Dissertation

LAW3000

School of Law

Student QSIS Anonymous Code: 93850

Title:

The Plight of European Union Citizens in the UK Benefit’s System: Misuse of Rights by the
individual or The State?

A Dissertation submitted as part of the requirements for the degree in LLB Single Honours,
School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast.

Except for the appropriately referenced materials, this dissertation is entirely my own work
carried out under the supervision of Clemens Rieder

Ethics approval was granted by Anna Bryson on 3.2.18.

WORD COUNT
(Excluding bibliography but including footnotes)

Assigned word count for Dissertation: 12,000 Words

The actual number of words in the
11, 973
essay:

Penalties will be imposed for work that exceeds the prescribed word limitation. The
penalties for exceeding the word limitation are:
 up to 10% over the limit, deduct 5 marks;
 5 further marks deducted for each subsequent 10% or part thereof.
Word count penalties will be applied strictly.

SUBMISSION DEADLINE
Deadline: 12 noon on: 23.4.18

In line with University and School of Law Regulations, the penalty for late submission is a
reduction of 5 marks for each day late or part thereof, up to a maximum of 5 working days late.
Work received after that point will receive a mark of 0.
Lateness penalties will be applied strictly.

UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS
By submitting work to the School you accept that you are 1) fit to be examined and 2) have
reviewed and understood the University Regulations on examinations, including those on
academic offences.

1
 Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4-6

Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

Chapter One: Barriers Created EU Migrants in Accessing Housing Benefit…................8

1.1: Denial of Housing Benefit and the ECHR……………………………………………………………….8-12

1.2: Denial of Housing Benefit and Compliance with EU Law……………………………………….12-16

Chapter Two: Barriers Created for EU Migrants in Renting Property………………………...17

2.1: Shifting the Burden to Landlords and Denial of Housing Benefit……………………………17-20

Chapter Three: Rough Sleeping EU Migrants – Forced Destitution? .......................... ..21

3.1: Denying Housing Benefit to EU Job Seekers – Forced Destitution? ………………….……22-24

3.2: Deporting Rough Sleeping EU Migrants………………………………………………………………….25-27

Conclusion and Recommendations……………………………….…………………………..…………….….28-30

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….31-35

Table of Abbreviations:

EU- European Union.

TFEU- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

ECHR- European Convention on Human Rights.

ECtHR- European Court of Human Rights

CJEU- Court of Justice for the European Union.

JCWI- Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.

SSAC- Social Security Advisory Committee.

2
The Plight of European Union Citizens in the UK Benefits System:
Misuse of Rights by the individual or The State?

Abstract

Citizenship of the European Union affords nationals of member states elevated rights to
move, work and reside in other member states, however, this right does not extend to
unfettered access to a host states benefits system. While a minority of EU migrants may seek
to travel to avail of superior benefits within other countries, it is asserted that most EU
migrants travel to genuinely seek work and integrate into another society either temporarily
or with the intention to establish permanent residence.

This project seeks to highlight the impact of a range of legislation and policies introduced by
the Conservative Government in the UK on EU migrants. It will be argued that these
measures are unduly discriminatory and have created an oppressive climate for EU migrants
which makes it significantly more difficult to access accommodation and seek work within
the UK, consequently heightening the risk of rough sleeping and homelessness for these
individuals.

This research will challenge the legal justification for such policies and demonstrate how they
are linked to achieving the Conservative Party’s aim of lowering net migration.
Recommendations will be proposed which would strike a balance between the protection of
the UK’s benefits system from abuse and the rights of EU migrants.

3
 Introduction
The dilemma of balancing the need to control immigration while giving effect to EU citizens’
rights to move and reside in member states of the European Union has been the root of
significant debate in the UK in recent years. Particularly concerning for host states is the
issue of EU citizens abusing their free movement rights by moving to another country with
the intention of having access to a more favourable welfare system, thus placing an
unreasonable burden on the host states resources while offering little in return.
The results of the June 2016 EU referendum in the UK depicts the fear of the perceived
plunder of the UK’s economy by EU citizens. Puttick acknowledges how public opinion in the
UK has been influenced by politics, he states that ‘the popular perception of EU migrants
coming to the UK to take British jobs, undercutting wages and working conditions, and living
off the British benefits system, has been part of the political landscape for some time.’ 1 This
has led to the introduction of a deluge of restrictive domestic legislation and policy changes
which places EU nationals exercising their free movement rights in the UK in a very
precarious position. This critique seeks to challenge the legality of these measures and
demonstrate how their impact can force EU migrants into a state of destitution.
The introduction of the Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Regulations 2014 2 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘The 2014 Regulations’) forms part of the extensive legislation that then Home
Secretary Theresa May described as a basis for creating a ‘hostile environment’ for migrants
coming to and living in the UK.3 This creates a policy which excludes EU job seekers from
accessing housing benefit, the Home Office’s rationale for the introduction of this policy is
that it would make the immigration system fairer to those legally resident whilst being
tougher on ‘those with no right to be here’.4 This critique will focus predominantly on the
impact ‘The 2014 Regulations’ and similar policies have had on EU migrants, it will be argued
that the policy is an example of a ‘legislative weapon’ used by the Conservative Government
to achieve their net migration objectives.5
It is of course the government’s prerogative to attempt to lower net migration, a key
element of the Conservative Party’s election manifestos since 2010.6 The purpose of this

1
Keith Puttick, 'EEA workers’ free movement and social rights after Dano and St Prix: Is a Pandora’s Box of
new economic integration and ‘contribution’ requirements opening?' [2015] 37(2) Journal of Social
Welfare and Family Law, 258.
2
The Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2014.
3
Elliot Schatzberger, 'The Immigration Act 2014: 'Not on the list you're not coming in; landlords forced to
discriminate'' [2015] 5(1) The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 395.
4
Declan O'Callaghan, ''Creating a hostile environment- the act as a weapon' ' (Landmark Chambers, 2nd
March2015)<[Link]
%[Link]> accessed 15 January 2018.
5
Conservatives, 'The Conservative Party
Manifesto' (Conservativescom, 2015) <[Link] accessed 15
January 2018. Within the 2015 Manifesto the Conservative government commit to “keep our ambition of
delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands” and also pledge to “control migration from the
European Union, by reforming welfare rules” [29].
6
Ibid.

4
critique is not to scrutinize the rationale for this policy, but rather the measures that have
been adopted to achieve this end.
A key concern evident in the drafting of recent legislation is the desire to quash ‘benefit
tourism’, a concept where some foreign nationals travel to another state with the intention
of taking advantage of welfare provisions such as healthcare and housing. EU citizens under
Article 20-21 TFEU7 have the right to reside and move freely in the territory of other
member states subject to limitations laid down in the treaties. The Home Office has
espoused the view that this right is being misused by EEA nationals and has created several
barriers to combat ‘benefit tourism’.8
This critique will highlight the inherent problems and examine the legality of some of the
barriers that have been introduced through recent legislation and policy in the UK. It will be
argued that the barriers created are a deliberate Home Office policy to lower net migration,
which contrary to EU law often leaves immigrants in a state of abject destitution wherein
having very limited recourse to benefits often results in rough sleeping, homelessness and a
plethora of mental and physical health problems.
One such example of a potential misuse of rights by the Home Office is the highly
controversial policy of deporting EU nationals who have been rough sleeping, contained in
the Home Office guidance to immigration officer’s entitled ‘European Economic Area (EEA)
administrative removal.9 The Home Office policy equality statement reported; ‘Our new
policy will class rough sleeping by individuals who rely on a right to reside under EU law as
an abuse of free movement rights.’10
It will be argued that the growing numbers of EU nationals rough sleeping or becoming
homeless is inextricably linked to the ‘hostile environment’ created by legislation such as
‘The 2014 Regulations’. The barriers imposed by the Home Office on immigrants in areas of
housing, renting property and work will be examined to highlight the precarious position
that EU migrants can find themselves in under the immigration policies of the Conservative
Government.
Chapter one will consist of a detailed analysis of the barriers created for EU migrants in
accessing housing benefit, particularly since the introduction of ‘The 2014 Regulations’. It
will be argued that the denial of housing benefit for EU nationals who are accessing Job
Seekers’ Allowance in the UK is disproportionate and contrary to EU and domestic law, as

7
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2007] OJ 1 115/47.
8
Christopher Vincenzi, 'European citizenship and free movement rights in the European Union
' [1995] (1) Public Law, 262. Vincenzi states that the perceived problem of ‘Benefit Tourism’ is generated
largely from the tabloid press and fed by the chauvinism of ministerial speeches [263].
9
Home office, 'European Economic Area (EEA) Administrative Removal Version 40' ([Link], 14 December
2017) <[Link]
[Link]> accessed 16 January 2018.
10
Home office, 'Policy Equality Statement (PES)' ([Link], 19th April 2016)
<[Link]
Home_Office_PES_-_Processing_asylum_claims_in_detention_-_September_2017.pdf> accessed 16
January 2018.

5
well as having the potential to engage EU migrants’ rights under the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR).
Chapter two will consider the discrimination which potentially arises against EU migrants in
renting property due to ‘The 2014 Regulations’ and s.39-42 of the Immigration Act 2016. 11
While this legislation is not explicitly aimed at EU migrants who are renting property, the
government policy of effectively shifting the responsibility of checking potential tenants’
immigration status to landlords may well have a significant impact on EU migrants’ access to
renting property.
Finally, chapter three will demonstrate how the barriers for EU migrants imposed by
oppressive policies highlighted in chapters one and two have resulted in these individuals
being forced into a state of destitution. The legality of the government policy of deporting
rough sleeping EU migrants for allegedly breaching their rights under TFEU will then be
analysed. The impact that rough sleeping and homelessness can have on EU migrants’
health, including alcohol and substance abuse, will also be discussed to depict the plight of
an EU migrant in the UK.
This project will examine the current legal landscape in this area and offer a solution-based
critique on a way forward which strikes an appropriate balance between the policy agenda
and the rights of the individuals affected.

Methodology
11
Immigration Act 2016, s39-42.

6
This critique was undertaken to assess the impact that the Conservative Government’s strict
immigration and housing policies are having on EU citizens exercising their free movement
rights in the UK. The first chapter will scrutinize the legislation surrounding EU nationals’
access to housing benefit in the UK, particular emphasis will be placed on the repercussions
of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ for EU migrants. Chapter two will examine the impact that
restrictions to housing benefit and s.39-42 Immigration Act 2016 will have on fairness in the
renting market toward EU migrants. Finally, chapter three will demonstrate how the various
government policies discussed can leave EU migrants in a state of abject destitution, which
can culminate in rough sleeping and homelessness.
This project takes a mixed methods approach, incorporating both primary and secondary
data collection. The primary data collection for this project included an interview with
Malachy Mc Gowan BL, a barrister who is currently acting as defence counsel for a challenge
against the policy of denying housing benefit to EU job seekers in the High Court in Northern
Ireland. This was undertaken in order to gain some qualitative insight into the actual legality
of the government’s policies and to substantiate the critique as a whole. This interview adds
a significant level of contemporary relevance to the project as the on-going legal challenge
that the interviewee is involved in encapsulates the essence of this critique, in that the
claimant in the case (a Polish national) was denied housing benefit and subsequently
became street homeless.
Various questions were answered regarding the legality of recent changes to EU migrants’
access to benefits in the UK and also the detrimental impact this has had on victims,
including the risks of rough sleeping and the government’s obligations to prevent this.
Details of the interview will be used primarily to supplement the sections on ‘Housing
Benefit’ and ‘Rough Sleeping’ and will appear sporadically throughout these chapters.
The interview was conducted in person and data was firstly recorded and then transferred
on to a secure computer, with the express written consent of the interviewee. With regards
confidentiality, access to the data obtained in the interview will be available to myself and
my supervisor only. I will commit to use the data solely for this project and not use details of
it for any other research. As the interviewee is happy to be named, extra care will be taken
in ensuring that the data provided is used only in this project. Any record of the interview
and its details will be deleted upon receiving a pass mark for the project in the interest of
ensuring that the data is used for this project only.
The secondary data collection used includes a combination of legislation, case law, academic
commentary from journal articles and supplementary information from various websites.
Both domestic law and EU law are discussed in relevant chapters and the jurisprudence of
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is referenced throughout this critique. EU
Legislation and case law is incorporated to highlight the rights of EU migrants within
member states of the European Union, and will be considered in light of the domestic law of
the UK which restricts such rights.

1. Barriers Created for EU migrants in Accessing Housing Benefit

7
In this chapter the creation of a ‘hostile environment’ by way of denial of housing benefit to
EU nationals who are on job seekers allowance will be analysed. It will be argued that
barriers imposed by ‘The 2014 Regulations’ have contributed significantly to the rise in
rough sleeping and homelessness among immigrants. In this sense, it is the state who may
be misusing their rights as policy makers and legislators, rather than the immigrants who are
identified as ‘soft targets.’12 The aim and impact of these legislative changes will be weighed
up against the rights of EU citizens embedded in EU law and the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR).13
Subsection 1.1 will predominantly address the duty of the state to protect EU citizens’ rights
under the ECHR and how this is being breached, particularly regarding Article 3, Article 8
and Article 14 of the Convention. The government’s stance on restricting housing benefit
and the impact this has on EU migrants will be interpreted in light of Judgements of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Subsection 1.2 will assess whether the government are fulfilling their obligations under EU
law and if their actions are justified in combatting the risks of ‘benefit tourism’. The Home
Office’s compliance with EU legislation will be scrutinized, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC
on the Free Movement of EU Citizens and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice for the
European Union (CJEU), in order to decipher whether it is EU migrants or the state who are
misusing their rights. The relationship between the social benefits of Job-Seekers’ Allowance
and housing benefit will also be considered in order to establish whether EU migrants can
reasonably be expected to survive on the former, without access to the latter.
1.1. Denial of Housing Benefit and the European Convention on Human Rights
‘The 2014 Regulations’ established an exclusionary rule precluding EU nationals who enter
the UK and are applying for job seekers allowance from accessing housing benefit. The
denial of housing benefit can arguably significantly increase the risk of homelessness and
raises human rights issues under Articles 3, 8 and 14 ECHR14. Legal challenges in the form of
judicial review are ongoing in Northern Ireland and England on this matter.
Having arrived in the UK with the aim of securing work EU job seekers are precluded from
claiming Job Seekers’ Allowance for the first three months of residence. Once the initial
three months of residence have elapsed, they then have a limited period (a further 3
months) to find a job and pay for their own maintenance through the small amount they
may receive through Job Seekers’ Allowance. If the three months pass and the EU national
has not yet secured work they will no longer have access to Job Seekers’ Allowance unless
they can show ‘compelling evidence’ that they have a ‘genuine prospect of work’ 15 and will
have no access to housing benefit. This places these individuals at a very real and immediate
risk of homelessness. The failure of the state to make payments to avert this risk is

12
O'Callaghan (n4) 11.
13
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European
Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR).
14
Ibid [6-12].
15
Memo DMG 2/15; SI 2013/3032, Regulation 6.

8
potentially a breach of the UK’s duties under Article 3 and 4 of the Lisbon Treaty 16, in
particular:
Article 3 (3) - The Union shall combat social exclusion and discrimination and shall
promote justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity
between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
Article 4 (3) - The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or, to
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the treaties.
Housing benefit is clearly a mechanism which is in place to reduce homelessness and
destitution. For an EU migrant to gain access to emergency accommodation they require a
payment in housing benefit, this effectively denies immigrants an opportunity to improve
their dire circumstances if they become homeless and is tantamount to the ‘social exclusion
and discrimination’ outlined in Article 3.17 It is asserted that there is a close link between the
access to emergency accommodation (which requires housing benefit) and the core values
which Articles 3 and 4 seek to protect.
Furthermore, there is substantial jurisprudence from the ECtHR which suggests that failure
to protect individuals from a state of abject destitution such as homelessness could
constitute a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, specifically:
Article 3 ECHR – No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
As per Dordevic v Croatia18 Article 3 imposes a positive obligation on the state to protect
individuals from a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Rabone v Penine Care NHS
Trust19 interpreted a ‘real immediate risk’ as one that is “present and continuing” 20 and one
which is not ‘fanciful’21. In the context of EU citizens being denied housing benefit these
individuals are being placed at a real and immediate risk of homelessness if they can not
obtain work within 3 months. Moreover, even if individuals have been resident and working
in the UK and then become unemployed, the risk of homelessness is still high given the
restriction to 6 months of housing benefit upon termination of their employment, the risk
can certainly be regarded as ‘present and continuing’.
In MSS v Belgium and Greece22 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
appeared to accept that Article 3 had been violated where a person had; ‘allegedly spent
months living in a state of the most extreme poverty, unable to cater for his most basic
needs: food, hygiene and a place to live’.23

16
Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European
Community, [2007] OJ 1 306/01.
17
Ibid [Article 3].
18
Dordaveic v Croatia, App no 41526/10 (ECHR, 24 July 2012) 139.
19
Rabone v Penine Care NHS Trust [2012] 272 AC (UKSC) 38-39.
20
Ibid [38].
21
Ibid [39].
22
MSS v Belgium and Greece, App no 30696/09 (ECHR, 21 January 2011) 252-254.
23
R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]66 Civ (HL) 254.

9
In the UK Baroness Hale outlined when homelessness could be considered inhuman and
degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 in R (Limbuela) v SSHD:
‘It may be possible to endure rooflessness for some time without degradation if one
had enough to eat and somewhere to wash oneself and one’s clothing. It might be
possible to endure cashlessness for some time if one had a roof and basic meals and
hygiene facilities provided. But to have to endure the indefinite prospect of both…is
in today’s society both inhuman and degrading. We have to judge matters by the
standards of our society in the modern world, not by the standards of a third world
or a bygone age.’24
Lord Bingham is in agreement in this case, stating that while there is a ‘high threshold’ for
meeting inhuman or degrading treatment this threshold will be crossed if an applicant with
‘no means and no alternative form of support, unable to support himself, is, by the
deliberate action of the state denied shelter, food, or the most basic necessities of life’. 25
The denial of housing benefit or other appropriate alternative is a deliberate failure by the
state to support EU job seekers. The defence of ‘benefit tourism’ can not be justified in this
case as EU nationals applying for job seekers allowance are doing so for the same reason as
UK nationals; with the intention of finding work, thus the denial of housing benefit is
discriminatory as per Article 14 ECHR.26 Lord Brown’s dictum in R (Clift) v SSHD should be
considered when determining the scope of Article 14. When debating the issue of Article 14
ECHR discrimination over parole he surmised ‘suppose that for a given offence the law
prescribed a minimum penalty of six years for men, three years for women’. 27 The effect of
this analogy is to highlight that the ECtHR would not tolerate discrimination on grounds of
race or gender, thus discrimination on grounds of nationality (as in the denial of housing
benefit) should be seen as no less tolerable.
As per R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire28 the key issues that arise when considering
whether Article 14 has been violated are:
1.) Do the matters complained about come within the ambit of a right protected by
the European Convention on Human Rights?
2.) Whether there is a difference in treatment?
3.) Is there differential treatment on a ground potentially prohibited by Article 14?
4.) Whether the others who are said to receive differential treatment are in a truly
analogous situation?
5.) Is the differential treatment justified?
Criteria (1) is fulfilled as there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the denial of housing
benefit significantly increases the risk of EU migrants becoming homeless, thus engaging

24
Ibid [78].
25
Ibid [7].
26
ECHR (n13) Article 14.
27
Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 54 AC 66 (HL) (Brown LJ) 16.
28
R(S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] 1 WLR 2196 at [42].

10
Article 3 rights on the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and Article 8 rights
to respect for private and family life by extension.
The difference in treatment is clear in this context, a UK job seeker will have unfettered
access to housing benefit, while an EU job seeker will not be able to access this benefit or a
similar alternative, thus fulfilling criteria (2).
Article 14 states that the rights set out in the Convention shall be secured without
discrimination on a number of grounds, including one’s nationality, thus fulfilling criteria (3).
The issue in criteria (4) was discussed in Clift v UK, wherein the ECtHR held ‘the requirement
to demonstrate an analogous position does not require that the comparator groups be
identical…the applicant must demonstrate that, having regard to the particular nature of his
complaint, he was in a relevantly similar situation to others treated differently’. 29The Court
concluded that prisoners serving life and determinate sentences were in an analogous
position in the context of this principle.30 The requirement of having similar interests in
relation to the issues raised is central to fulfilling this principle. In the case of housing
benefit EU citizens facing homelessness have precisely the same reasons for obtaining
funding in order to avoid homelessness or similar destitution as UK nationals, therefore
criteria (4) is fulfilled.
Regarding criteria (5) according to Bank Mellat v HM Treasury31 it is the differential
treatment that must be justified, not the treatment itself. Consequently, the issue is
whether it is justified to deny an EU job seeker a benefit to prevent homelessness in
circumstances in which UK nationals receive that benefit. The Supreme Court in MA32 held
that challenges on benefit schemes based on Article 14 need to demonstrate that the
difference in treatment is ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. It is therefore
submitted that the failure for any discretion within the exclusionary rule precluding job
seeking EU nationals from accessing housing benefit is not justified and should be regarded
as in breach of Article 14.
Malachy Mc Gowan BL: ‘The justification put forward by the home office is the
desire to stop ‘benefit tourism’, however, it remains uncertain as to how someone
who is a job seeker can be described as a ‘tourist’ in any sense of the word.’33
The exclusion of EU job seekers from accessing housing benefit is disproportionate. R
(Lumsdon)34 articulates that the requirement of necessity requires it to be demonstrated
that there is no other equally effective measure that is less restrictive of rights.

29
Clift v UK, App no 7205/07 (ECHR, 13 July 2010) 66.
30
Ibid [67].
31
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] 700 AC (UKSC) 27.
32
MA and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] 58 AC (UKSC) 38.
33
Malachy Mc Gowan BL, response received during interview on 28/3/18.
34
R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board [2016] 697 AC (UKSC) 55.

11
 Malachy Mc Gowan BL: ‘It is highly questionable that there would be no other
scheme that could be implemented to focus housing benefit or a similar alternative
on EU job seekers who are at risk of homelessness.’35
Ultimately, the amendment to the housing benefit regulations through the implementation
of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ is inextricably aimed at reducing access to housing benefit for EU
nationals in an attempt to create a ‘hostile environment’ for immigrants. Given that the
restriction of access to housing benefit was explicitly on the basis of nationality, the impact
of the amendment would inevitably disadvantage EU job seekers in their ability to obtain
accommodation and would consequently reduce their job prospects, in contrast with job
seeking UK nationals.
The discriminatory nature of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ certainly engages EU migrants’ rights
under Article 14 ECHR as it is an unjustified difference in treatment clearly based on grounds
of nationality. EU migrants who as a result of these oppressive policies are forced to sleep
rough or become homeless arguably have had their human rights under Article 3 and Article
8 ECHR breached. In order to comply with the ECHR UK authorities must revise their policies
on EU job seekers access to housing benefit as there is no legal basis or justification for such
a discriminatory policy.

1.2 Denial of Housing Benefit and Compliance with EU Law

Free movement rights under EU law are founded on principles of reciprocity and solidarity.
‘The 2014 Regulations’ defies these concepts in a manner which discriminates against EU
migrants currently seeking work in the UK. The Government would undoubtedly claim that
the restrictions on access to housing benefit are justified and allowing EU migrants to access
both job seekers allowance and housing benefit would place an ‘unreasonable burden’ on
the state’s social assistance system as per Article 14(1) Citizens Rights Directive. 36 However,
the state are under an obligation to legislate with due regard to the concept of
proportionality as per Article 27(2) Citizens Rights Directive, the policy of denying housing
benefit to EU job seekers is principally based on nationality, and as such is disproportionate
and contrary to EU law.
Article 18 of the TFEU provides that;
‘Within the scope of application of the treaties, and without prejudice to any special
provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be
prohibited. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the
ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt rules designed to prohibit such
discrimination.’37

35
Malachy Mc Gowan BL (n33).
36
Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside
freely within the territory of the Member States [2004] OJ 2 158/77, Article 14(1).
37
TFEU (n7) Article 18.

12
Housing benefit and Job Seekers’ Allowance are not mutually exclusive in the assistance
they provide to EU job seekers. Self sufficiency is a requirement for all EU migrants for the
first three months of residence in the UK. If EU migrants must apply for Job Seekers’
Allowance after that time elapses it is unlikely that the meagre fee they receive will be
enough to pay for commodities such as rent and food, particularly if said individual has any
dependants. The EU migrant will only receive Job Seekers’ Allowance for three months,
failure to secure work in this time can place these individuals in a state of destitution, where
they have no income or social benefits to support themselves or their dependants.
Ultimately, the oppressive measures introduced by ‘The 2014 Regulations’ impose severe
restrictions on EU job seekers which are intrinsically based on nationality, this constitutes a
breach of the state’s positive obligation under Article 18 TFEU.38
O’Brien considers;
‘Housing benefit might not easily be characterised as simple social assistance and
could form part of the package of benefits designed to facilitate access to the job
market.’39
Indeed, access to housing benefit acts as an important safety net for EU job seekers, its
withdrawal significantly increases the pressure to get work, to the extent that failure to do
so could result in rough sleeping or homelessness. The introduction of the Minimum
Earnings Threshold40 by the Department for Work and Pensions has exasperated the impact
of the housing benefit restrictions on EU migrants as many are unable to fulfil the
heightened standard for ‘genuine and effective work’ and are forced to apply for Job
Seekers’ Allowance to retain their right to reside under Article 7 Citizens Rights Directive. 41
Blauberger and Schmidt highlight how this legislative change ‘shifts the burden of legal
uncertainty to EU migrants’ and state that ‘in addition to greater evidentiary requirements,
migrants face a stronger threat of losing their right to reside after six months.’ 42 Disallowing
access to housing benefit for EU job seekers, coupled with redefining the EU law meaning of
a ‘worker’ constitutes an abus de droit of the state’s responsibility as policy makers and
clearly falls within the ambit of discrimination on grounds of nationality.
UK job seekers are not subject to the same exclusion from access to the labour market as EU
job seekers, this represents a difference in treatment contrary to Article 24(1) Citizens Rights
Directive.43
38
Ibid.
39
Charlotte O'Brien, 'the Pillory, the Precipice and the Slippery Slope: The Profound Effects of the UK's
Legal Reform Programme Targeting EU Migrants' [2015] 37(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law,
118.
40
Department for Work and Pensions, 'Minimum Earnings Threshold for EEA migrants
introduced' ([Link], 1 March 2014) <[Link]
threshold-for-eea-migrants-introduced> accessed 13 February 2018. The scheme came in to force as part
of the Department’s Welfare Reform policy.
41
Directive 2004/38/EC (n36) Article 7.
42
Michael Blauberger and Suzanne Schmidt, 'Welfare Migration? Free Movement of EU Citizens and
Access to Social Benefits ' [2014] 1(3) Research and Politics, 6.
43
Directive 2004/38/EC (n36) Article 24(1). This states that ‘all union citizens on the basis of this Directive
in the territory of the host member state shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that member

13
 ‘The 2014 Regulations’ is heavily reliant on Article 24(2) Citizens Rights Directive, which
derogates from the provisions of ‘Equal Treatment’ in Article 24(1) by affording greater
discretion to member states in refusing ‘maintenance aid’ to those who have lost their right
to reside.44It is asserted that the Home Office’s reliance on this provision for justification of
this policy is fundamentally flawed. In Zambrano the CJEU held that Article 20 TFEU
conferred a right of residence on an EU citizen directly, even where their circumstances fell
outside those set out in the Citizens’ Rights Directive. 45 Thus, it is clear that the Citizens
Rights Directive does not list exhaustively the situations in which a right of residence is
conferred on an EU migrant and certainly cannot be used to justify discrimination on
grounds of nationality.
The Home Office may try to claim that this derogation from EU law constitutes indirect
discrimination, and as such is justified on grounds of public policy. This approach would rely
heavily on Lord Hope’s dicta on indirect discrimination in Patmalniece, wherein he stated it
would be necessary in order to protect;
‘The resources of the United Kingdom against resort to benefit, or social tourism by
persons who are not economically or socially integrated within the country.’ 46
However, the impact of the housing benefit restrictions are felt by all EU migrants, not just
the ‘economically inactive’. EU migrants who have worked for substantial periods and
contributed to the UK economy will be subject to the same restrictions as EU job seekers
who have just arrived in the UK after six months if they become unemployed. Therefore, it
appears the state does not give much priority to those who are ‘economically or socially
integrated’. The only criterion for exclusion from housing benefit is nationality and this
accordingly constitutes direct discrimination.
The issue of direct discrimination on the basis of nationality was dealt with by the CJEU in
Grzelczyk, wherein it was found that;
‘The fact that Mr Grzelczyk is not of Belgian nationality is the only bar to the benefit
being granted to him. It is not therefore in dispute that the case is one of
discrimination solely on the ground of nationality.’47
Lord Walker (dissenting) in Patmalniece also produced instructive guidelines on the limits of
state justification when the discrimination is predominantly founded on nationality, he
states;
‘The difference of treatment is something to which the appellant’s nationality was
central, intrinsic or direct. Even though classified as indirect discrimination, it is not

state within the scope of the Treaty.

44
Directive 2004/38/EC (n36) Article 24(2). This states that ‘the host member state shall not be obliged
to confer entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence…nor shall it be
obliged to grant maintenance aid...to persons other than workers, self employed persons’.
45
C-34/09 Zambrano v Office National de L'emploi [2012] ECR I-01177, paras 39-45.
46
Patmalniece (FC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] 11 AC 17 (UKSC) 52.
47
C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-
16093, 29.

14
 capable of justification because the proposed justification, when examined, is
founded on nationality.’48
Trojani49 is the seminal CJEU case for determining whether a national of another member
state trying to have recourse to social assistance can fulfil the conditions for a right to
reside, host states are given ‘substantial discretion’ in making this determination but must
comply with principles of proportionality. It is asserted that the ‘The 2014 Regulations’ goes
well beyond the boundary of proportionality, the measures introduced will make it
impossible to actually reside and seek work in the UK for a great number of EU migrants,
without risk of destitution.50
The litany of measures introduced by the government, including restrictions on housing
benefit, are by the Conservative Party’s own admission intended to create a ‘hostile
environment’ for those who ‘have no right to be here’, while making the system fairer for
legitimate immigrants.51 In spite of this, the impact of the ‘hostile environment’ has heavily
curtailed EU migrants free movement rights by making it much more difficult for them to
establish a right to reside. The UK authorities are effectively defying the EU law concepts of
solidarity and reciprocity by reaping the economic benefits of migrant work while offering
more hostility and less security. 52 It is well established at EU law that domestic measures
must not be imposed for deterrent or economic purposes,53 yet ‘The 2014 Regulations’
arguably seeks to achieve net migration targets by deterring EU migrants from coming to
the UK.
EU migrants are likely to be put off coming to the UK by genuine fears of eviction and
homelessness if they fail to get work within 6 months of arrival. Even if they are successful
in obtaining work they may not meet the high water mark of ‘genuine and effective’ work
set by the minimum earnings threshold. This would be of particular concern for single
parents, who may have to engage in part time work to facilitate child care needs but don’t
fulfil the minimum earnings threshold and thus must become job seekers to retain their
right to reside. Coupling strict evidentiary requirements with the risk of losing their
residence status may deter EU migrants from applying for social benefits in the first place. 54

O’Brien’s asserts that;

‘In order to achieve the government’s migration lowering targets it would not be
enough to repel ‘benefit tourists’; fewer EU migrants in general would have to come
to the UK for the target to be met.’55
48
Patmalniece (n46) 52.
49
C-456/02 Michel Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) [2004] ECR I-07573, 488.
50
O’Brien (n39) 2.
51
O’Callaghan (n4).
52
O’Brien (n39) 2.
53
European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council’
COM (2014) 210 final.
54
Blauberger and Schmidt (n42) 4.
55
O’Brien (n39) 19.

15
While this view is somewhat speculative it does highlight a key factor that this critique seeks
to underline, that being the fact that housing restrictions and similar oppressive policies
have a damaging impact on all EU migrants, not just ‘benefit tourists’ or those who are have
‘no right to be here’.56 Therefore, EU migrants exercising their free movement rights by
coming to the UK to seek work are automatically placed in the same bracket as someone
who wishes to come to the UK and abuse its social security system.
A framework which adopts a more individualistic approach regarding access to housing
benefits based on each EU migrant would be more appropriate and would certainly be less
restrictive of the rights of EU job seekers as a whole.
Ultimately, ‘The 2014 Regulations’ imposes unsustainable restrictions on EU job seekers that
cannot but promote homelessness and destitution.57 The UK government are breaching
their positive obligation to legislate in accordance with EU law, particularly with regard to
discrimination on the basis of nationality. A particularly worrying element of the denial of
housing benefit to EU migrants is the potential for deterrence of free movement, this
contravenes one of the core motives of the Citizens Rights Directive and the overall ideology
of the European Union.

2. Barriers Created for EU Migrants in Renting Property

This chapter will examine the legality and proportionality of s39-42 Immigration Act 2016
and its aim of shifting the responsibility of immigration enforcement to landlords by the
creation of an offence of leasing to unqualified immigrants. This legislation is designed to
make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to evade Home Office Immigration enforcement,
however, it will be argued that placing the burden of enforcement on landlords will
inevitably lead to discrimination in renting against legal immigrants, including EU nationals.

56
O’Callaghan (n4).
57
O’Brien (n39) 28.

16
The Home Office transfer of responsibility to the private sector reflects how the creation of
a ‘hostile environment’ for those who are illegally resident in the UK has a profound impact
on EU migrants legally exercising their rights under EU law and arguably breaches Article 14
ECtHR.
The impact of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ on the rental sector will also be considered. It will be
argued that lack of access to housing benefit for job seekers who are renting
accommodation may result in an inability to keep up with rent payments, potentially
resulting in eviction and homelessness.

2.1 Shifting the Burden to Landlords and the Denial of Housing Benefit
S39-42 of the Immigration Act 201658 imposed an obligation on UK landlords to carry out
mandatory ‘immigration status’ checks on residential tenants with ‘residential tenancy
agreements’ of less than seven years, Theresa May regarded this measure as an integral
step toward the creation of a hostile environment for migrants.59 While the policy is aimed
at illegal immigrants it is highly likely to lead to discrimination against EU migrants who are
legally resident in the UK.
The passing of the Home Office burden of checking individual’s immigration status to
landlords is a recurring theme within the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts wherein the
Home office aim to shift the responsibility on to other authorities to accentuate the impact
of the hostile environment. Robinson and Ogilvie aptly state that the ‘government’s aim to
outsource certain immigration controls to private citizens is no more than an abdication of
responsibility’.60
Landlords now have a duty to track their tenant’s immigration status, the new policy
requires landlords to ‘keep a record of their tenant’s status and preserve documentation of
their efforts’61 or face the penalty of up to £3,000 as outlined in s.23 of the 2014
Immigration Act. While the policy is aimed at illegal immigrants, it seems inevitable that
landlords will aim to ‘cover their own backs’ by opting for tenants with ‘British sounding
names’,62 which will discriminate against EU migrants exercising their treaty rights as well as
those who have no right to remain.
Ss33(c) of s39 Immigration Act 2016 (offence of leasing premises)63 states that a landlord
who is guilty of this offence is liable;

58
Immigration Act 2016, s39-42.
59
O’Callaghan (n4).
60
Robinson and Ogilvie, 'Liberty’s Committee Stage Briefing on Part 3, Chapter 1 (residential tenancies) of
the Immigration Bill in the House of Lords' (Liberty -Human Rights, March 2014) <[Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/Liberty.> accessed 16 January 2018.
61
Immigration Act 2014, s.22 (10).
62
Schatzberger (n3) 396.
63
Immigration Act 2016, s39, ss33(c).

17
 s1. (a) On conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years, to a fine or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,

to a fine or both.
The severity of this punishment is clearly in breach of the EU law principle of
proportionality64 and imposes an obligation on landlords to carry out extensive document
checking and have a good understanding of the law to avoid these heavy penalties. The
additional work required by landlords to meet these standards will arguably lead to
differential treatment between EU migrants and UK nationals who are seeking to rent a
property. Fear of prosecution and lack of legal understanding may incline landlords to
prioritise letting to UK nationals as they will be certain that they will not be prosecuted in
doing so.
MP Diane Abbott has expressed concern about the legality of this policy, claiming that ‘to
infringe on their (EU migrants’) rights in this manner is not only morally questionable, but
whilst we remain in the EU might also be legally questionable.’65Within the Home Office’s
Code of Practice, landlords are encouraged to avoid ‘unlawful discrimination’, the document
states specifically that it is ‘unlawful to discriminate in letting practices on the basis of race,
which includes colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins’.66
Landlords will typically seek to avoid such responsibility due to the prospect of heavy fines
and lack of understanding of legal provisions within the Act. The pilot scheme for the policy
was launched at a local level in the West Midlands in December 2014.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) conducted an independent
evaluation of the scheme. Saira Grant, legal and policy director of JCWI, stated;
‘Our evaluation found that 42% of landlords are unlikely to rent to those without British
passports. Over 25% would be less likely to rent to someone with a foreign name or foreign
accent’.67
This kind of discrimination could significantly heighten the risk of homelessness to an EU
migrant and engages their rights under article 8 and 14 ECHR.68

64
TFEU (n7) Article 5.
65
Benjamin Kentish, 'Landlords admit turning away EU citizens to avoid government
regulations' (Independent, 6th September
2017)<[Link]
[Link]> accessed 16 January 2018.
66
Right to Rent Code of Practice, avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting ‘right to rent’ checks
in the private rented residential sector (Whitepaper, ISBN 978-1-78655-136-8, 2014) 10.
67
Saira Grant, 'Right to Rent checks result in discrimination against those who 'appear'
foreign' (JCWI, September 3rd 2015) <http: //[Link]/blog/2015/09/03/right-rent-checks-result-
discrimination-against-those-who-appear-foreign.> accessed 16 January 2018.
68
ECHR (n13) 12. Article 8 protects the right to respect for a private and family life, 8(2) provides that
there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right. Article 14 prohibits
discrimination on a variety of grounds, including nationality.

18
In applying the test for Article 14 discrimination laid out in R(S) v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire [2004] it can be argued that:
1). The matters complained of do fall within the ambit of a right protected by the ECHR,
specifically that legal EU migrants could potentially be denied tenancies on grounds of
nationality because of the probability that UK landlords will avoid letting their properties to
immigrants to avoid penalties, thus engaging Article 8.
2). It is probable that landlords will prioritise letting to UK nationals as this would not entail
any obligation to track immigration status nor would it incur the serious fines for breach of
said obligation. In this sense, the difference in treatment is clear.
3). Discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited by article 14, thus the differential
treatment of EU migrants in renting property does fall within its ambit.
4). UK nationals and EU migrants attempting to rent a property are in an analogous position
as per the reasoning in Clift,69 they are in a ‘relevantly similar situation’ in that their aim is
simply to rent property for either temporary or permanent residence.
5). in establishing whether this treatment is justified it is important to note that the purpose
of this act was to prevent illegal immigrants from renting, this measure would be justifiable
for social security and economic reasons in this context. However, the issue is that the policy
promotes discrimination against all immigrants, including EU nationals who have a right to
be here by shifting the burden of checking immigration status to landlords which will
inevitably produce arbitrary and discriminatory results. Therefore, this kind of differential
treatment toward EU migrants cannot be justified.
Further, the difference in treatment in this case is ‘manifestly without reasonable
foundation’ as per the Supreme Court decision in MA.70 Imposing an obligation on landlords
to track tenants’ immigration status is a failure by the state to properly promote equality in
the rules surrounding the renting of property. The Code of Practice does not preclude the
strong probability that landlords would seek to rent to UK nationals to avoid penalties.
Landlords typically do not possess the expertise or willingness to carry out the immigration
checks that were formally the responsibility of the Home Office, therefore there is a strong
likelihood that landlords will seek to protect against liability by discriminating. 71
‘The 2014 Regulations’ is also likely to affect EU job seekers ability to rent property in the
UK. A report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the Housing Benefit Regulations
considered that;
‘Whilst it cannot be predicted with certainty, it seems an almost unavoidable
outcome that private landlords will become reluctant to let their properties to EEA
migrants, even to those in typically secure forms of employment. The prospect of
losing income if the tenant becomes unemployed is real.’72

69
Clift v UK (n29) 66.
70
MA (n32) 38.
71
Robinson and Ogilvie (n60) 3.

19
This reflects how the denial of housing benefit to EU job seekers accentuates the adverse
impact of the Immigration Act 2016 and gives landlords more scope to discriminate on
grounds of nationality.
The failure of the government to provision for the discrimination the 2016 Act and ‘The
2014 Regulations’ would inflict on EU migrants regarding renting of property is unacceptable
and is in breach of the positive obligation imposed on the state by article 3(2) of the Lisbon
Treaty;
‘The union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without
internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction
with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum,
immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’. 73
The Immigration Act 2016 reduces the likelihood of EU nationals finding accommodation by
placing an untenable responsibility on landlords which strongly dictates the type of tenant a
landlord will let his property to. The denial of housing benefit to EU job seekers will also
have a detrimental impact on the ability of these individuals to pay rent and will inevitably
result in landlords evicting such tenants. These policies create a cycle for these individuals
who become entirely cut off from society and are consequently unable to escape a position
of abject destitution. The Home Office then seek to remove these individuals from the UK in
a manner which is immoral and arguably illegal.

3. Rough Sleeping EU migrants- Forced Destitution?

Chapters one and two have examined the legality and proportionality of the policies
adopted by the Conservative Government to restrict the free movement rights of EU
migrants. This chapter will present the practical impact that measures such as ‘The 2014
Regulations’ have had on these individuals, including the reality of having to sleep rough.
Back in 2011 then Prime Minister David Cameron declared in a report from the Department
of Communities and Local Government designed to tackle rough sleeping that;
‘It is an affront to this country that last winter, one of the coldest on record, there
were people still sleeping rough on our streets. While the temperature dropped

72
Social Security Advisory Committee, 'The Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations
2014' (Report, ISBN: 9781474111188, 2014) 19.
73
Treaty of Lisbon (n16) Article 3.

20
 below freezing, many were making do with doorways and cardboard boxes for beds.
In a civilised society, this is totally unacceptable’.74
This statement seemed to herald the government’s desire to end rough sleeping and
destitution. Yet, David Cameron oversaw the introduction of two legislative amendments
that would significantly increase the possibility of EU migrants becoming street homeless;
‘The 2014 Regulations’ and the Immigration Act 2016. Regulation 26 of the Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations (‘the 2016 Regulations’) 75 stated that EU migrants
who were rough sleeping were abusing their free movement rights under Article 35 of the
Citizens Rights Directive. The introduction of these policies appear to indicate the
Conservative government’s intention to get rid of ‘undesirable’ individuals such as
economically inactive EU migrants.76
Subsection 3.1 will review in detail the degree to which ‘The 2014 Regulations’ enhances the
risk of EU job seekers being forced to sleep rough or becoming homeless. It will be argued
that the denial of housing benefit to EU job seekers can force these individuals into
destitution if they are unable to obtain work within a specified period or become suddenly
unemployed. The restrictions placed on EU job seekers make it extremely difficult to
establish a right to reside, which results in an inability to access the labour market or
benefits to avoid homelessness.
Subsection 3.2 will consider the policy of deporting EU migrants who are ‘abusing their
rights’ by rough sleeping under Regulation 26 of the ‘2016 Regulations.’ It will be argued
that the policy involves systematic verification and less favourable treatment to EU
migrants, who are rough sleeping compared with UK nationals. This policy breaches EU and
domestic law and is arguably aimed at reducing net migration.

3.1 Denying Housing Benefit to EU Job Seekers- Forced Destitution?

A report by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) in 2014 reporting on the impact
of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ was unequivocal in its assessment that the policy would result in a
heightened risk of homelessness for EU migrants. The report stated;
‘All of the comments received by the Committee in relation to homelessness were
unanimous in their view that it will increase as a consequence of this legislation.’ 77
In their summing up of the policy the SSAC clearly warn that this legislation will have a
detrimental impact on EU migrants and should be amended;

74
Department for Communities and Local Government, 'Vision to end rough sleeping: No Second Night
Out nationwide' (Report, ISBN: 9781409829966, 2011).
75
The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, cl 26(1(b)).
76
Colin Yeo, 'Briefing: The Legal Status of EU Citizens in the UK' ([Link], 27th February)
<[Link] accessed 5 April 2018 [21].
77
SSAC (n72) 17.

21
 ‘The consultation responses received by the Committee from organisations providing
support to the homeless highlight that this legislation is likely to undermine the
Government’s stated commitment to help those who are sleeping rough to move off
the streets. The Committee therefore recommends that the Government, as a
matter of urgency by the end of autumn 2014, consider what action is needed in
order to mitigate these potential and harmful effects and to publish its findings.’ 78
The Department for Work and Pensions issued an ‘Equality Analysis’ on the impact of the
denial of housing benefit for EU migrants, wherein they conceded that ‘the policy would
increase the risk that EEA migrants could fall into difficult circumstances were they unable
to find employment, particularly if they were vulnerable, such as families with children.’ 79
However, the department sought to mitigate this recognition of inequality by stating;
‘Families would not be left without UK state support. They can claim JSA (IB) for a
period and in certain circumstances they may be able to apply for support from the
Local Authority…It is envisaged that any such costs to Local Authorities would be
small and short term.’80
This was an extraordinary government response to a policy which increases the risk of
homelessness to a defined group of people based on nationality, particularly given the
previous commitment to combat rough sleeping. It offers little solace to EU migrants who
are in destitution as a result of the denial of housing benefit and essentially ignores the
warning of the SSAC about the detrimental impact on all EU migrants.
The ‘Equality Analysis’ conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions was clearly
insufficient. It appears to ignore the impact of the policy on everyone except for families,
despite the fact that this same report states that ‘while the majority of the affected group
are childless; nearly one in four has dependent children.’81 Therefore, the remaining body of
single EU job seekers are being allowed to languish with no social assistance after a certain
period of time.
A report by ‘Homeless Link’ effectively highlights the differing circumstances of EU migrants
and UK nationals and the reasons for homelessness;
‘The majority of EEA migrants are not homeless before they come to England.
Economic migrants generally become homeless due to practical issues relating to
housing, employment, language skills and benefit entitlements. This is in contrast to
UK nationals, whose homelessness is often caused by traumatic life events.’82

78
Ibid [20].
79
Department for Work and Pensions, 'Equality Analysis for Removal of Access to Housing Benefit for EEA
Jobseekers '([Link], 27th February
2017)<[Link]/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
322808/[Link]> accessed 5 April 2018 [55].
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid [45].
82
Homeless Link, 'supporting people with no recourse to public funds (NRPF): Guidance for homelessness
services' ([Link], May 2016) <[Link]
attachments/Supporting%20people%20with%20no%20recourse%20to%20public%20funds%20 (NRPF)

22
The reasons for EU migrants becoming homeless in the UK are overwhelmingly associated
with the ‘hostile environment’ created by the Conservative government and embodied by
such policies as the denial of housing benefit to EU job seekers. As discussed in chapter 1.2,
the approach of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ does not differentiate between ‘benefit tourists’ and
those who wish to genuinely seek and obtain work in the UK. The policy effectively
presupposes that all EU job seekers coming to the UK intend to plunder the state benefits
system. Placing all EU job seekers in the same category for housing benefit based on
nationality constitutes systematic verification, which is prohibited by EU law. 83 The
difference in treatment between the ability of UK job seekers to access housing benefit as
opposed to the blanket ban on EU job seekers accessing housing benefit establishes an
unacceptably high threshold for retaining a right to remain in the UK. There is no good
reason to justify the differential treatment and it undermines the rule of law because it is
‘the antithesis of fairness.’84
In the context of Northern Ireland, the legislation has not gone through an ‘Equality Impact
Assessment’ required under Article 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, 85 this represents a
failure by the state to have due regard for the discrimination against EU job seekers. The
Department for Social Development concluded that the changes ‘did not have any
significant implications for equality of opportunity.’86
S75 (1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires a public authority to have ‘due regard’ to
the need to promote equality of opportunity ‘between persons of different…racial group.’ 87
Drawing on the case law of England and Wales on ‘due regard’ in R (Hajrula) v London
Councils it was held that;
‘In a case where large numbers of vulnerable people, many of whom fall within one
or more of the protected groups, are affected, the due regard necessary is very
high.’88
Applying this standard to the Northern Ireland context it is clear that the Department failed
in its duty to carry out a thorough assessment of the potential discrimination that the
Housing Benefit Regulations (NI) 2014 could cause toward EU job seekers. There are a litany
of issues which should have given rise to an equality impact assessment, including the fact
that the denial of housing benefit to EU job seekers discriminates solely on the basis of
nationality and can force these individuals into a state of destitution. Further, failure to take
into account the SSAC report warning of the dangers of the legislation and the equivalent
%[Link]> accessed 5 April 2018 [2].
83
Directive 2004/38/EC (n36) Article 14(2).
84
Ghaidan v GodinMendoza [2004] 2 AC 9 (UKHL) 9.
85
Northern Ireland Act 1998, Article 75(2).
86
Department for Social Development, 'Explanatory Memorandum to the Housing Benefit (Habitual
Residence) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014, No 98, para 5(1).
87
Northern Ireland Act 1998 (n85) Article 75(1). This legislation provides for ‘equality of opportunity
between people of different religious beliefs, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual
orientation.’ Given Northern Ireland’s political history, consider the outrage if equality of opportunity was
denied on the basis of religion; differential treatment on grounds of ‘racial group’ (including nationality)
should be viewed with equal condemnation.
88
R (Hajrula) v London Councils [2011] 448 QB (EWHC) 69.

23
equality assessment conducted in England constitutes a failure by the Northern Ireland
authorities to have ‘due regard’ for promoting equality of opportunity.
Malachy Mc Gowon BL: ‘It could not have legitimately been concluded that there
would be no significant implications for equality of opportunity, given that the
restriction of access to housing benefit is explicitly on the basis of nationality. The
impact of such a limitation would inevitably disadvantage EU nationals in their ability
to obtain stable accommodation, and therefore reduce their job prospects, in
contrast with job seeing UK or Irish nationals.’89
Ultimately, EU jobseekers are being subjected to a discriminatory policy which has either
gone unchecked or been overlooked by the equality assessments of the Conservative
government. The acknowledgement that EU job seekers may fall into ‘difficult
circumstances’90 but families will be offered support is absurd. The policy should prevent
homelessness in the first place, rather than offer support to those who become homeless
having been denied housing benefit. It is asserted that the differential treatment toward EU
migrants is so intrinsically based on nationality that a sufficiently through equality
assessment would have identified the inherent discrimination and potential for forced
destitution.

3.2 Deporting Rough Sleeping EU Migrants

In London, a total of 8,096 people were seen sleeping rough in 2015/16, up from 7,581
during the previous year.91 In 2016 the number of EU citizens being removed from the UK
increased to 4,754, a rapid rise from 2010 (the year the Conservatives came to power) when
only 973 were removed.92 This supports the argument that the policy of deporting rough
sleeping EU migrants is linked not only to lowering the number of rough sleepers on the
streets, but also to achieving the Conservative party’s net migration objectives.

89
Malachy McGowan BL (n33).
90
Department for Work and Pensions (n79) 55.
91
Greater London Authority, 'Chain Annual Report- Greater London' ([Link], June 2016)
<[Link]
%20full%[Link]> accessed 6 April 2018.
92
Benjamin Kentish, 'UK policy of deporting homeless EU citizens could be illegal, European Commission
suggests' ([Link], 10th December
2017) <[Link]
[Link]> accessed 6 April 2018.

24
Article 26 of ‘The 2016 Regulations’ stated that rough sleeping by EU migrant’s constituted
an ‘abuse of rights’ under Article 35 of the Citizens Rights Directive. Deportations had been
taking place on a local level in and around the Westminster area since at least November
2015 through the Home Office’s pilot scheme ‘Operation Adoze’ as came to light in Gureckis
v SSHD.93 This was then expanded across the UK through ‘Operation Gopik’ in February
2017.94 It will be argued that the systematic removal of EU migrants through this policy is a
misuse of rights by the state, rather than EU migrants.
The case of Gureckis was a Judicial Review challenging the policy of deporting rough
sleeping EU migrants. In the High Court Mrs Justice Lang held in favour of the claimants,
concluding that;
1) The policy was unlawful because rough sleeping could not constitute an “abuse
of rights” within the meaning of Article 35 of the Directive.
2) The policy was discriminatory because it afforded less favourable treatment to
EEA nationals who were rough sleepers…there was no justification for the less
favourable treatment.
3) The application of the policy was unlawful because it entailed systematic
verification, prohibited by Article 14(2) of the Citizens Rights Directive. 95
This Judgment was a damning assessment of the Home Office’s policy and supports the view
that the government are abusing their rights as policy makers. Perhaps the most worrying
development in this case was the acknowledgment of systematic verification. The need for
individual assessment is well established at EU law, the CJEU held in R (McCarthy) v Home
Secretary that;
‘Measures adopted by national authorities, on the basis of Article 35 of Directive
2004/38, in order to refuse, terminate or withdraw a right conferred by that
Directive must be based on an individual examination of the particular case.’96
In Gureckis the authorities failed to carry out individual assessments as ‘under the terms of
the policy, EEA nationals who were rough sleeping were presumed to be abusing their EEA
rights of residence by sleeping rough.’97 The policy does not take into account the reasons
for EU migrants sleeping rough, such as the inability to secure accommodation or work due
to the denial of housing benefit.
The defendant in this case did state that;
‘it may not be appropriate to consider the individuals to be abusing or misusing free
movement rights if the rough sleeping is of limited duration until return home or re-
entry into…accommodation is arranged.’98

93
Gunars Gereckis and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] 3298 QBD 71 (EWHC)
66.
94
Ibid [70].
95
Ibid [22].
96
Case C-202/13 R (McCarthy) v Home Secretary [2014] ECR 2450, 52.
97
Gereckis (n93) 122.
98
Ibid [53].

25
However, EU job seekers often do not meet the priority criteria for accessing services that
can help them to emerge from homelessness, making their destitution more inescapable.
Returning to their country of origin will also be a problem as they may not be able to afford
it or they may not want to return because their prospects of homelessness would be just as
high.
Therefore, there is a greater chance that EU migrants will be rough sleeping for prolonged
periods, this significantly enhances the risk of mental and physical illness. For example,
rough sleepers are likely to have physical health problems such as chest pains, breathing
problems, ulcers and hypothermia99 and are eleven times more likely to suffer from mental
health problems.100 Alcohol and substance misuse are also more prominent among rough
sleepers and can exacerbate any existing physical or mental issues. In light of these statistics
it is hardly surprising that the average age of death for a homeless person is 30 years
younger than those in stable accommodation.101 Gureckis proved that there is no legal basis
for removing EU migrants said to be ‘abusing their rights’ by sleeping rough. Nonetheless,
this Judgment will only go as far as precluding their unlawful removal, it does not address
the role other Government legislation and policies play in forcing EU job seekers into this
destitution.
Ruling that Article 26 of ‘The 2016 Regulations’ is unlawful was a positive step toward
ending the discrimination against EU migrants in the UK. Notwithstanding this, without the
legal authority to deport EU migrants who are allegedly abusing their free movement rights
the government will be left with an even greater rough sleeping crisis. In order to remedy
this problem ‘The 2014 Regulations’ must be amended as it too constitutes systematic
verification of EU job seekers and entails an unjustifiable difference in treatment compared
with UK job seekers.102
My recommended solution will be discussed in detail in the conclusion of this critique, it
includes establishing an individual assessment of EU job seekers applying for housing
benefit, this would differentiate between those who wish to genuinely work and integrate in
the UK and those who wish to take advantage of the benefits system.

99
M Warnes, 'The responsibility to care for single homeless people' [2001] 9(6) Health and Social Care in
the Community, 436.
100
Ibid [437].
101
Crisis Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion, 'Homelessness: A silent killer A research briefing on
mortality amongst homeless people ' ([Link], December 2011)
<[Link] accessed 6
April 2018.
102
There are currently Judicial Review proceedings taking place in Northern Ireland challenging the
lawfulness of the Housing Benefit (habitual residence) Regulations (NI) 2014. Malachy McGowan BL is
acting defence counsel for the claimant, he argues that the regulations; “ensured he (the claimant) was
unable to obtain Housing Benefit, and consequently was unable to access emergency accommodation
that would preclude the need for him to sleep on the streets.”

26
 Conclusion and Recommendations
The prime objective of this critique was to establish whether recent legislation and policies
from the Conservative Government were necessary to combat EU migrants abusing their
free movement rights or if the government are abusing their rights as legislators and policy
makers by creating a ‘hostile environment’.
The findings of this review are resoundingly critical of the obstruction caused to EU migrants
exercising their right to move and reside in member states of the EU. ‘The 2014 Regulations’
is the key focus of the review as it reflects the intransigence of the Government’s housing
and immigration policies, it is arguably in breach of domestic law, EU law and the ECHR and
significantly increases the risk of EU job seekers becoming destitute. Yet, even amid a rough
sleeping crisis in the UK, which the Conservatives have promised to tackle through their
support of the ‘No Second Night Out’ campaign103, EU job seekers continue to be denied
housing benefit.

103
Department for Communities and Local Government (n74).

27
 Malachy McGowan BL: ‘Housing benefit is plainly intended to be a tool to reduce
homelessness. As a consequence, the failure to extend housing benefit to EU job
seekers comes within the ambit of articles 3 and 8 (ECHR).’104
For the purposes of this critique Article 3 ECHR has been reviewed more vigorously as it is an
absolute right under the Convention. The ECtHR case law indicates that there is a positive
obligation on the state to avert the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, 105 removal of
access to housing benefit drastically enhances said risk and arguably breaches Article 3.
Further, Article 14 ECHR is arguably breached because of the inherent discrimination in ‘The
2014 Regulations’. The dominant factor in proving this policy is discriminatory is the
differential treatment it confers on EU job seekers as opposed to UK job seekers regarding
their ability to access housing benefit. The stated Home Office justification for the policy,
that of combatting ‘benefit tourism’, is not sufficient as it places all EU job seekers in the
same category, which constitutes systematic verification. ‘The 2014 Regulations’ must
urgently be revised to comply with the ECHR, adopting an individual assessment of each EU
job seeker applying for housing benefit would be an effective solution.
The legality and proportionality of ‘The 2014 Regulations’ were also scrutinised with regard
to EU law. As a means of justifying the denial of housing benefit to EU job seekers the
government rely on Article 24(2) of the Citizens Rights Directive which derogates from the
‘equal treatment provision in Article 24(1). From analysing the case law of the CJEU it is
clear that the rights contained in the Citizens Rights Directive should be viewed in the
context of substantive EU law, such as the TFEU.106 The principal reason for the denial of
housing benefit to EU job seekers is based on nationality, the differential treatment has no
plausible justification, thus the policy constitutes direct discrimination contrary to Article 18
TFEU.107
The Department for Work and Pensions have also heightened the threshold for ‘genuine
and effective’ work under EU law, this enhances the detrimental impact of ‘The 2014
Regulations’ by making it more difficult for EU job seekers to find work and accommodation
and consequently increases the risk of destitution. O’Brien criticises ‘The 2014 Act’ as being
introduced for deterrent purposes, stating that ‘Restricting access to the labour market is
not a side effect- It is an objective.’108 These policies reflect a disproportionate imbalance
with EU law, the UK are already afforded a sizable margin of appreciation in dealing with
social benefits issues, to stray beyond these parameters is a clear abuse of rights by the
Conservative Government.
The potential for discrimination based on nationality in s39-42 of the Immigration Act 2016
and ‘The 2014 Regulations’ regarding EU job seekers access to renting property is
104
Malachy McGowan BL (n33).
105
Dordaveic (n18) 139. Also see (n16) on positive obligations of state under Article 3 TFEU; “The Union
shall combat social exclusion and discrimination and shall promote justice and protection.”
106
Zambrano (n45) 39-45. The Citizens Rights Directive does not list exhaustively the circumstances where
a right of residence can be conferred to an EU citizen.
107
TFEU (n37) Article 18 states; “any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”
108
O’Brien (n39) 28. Also see (n53); “domestic measures must not be imposed for deterrent or economic
purposes.”

28
concerning. Shifting the burden of immigration checks to landlords is part of an extensive
transferral of immigration control to the private sector in the Immigration Act 2016. 109
The restrictions of who a landlord can rent to is confined to ‘illegal immigrants’, thus does
not include EU job seekers. However, the heavy penalties for landlords failing to comply
with their obligations will arguably deter them from renting to any foreign citizen.
Moreover, for EU job seekers who are seeking rented accommodation the denial of housing
benefit may lead to problems with meeting rent payments, this creates another incentive
for landlords to prioritise renting to UK citizens. This kind of differential treatment arguably
engages claimants’ rights under Article 14 ECHR and Article 18 TFEU, given that the
legislation was primarily aimed at illegal immigrants the differential treatment would at
least constitute indirect discrimination based on nationality.110
All the above factors culminate to create an extremely oppressive environment for EU job
seekers exercising their free movement rights under EU law. Being denied housing benefit
alone is enough to significantly increase the risk of homelessness, the Minimum Earning’s
Threshold111 and s39-42 of the Immigration Act 2016112 accentuates the impact of ‘The 2014
Regulations’ and arguably constitutes forced destitution. While this is a serious allegation,
the facts indicate that despite conclusive evidence that ‘The 2014 Regulations’ would lead to
discrimination and potentially increase homelessness the government have taken no action
to remedy this inequality. Further, in Northern Ireland the authorities did not even conduct
an equality impact assessment as required under s75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. 113
The denial of a benefit expressly designed for applicants to avoid homelessness constitutes
a failure by the state to discharge their positive obligations to protect against inhuman or
degrading treatment set out in Article 3 ECHR and a failure to discharge obligations under
the treaty as per Article 4 TFEU.114
David Cameron’s stated commitment to end rough sleeping appears quite hollow in light of
contradictory conservative policies such as the ‘The 2014 Regulations’. Gereckis115
highlighted the abuse of rights by the Home Office in introducing a policy for deporting
rough sleeping EU migrants, it is hoped that this case acts as a catalyst toward the
amendment of ‘The 2014 Regulations’.
My recommendation is to reform ‘The 2014 Regulations’ by establishing an individual
assessment of whether EU job seekers qualify for the benefit. The government should
introduce a defined criteria for applying for housing benefit, this should include showing
evidence of economic and social integration in the UK but should not make any distinctions
based on nationality. Housing benefit could be offered for the same length of time as job

109
Immigration Act 2016 (n58) See also s34-38 on the creation of an offence of illegal working.
110
Patmalniece (n48) See Lord Walker’s dictum.
111
Department for Work and Pensions (n40).
112
Immigration Act 2016 (n58) s39-42.
113
Northern Ireland Act 1998 (n85).
114
TFEU (n16) “Member States shall take any appropriate measure…to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the treaties.”
115
Gereckis (n93).

29
seekers allowance and payments would stop once an EU migrant loses their right to reside,
this would enhance EU job seekers chances of gaining employment and wouldn’t place an
untenable strain on the UK’s benefits system. These proposed amendments to the Housing
Benefit Regulations 2014 would strike an effective balance between the rights of EU job
seekers and the policy needs of the government, while reducing the high levels of rough
sleeping which is beneficial to both parties.
The main barrier to achieving this proposed reform is the lack of political will from the
Conservative Government who consistently rely on the unsubstantiated defence of
curtailing ‘benefit tourism’. However, the policy incentive of safeguarding the UK’s benefits
system from this perceived abuse will inevitably be trumped by the need to need to mitigate
rising levels of rough sleeping, thus it is desirable that this problem is addressed urgently
before the situation deteriorates further.
Ultimately, the sole motive for these policies appear to be based on reaching net migration
targets. Current Prime Minister Tereasa May did pledge ‘to control migration from the
European Union, by reforming welfare rules.’116 Nonetheless, The disproportionate impact
these policies have on an EU job seeker’s ability to exercise their free movement rights goes
beyond legitimate ’control’ and arguably deliberately deters migrants from coming to the
UK.

Bibliography

Table of Cases
UK Cases:
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] 700 AC (UKSC).
Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 54 AC 66 (HL) (Brown LJ).
Ghaidan v GodinMendoza [2004] 2 AC 9 (UKHL).
Gunars Gereckis and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] 3298 QBD
71 (EWHC).
MA and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] 58 AC (UKSC).
Patmalniece (FC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] 11 AC 17 (UKSC).
Rabone v Penine Care NHS Trust [2012] 272 AC (UKSC).

116
The Conservative Party Manifesto (n5) 29.

30
R (Hajrula) v London Councils [2011] 448 QB (EWHC).
R (Limbuela) v SSHD [2005] 66 Civ (HL).
R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board [2016] 697 AC (UKSC).
R(S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] 1 WLR 2196.

European Cases:
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR):
Clift v UK, App no 7205/07 (ECHR, 13 July 2010).
Dordaveic v Croatia, App no 41526/10 (ECHR, 24 July 2012).
MSS v Belgium and Greece, App no 30696/09 (ECHR, 21 January 2011).
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU):
C-184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-
16093.
Case C-202/13 R (McCarthy) v Home Secretary [2014] ECR 2450.
C-456/02 Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) [2004] ECR I-07573.
C-34/09 Zambrano v Office National de L'emploi [2012] ECR I-01177.

Table of Legislation
UK Legislation:
Immigration Act 2016.
Immigration Act 2014.
Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2014.

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

EU Legislation and Communications

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR).

Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to
move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States [2004] OJ 2 158/77.
31
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2007] OJ 1 115/47.

Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the
European Community, [2007] OJ 1 306/01.

European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament

and Council’ COM (2014) 210 final.

Journal Articles

Blauberger and Schmidt, 'Welfare Migration? Free Movement of EU Citizens and Access to
Social Benefits ' [2014] 1(3) Research and Politics.

O'Brien C, 'the Pillory, the Precipice and the Slippery Slope: The Profound Effects of the UK's
Legal Reform Programme Targeting EU Migrants' [2015] 37(1) Journal of Social Welfare and
Family Law.

Puttick K, 'EEA workers’ free movement and social rights after Dano and St Prix: Is a
Pandora’s Box of new economic integration and ‘contribution’ requirements
opening?' [2015] 37(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law.

Schatzberger E, 'The Immigration Act 2014: 'Not on the list you're not coming in; landlords
forced to discriminate'' [2015] 5(1) The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer.

Vincenzi C, 'European citizenship and free movement rights in the European Union
' [1995] (1) Public Law.

Warnes M, 'The responsibility to care for single homeless people' [2001] 9(6) Health and
Social Care in the Community.

Online Journals

O'Callaghan D, ''Creating a hostile environment- the act as a weapon' ' (Landmark

Chambers, 2nd
March2015)<[Link]
%20Immigration%[Link]> accessed 15 January 2018.

Robinson and Ogilvie, 'Liberty’s Committee Stage Briefing on Part 3, Chapter 1 (residential
tenancies) of the Immigration Bill in the House of Lords' (Liberty -Human Rights, March
2014) <[Link] accessed 16
January 2018.

32
Grant S, 'Right to Rent checks result in discrimination against those who 'appear'
foreign' (JCWI, September 3rd 2015) <http: //[Link]/blog/2015/09/03/right-rent-
checks-result-discrimination-against-those-who-appear-foreign.> accessed 16 January 2018.

Yeo C, 'Briefing: The Legal Status of EU Citizens in the UK' ([Link], 27th
February)<[Link] accesse
d 5 April 2018.

Reports and White Papers

Department for Communities and Local Government, 'Vision to end rough sleeping: No
Second Night Out nationwide' (Report, ISBN: 9781409829966, 2011).

Department for Social Development, 'Explanatory Memorandum to the Housing Benefit

(Habitual Residence) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014, No 98.

Department for Work and Pensions, 'Equality Analysis for Removal of Access to Housing
Benefit for EEA Jobseekers '([Link], 27th February
2017)<[Link]/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/322808/[Link]> accessed 5 April 2018.

Department for Work and Pensions, 'Minimum Earnings Threshold for EEA migrants
introduced' ([Link], 1 March 2014) <[Link]
earnings-threshold-for-eea-migrants-introduced> accessed 13 February 2018.
Greater London Authority, 'Chain Annual Report- Greater
London' ([Link], June 2016)
<[Link]
%20London%20full%[Link]> accessed 6 April 2018.
Home office, 'European Economic Area (EEA) Administrative Removal Version
40' ([Link], 14 December 2017)
<[Link]
668093/[Link]> accessed 16 January 2018.

Home office, 'Policy Equality Statement (PES)' ([Link], 19th April 2016)
<[Link]
667250/Home_Office_PES_-_Processing_asylum_claims_in_detention_-
_September_2017.pdf> accessed 16 January 2018.

Memo DMG 2/15; SI 2013/3032, Regulation 6.

[Link]
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324534/[Link]
>accessed 19 April 2018.

33
Right to Rent Code of Practice, avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting ‘right to
rent’ checks in the private rented residential sector (Whitepaper, ISBN 978-1-78655-136-8,
2014).

Social Security Advisory Committee, 'The Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Amendment
Regulations 2014' (Report, ISBN: 9781474111188, 2014).

Websites and Media

Benjamin Kentish, 'Landlords admit turning away EU citizens to avoid government

regulations' (Independent, 6th September
2017)<[Link]
[Link]> accessed 16 January 2018.

Benjamin Kentish, 'UK policy of deporting homeless EU citizens could be illegal, European
Commission suggests' ([Link], 10th December
2017) <[Link]
[Link]> accessed 6
April 2018.

Conservatives, 'The Conservative Party

Manifesto' ([Link], 2015) <[Link] acc
essed 15 January 2018.

Crisis Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion, 'Homelessness: A silent killer A research
briefing on mortality amongst homeless people ' ([Link], December 2011)
<[Link] a
ccessed 6 April 2018.

Homeless Link, 'supporting people with no recourse to public funds (NRPF): Guidance for
homelessness services' ([Link], May
2016) <[Link]
%20people%20with%20no%20recourse%20to%20public%20funds%20 (NRPF)
%[Link]> accessed 5 April 2018.

34
35