Delays and Bureaucracy: Migrants trying to avoid destitution

When migrants are granted permission to stay in the UK, they are usually prohibited from accessing public funds. This is known as the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition. This policy is based on the idea that migrants should be financially independent and able to support themselves. The term public funds includes important social security benefits, tax credits and housing assistance.

Written by: RMC’s immigration team

The impact of the NRPF Policy

Research shows that the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) policy drives poverty and exclusion. Those affected cannot access welfare support when facing crises and/ or homelessness, making them systemically disadvantaged. This disproportionately impacts families, including those with British children.

Some eligible migrants can apply for a ‘change of conditions’ application to the Home Office, if approved, this removes the NRPF conditions and allows them to access public funds to avoid destitution. However, this is only limited to those with permission to stay based on their family or private life, human rights and those on Hong Kong visas.

For a migrant to be successful in a change of conditions application, they will need to demonstrate that they are destitute or at imminent risk of being destitute. This means that they need to provide evidence to prove that they do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it and/ or they cannot afford to meet other essential living needs. The threshold for a successful application is significantly high and the process has become increasingly slow and inconsistently applied by the Home Office in recent years.

Many with the NRPF condition attached to their visas struggle to apply for a change of conditions because the process is complicated, requires lots of evidence and isn’t widely known. Some worry it could affect their future immigration status², while others don’t have legal support to help them apply. Even when people do apply, decisions take a long time, leading to applicants having to live in crisis for long periods. In 2023, it took an average of 47 days, and while 66% were granted recourse to public funds³, successful families then had to wait another five weeks for Universal Credit.

However, Jawed’s arrival in Walsall marked the beginning of a new chapter—one filled with warmth and support. He describes the moment he was welcomed by the Refugee and Migrant Centre (RMC) as a profound relief. “The warmth and care from RMC made me feel at home,” he says with a smile.

What are the delays?

Recently, RMC collaborated with The Unity Project alongside RAMFEL, and Praxis to examine delays in processing these applications. While applicants often provide all information on their finances with the initial application, the Home Office is routinely sending requests for further information creating additional obstacles for people in urgent need of public funds.

In 2020, only 15% of applications processed by The Unity Project (TUP) received a request for further information. By 2024, this had surged to 49%.
Of the 189 applications submitted by TUP, Praxis, RAMFEL, and RMC, nearly half were issued such a request. Yet 86% were eventually granted recourse to public funds, often without providing additional evidence.
Each additional evidence request adds an average of one month to the decision-making process.
Since 2021, Home Office decision times have more than doubled, from 46 days to 89 days for applicants supported by RMC and partner organisations.

The evidence shows that requests for further information only delay an urgent decision rather than improving outcomes. For those in critical need, time is a privilege they do not have.

The Problem of Delay

Through our casework at RMC, we supported Ms. Y, a single parent with Limited Leave to Remain (LLR), who was balancing self-employment while solely caring for her child. With an irregular income and no access to childcare support, affording rent and essentials became increasingly difficult. She applied to have the NRPF restriction lifted through a CoC application, seeking much-needed relief. After waiting 43 days, the Home Office issued a Request for Further Evidence (RFI), even though the requested information had already been provided. This additional request extended the process by another 35 days, resulting in a total wait of 78 days for a decision.

At the Refugee and Migrant Centre (RMC), we stand alongside partners such as The Unity Project (TUP), Praxis, and RAMFEL to highlight these growing concerns and push for reform. Together, we urge the Home Office to take decisive steps to ensure the system is fair, efficient, and responsive to the needs of those it is meant to support.

We call for:

Transparency – The Home Office should publish data on requests for further evidence and their impact on processing times.
Faster decision-making – Individuals facing destitution should not have to wait months for support.
A more proportionate approach – These requests should only be issued when essential, and in line with the Home Office’s own policy guidance.

At RMC, we believe in a system that supports the most vulnerable, rather than one that is overly complex and difficult to navigate. Through casework, policy engagement, and collaboration with advocacy groups, we continue to work towards a future where access to basic support is not delayed by avoidable bureaucracy.