommodation in a dispersal area (i.e. outside London or the South East) ;
  • whether an allocation of accommodation will meet the person’s accommodation needs;
    • whether the decision to disperse is compatible with our obligations under Human Rights legislation, and in cases involving families with children that dispersal is in line with UKBA’s obligation to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. It is important for both of these reasons that any children affected are treated as individuals and all information about them that is reasonably available is considered.

 

This assessment should be based on the information available on the application form and any other information submitted with the application.

  1. There may also be occasions when caseworkers will need to obtain further information, for example from the reception assistant or from the Asylum Support Medical Adviser, to inform their decision.

 

  1. Each application should be considered on its own merits, and any child named in the application should be given individual consideration.
  • The issues are as follows:

 

  • There was no assessment to come to the conclusion that the current accommodation is not adequate.
  • Under which law has the Defendant suspended subsistence support?
  • The Secretary of State is advising the claimants to quit their current accommodation while the appeal is pending in the Court of Appeal (see attached). As far as we understand, there are no county court proceedings in place and further information requested has not been responded by the solicitor.

 

  • The question which thus arises is:

 

  1. Who has written the letter sent by Doreen Umeadi on 29 April 2014? The letter does not meet the required standard and was sent out of office hours.
  2. How did the Defendant determine that the current accommodation is not adequate without an assessment or visit/interview?
  3. What is the urgency of dispersal when no proceedings in County court have started? It should be noted that in August 2012 when accommodation was sought prior to eviction, the defendant refused to provide such support claiming that there was no urgency.  The Defendant has made false interpretation of the law.

 

  • What was the assessment carried out to reach this decision?

 

  • How the defendant can come to a conclusion before county court proceedings start or being examined by an impartial court or tribunal? Is it a pre-planned conspiracy?

 

  • How many caseworkers work on one particular case? In our case, it seems that over 12 caseworkers are dealing with the support issues. What is the public interest in doing so?

 

  • It could be that when the property proceedings proceed to county court, the Defendant may be ordered by the court to make appropriate provision of accommodation pursuant to Human Rights Acts and other policies.

 

  • While an appeal is pending in the court of appeal, it is illegal to intimidate the appellants despite having a court’s order to provide subsistence allowance until the determination of the case. This is a serious interference with the administration of justice by abusing their powers.

 

  • If an applicant states on their application form that they want to stay in a particular area and it is decided to allocate accommodation elsewhere, caseworkers should give written reasons for their decision. No such decision was provided.

 

  • If a caseworker has reason to believe that children or their primary carers have needs arising above and beyond that which the UK Border Agency can provide, they may wish to initiate contact or liaise with other agencies (e.g. Local Authorities, the Local Safeguarding Children Board, Department of Health and/or other UKBA departments) where necessary in order to secure the most appropriate action for the child’s needs.

 

  • Inflicting psychological harm to children.

 

  1. The fact of the Home Office not complying with their obligations and duties is unlawful by reason of irrationality in the circumstances, and in particular because:

 

  1. It was wholly unreasonable so to act when:
    1. There had been no or no proper consideration of the family’s situation and the children involved.

 

  1. There was no or no sufficient information available as to the suspension of subsistence support.

 

  • There was no evidence provided.

 

  1. So acting will cause very substantial prejudice to the proper exercise of the secretary of state’s duties and responsibilities in relation to the Human Rights Act and to UNHCR, which ought to be exercised in the public interest, and in particular a substantial risk of the appearance of bias, fettering of discretion and pre-determination in the decision-making; and

 

  1. there was a failure to have regard to relevant considerations, including the disruptions in a family, the feelings and lives of the children involved and the misguidance caused to achieve unlawful aims and notwithstanding the written evidence that accommodation was approved for London. There was also failure to have due regard to Mr Ismail’s health situation and the minor children involved including their education, health issues and wishes (their letters) including community links.

 

  1. It is a criminal offence to intimidate the claimants when court case is pending.

 

  1. The details of the legal advisers dealing with this claim: N/A

 

  1. The details of any interested parties: N/A

 

  1. The details of any information sought and the details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary can be obtained from us.

 

  1. The address for reply and service of court documents: As at the head of this letter.

 

  1. Proposed reply date:       1 day from the date of this letter – by Wednesday 30th April 2014 at 6.30pm.

 

Yours faithfully,

__________________________________________

To the home Office

Dear All,

Pursuant to your letter dated 29 April 2014 in which you indicated that ‘you are not prepared to provide us with subsistence support to cover our family’s essential living needs’, it is requested to give us permission to work.

Allowing us permission to work will allow us to pay our rent and to cover our children’s essential living needs.

As indicated on several occasions, the children are not prepared to disperse to Birmingham and they have written letters to express their feelings about this.  There are other exceptional reasons which have been indicated to you with evidences which you have failed to consider.

 Notwithstanding, due to failure to provide the same offer of accommodation on 7th August 2012 while we were forcefully evicted, has severely damaged your credibility in various ways such as forms of institutional racism with muslti-agencies and corruption.  The incident which occured on 7/8/2012 substantiate the fact that you have failed to consider your duties towards safeguarding the best interests of the children involved and as such, they were beaten and thrown on the streets.

There is reasonable doubt to believe that the claim of reserving accommodation in Birmingham is untrue and the act of doing so is only to pervert the natural course of justice, that is, to obstruct the court of appeal proceedings against you and Barts Health NHS including pending asylum proceedings.  It is however clear that you are attempting to prevent that case from proceeding as you are aware of the fact that you have failed in your duties towards Human Rights by communicating with NHS and cancelling Mr Ismail’s leg operation.  You are also attempting to obstruct any further proceedings in relation to Newsgroup Newspapers Limited and perjury.

It is also clear that you have influenced the court who are supporting you in this regard.  This is the reason for your over-confidence as you are certain that you have been immunised from any sanctions by way of institutional cover-up.  Please note that we can be mere asylum seekers under Refugee Sur Place in your files and documents, but you have forgotten the fact of who we are?  We are well-qualified and highly profesisonal qualified teachers.  It is also appropriate to point out about Mr Ismail’s backgound where his father Mr TJI Ismail MBE has been awarded the title of Member of British Empire for proptecting British Interests and who has dedicated his lifetime for the British.  With such a background, you will agree with us that we will fight against any injustice, corruption,institutional racism or coverups or any other strategies which you have adopted to ‘teach us a lesson’ (as claimed by Mr Morrow HEO).

Eventually, this letter is a request for permission to work and we will be thankful if you could respond as a matter of urgency before proceeding further.

Yours faithfully,

Mr and Mrs Ismail 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Home Affairs Committee

Dear Mr & Mrs Ismail,

 

The Committee continues to scrutinise the Home Office’s Immigration Directorates and will question Ministers again in July. I have forwarded your email to the Clerks and to the Chair’s office and your correspondence will be kept on file.

 

Regards,

 _________________________________________________

Dear Mr Ismail,

As discussed on the telephone earlier, due to the nature of UNHCR’s role in the UK, we are not able to assist you with regards to any civil case, including the lifting of the restraining order. We note that we referred you to Asylum Help (asylumhelpuk.org/) for further advice.

For more information on our role in the UK, please see UNHCR London’s ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQs), available online at – www.unhcr.org.uk/what-we-do-in-the-uk/frequently-asked-questions.html

UNHCR London regrets that we cannot be of further assistance at this time, but hope the above information will be of use to you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Marguerite Perin

Legal Protection

UNHCR London

OUR REPLY:

Dear Madam,

I have not asked you to assist me with regards to any civil case or ‘lift the restraining order’.

Your agency  is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide.  As I have been issued with civil restraint orders by the UK Court,it is notpossible for me to seek justice form them. Similarly, it is impossible for me to feed my children.

The matter is clear:

Is the UK allowed to impose civil restraint orders on asylum seekers to prevent them form access to justice?

I understand that the UNHCR is a body who help refugees and asylum seekers.  While not recieivng subsistence supports form the Secretary of State, my family will be destitute and will starve in hunger.  As such,the treatment is degrading and inhuman.  The UNHCR has a duty to assist in these cases where asylum seekers are in difficulty.

I also understand that you  provide guidance on refugee and asylum law and policy to the UK government, legal practitioners, non-governmental organisations and many others.  It is urgently requested for you to assist our family in this regard.

If you are unable to assist asylum seekers who have been denied access to justice, denied supports and denied the right to lead their private and family life withotu interference, I will be thankful if you could amend your below letter and specify the above points.  Your below email contains innaccurate information which cannot be submitted to the EU Commission.

Regards

Mr/Mrs Ismail

 _______________________________

Dear MR  ISMAIL

 

I have received your letter dated 29th April 2014.

 

I intend to confine my response to a consideration of the “matter being challenged” set out in paragraph 4 of your letter.

 

Failure to provide subsistence support.

 

This is denied.

 

The Home Office does provide support to asylum seekers in the form of “subsistence only” where the individuals have adequate accommodation (for example with family or friends). The power (not a duty) to do so stems from section 96 of the 1999 Act.  In the particular circumstances of your case we have decided that we will not provide you with subsistence only

Support while you are living at 47b Colchester Avenue, Manor Park, London E12 5LF. I set out the reasons for this in my previous letter dated 29th April 2014.

 

The information The Home Office has is that your local authority, which has been providing you with accommodation at the above address, is not willing to allow you to remain there. You will therefore need to move elsewhere. Your only option, unless you plan to leave the UK, appears to be to accept the offer of accommodation provided by the Home Office. We have arranged that accommodation for you and consider that it is reasonable that you move into it without further delay.

 

Perverting and interfering with the course of justice

 

This is denied.

 

There has been no interference with the course of justice.  I am aware that you have taken out various proceedings before the courts but understand that, as far as your previous challenge to your dispersal to Birmingham is concerned, these are now concluded. I attach a copy of the order issued by the Court of Appeal today. You are asked to note the unequivocal view of the Court of Appeal which; in refusing your application for permission to appeal there in relation to the judicial review of the previous decision to disperse you to Birmingham; said “the judge gave clear and lawful reasons for his decision.  There is no arguable claim for judicial review and no possibility of this Court coming to any other decision”.  The Court of Appeal also declared your application for permission to appeal as being totally without merit and stated that you may not request the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing.  Given that your proposed judicial review proceedings relate to effectively the same decision that has now been declared lawful by the Court of Appeal, you are asked to reconsider whether it would serve any utility to commence proceedings in relation to the latest decision to make support available for you in Birmingham.

 

Misrepresentations to the court

 

This is denied.

 

All information provided by the Home Office to the courts has been accurate.

 

Breach of policies and statutory duties.

 

This is denied. You have essentially been seeking accommodation in an area of your (or more accurately, according to your correspondence with the Secretary of State, your children’s’) choice. This has been refused for the reasons set out in lengthy correspondence; see for example the Treasury Solicitor’s letter of 28 April 2014 to the Civil Appeals Office (copied to you). In taking this decision the Home Office has acted lawfully – as has been confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeal today.

 

Yours sincerely

Doreen Umeadi

UK Visas and Immigration Service

Acting on behalf of the Secretary of State

___________________________________________________________________________

Name of complainant:  Mr Afham Ismail and Mrs Nazrah Ismail

Home Office officers: 

1.Doreen Umeadi
2.Clifford Kirsch
3.Marion Isted
4.  Peter Green
4.Jeremy Oppeinheim

1.  The first three officers have acted unlawfully by way of intimidation and victimisation.  They have misused their positions for personal gain.

2.  Clifford Kirsch first come into contact with our case in 2012.  He stopped us receiving support via ARC claiming that we should disperse.  He then reistated supports through Emergency Support Tokens due to a court’s order.  He reserved a house in Birmingham for over one year by misusing public funds.  During that period, he worked with Ecem Daly.  He was basically her manager.  Mr Kirsch advised Mrs Daly to send various vexatious accommodation offers and to communicate with Barts Health NHS to cancel the leg operation of Mr ismail scheduled for 11 March 2013.  Mr Kirsch also advised Ecem Daly to share Mr Ismail’s information with the NHS without his consent.

3.  Recently Mr Kirsch claimed that he was no longer responsible for support issues in our case.  He asserts that he was away from the case but this was untrue.  He still continued to advise his staffs to act in an illegal manner.  He sent automated response after reading our emails.

4.  this time he advised Mrs Doreen Umeadi to start sending accommodaiton offers for Birmingham.  Ms Umeadi sent a consent form which was responded. She disregarded the submissions including our children’s letters.

5.  Ms Umeadi then sent compelling letters to disperse on 14 April 2014.  She again failed to consider the medical documents and other exceptional circumstances incluidng her policies and guidelines and the court’s order.

6.  Ms Umeadi with the assistance and advice of Mr Kirsch suspended our subsistence supports claiming that we should move to Birmingham to receive it.  As our children refuse to do so, we cannot disperse.  there are also ongoing medical treatments , schools and pending court case related to dispersal.  These two officers are still adamant not to provide subsistence support ONLY as applied for.  They claimed in thier letter:  ”

In the particular circumstances of your case we have decided that we will not provide you with subsistence only

Support while you are living at 47b Colchester Avenue, Manor Park, London E12 5LF.

Your only option, unless you plan to leave the UK, appears to be to accept the offer of accommodation provided by the Home Office.

We are not therefore prepared to provide you with subsistence support to cover you and your family’s essential living needs while you remain at your current address.

7.  Ms Umeadi still pursues with her illegal acts of not providing subsistence support only depsite knowing that there are 3 children involved.   She is compelling us to do what she wishes to.  She is making us bow down to her knees and she has taken this matter as personal that is she does not want to accept her controversial actions.  However she failed ot respect the human rights of a Muslim Asylum Seeker.  She and Mr kirsch and above named officers have acted in a racist manner with xenophobic attitudes. 

8.  Ms Umeadi seems to have particular interest in how we are living in the accommodation 47b colchester avenue and she is adamant to convince  us to move by way of intimidation,threats and dirty tricks including interfering with administration of justice.  Nearly over 2 years we wer eliving in this house and nobody was bothered about how we were living all this time.  Ms Umeadi and Mr Kirsch have followed directions from some other organisations which work with them such as the court and Sun Newspaper.

9.  Ms Umeadi then started to communicate with our MP’s secretary by providing misleading information to convince him that we should not receive any subsistence.  She provided false information.

10  Mr Kirsch plays an important role in the illegitimate acts.

11.  Ms Isted has contributed in this scheme by her intimidating letters and despite in the finance section,she interrupted the payment of subsistence supports.  she attempted to cover up by providing a false sense of security. she has worked against the code of conduct.  the above officers have snet G4S officers ot threaten us nearby our home depsite indicating that we will not be travelling on that day.

12  Jeremy Oppenheim was informed of all the above but did not take any action to prevent it.  He encouraged them to do so despite being their director.

13.  The above officers have provided misrepresentations to the court and have mislead the court by using public funds to pay for legal professionals.  They have contributed to cover up and has misconducted in public office.  they have interfered with the administration of justice.

14.  Mr Peter Green contributed to the above acts.  He threatened us that if we proceed complaints, he will send removal directions.  He claimed not to receive further submisisons which was delivered successfully by fax..  he dragged the time in order to send intimidating letters as a response ot Mr Dobson’s complaint and to suspend subsistence supports.  In other words, he wanted ot teach us a lesson.  He also threatened that he will forward our case to enforcement team if we complain against him and his staffs.  This is a clear evidence of misconduct in public office for institutional cover ups for his personal gains.  He then assosciated with the other above named officers to plot and to contribute to mislead other multi agencies such as courts.

15.  Even we have indicated to the above officers that the court case has been reopened,they are stilln ot paying subsistence suports.

16.Ms Umeadi never responded to our communications in which evidences were attached. When she received other influential people’s directions, then she started to send letters out of office hours at 8pm via email without a letter head.Those letters were not sent by post.

17.  Over 13 people were attached to the email sent and who are involved in this plot.

Yours faithfully

Mr and Mrs Ismail 

_______________________________________

WE THEN MADE AN APPEAL TO THE ASYLUM SUPPORT TRIBUNAL AND UDRIGN THAT PERIOD, POLICE ATTENDED OUR HOME TO ABUSE OUR CHLDRNE, THE HOME OFFICE PUT THEM AT STARVING HUNGER AND THEIR MENTLA AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT WERE SEVERLY DAMAGED.

 

Leave a comment