14Sep 2020

PILC and HASL launch open letter to Southwark

2020-09-14T15:46:31+01:0014th September 2020|

PILC, along with Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth (HASL) and over thirty other signatories, has written to Southwark Council about the local authority’s treatment of overcrowded families.

PILC and HASL have been supporting a number of severely overcrowded families who have been blamed and penalised by Southwark for ‘deliberately’ causing their overcrowding. In some cases, the has council demoted families to Band 4 (the very bottom of the housing register) where they will never be able to access the permanent council housing they desperately need. These practices continued during the peak of the Covid 19 pandemic, when the heightened vulnerabilities of those living in overcrowded housing were clear.

Our open letter highlights how the council’s policies and practices on overcrowding penalise households from low-income and BAME and migrant backgrounds, who often simply cannot afford less overcrowded housing, as well as facing additional barriers such as the government’s racist Right to Rent policy.

The letter calls on Southwark to remove the concept of ‘deliberate act’ from its policy, and to stop arguing that families who have been forced to reside in severely overcrowded conditions have ‘deliberately worsened their circumstances.’ Instead of fuelling a culture of blame and refusal, Southwark must support low income, BAME and migrant families according to their housing need.

A full press release can be downloaded here.

5Sep 2020

PILC is 4!

2020-09-07T12:54:47+01:005th September 2020|

We started out as a public law unit at Lambeth Law Centre with one case. We were instructed by 2 anti-racism activists, a former Labour MP and a national anti-racist organisation – Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE) – to represent them in the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI). We had one desk, and access to a phone and a photocopier.

The aim of the unit, and now of the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), was, and is, to work with individuals and campaigns to bring challenges against public bodies. This might be national or local government, or any organisation carrying out a public function. However, we have also sought to use legal action as part of a wider campaigning strategy, working alongside grassroots activists. Over the last four years we have collaborated with some amazing people and organisations: Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth (HASL); Up the Elephant; Solace Women’s Aid; Save Southall Town Hall; the Monitoring Group; Southall Black Sisters; and many more.

In our short life we and our clients have changed the law. Examples can be found all over this website. We have had a big impact both in terms of assisting individual clients, and supporting groups and grassroots campaigns. We want our approach to strategic litigation to be both cutting edge and, crucially, to form part of an overall strategy to build the campaigns and movements who instruct us.

We are now building our capacity in other areas of work, including actions against the police and planning law. We are also looking to bring challenges to the gentrification of working-class spaces.

We recognise a need to research and publish reports. We understand that some laws cannot be changed. Through research we hope to both build strategic litigation and shine a light on unjust law and practice. This is crucial to our work as we continue to oppose inequality, structural racism, sexism, and anti-working class practices.

In its four years of existence, PILC has had a tough journey. We have had four offices. We have had our host law centre in Lambeth go into liquidation and sadly take our money with them. We have had to rebuild, refocus and work hard. However, through the dedication of our staff team, our principles, our socialist and progressive politics, we have been able to weather the storm.

In the next year we hope to consolidate and slowly build. For now, we want to say a big thanks to the many people who have supported us so far: clients, barristers, campaigners, chambers, funders and social justice organisations. Solidarity!

17Jul 2020

COVID-19 and the need for a Public Inquiry.

2020-07-17T08:07:28+01:0017th July 2020|

On the 9th July 2020 on behalf of the Law Centres Network, and with the support of Amnesty International and over 70 grassroots and civil society organisations, we wrote to the Prime Minister demanding that a Public Inquiry is called to urgently consider lessons that can be learned from the Government’s handling of COVID 19.  

On the 15th July 2020, and in response to a question from the leader of Liberal Democrats – Ed Davey MP regarding the need for a public inquiry the Prime Minister said: 

“As I have told the House several times, I do not believe that now, in the middle of combating the pandemic as we are, is the right moment to devote huge amounts of official time to an inquiry, but of course we will seek to learn the lessons of the pandemic in the future, and certainly we will have an independent inquiry into what happened.” 

Whilst we welcome the commitment to an independent inquiry, important questions remain.  

What type of Inquiry does the Prime Minister have in mind? 

Any independent inquiry needs to be a statutory public inquiry and be chaired by a Judge sitting with a panel of experts in public health, race, disability and social care.  

Central to such an inquiry must be the families who have lost loved ones. It must involve health and public sector workers, and their trade unions. It must also hear from civil society organisations including law centres, campaign groups, and others on the frontline. 

Contrary to the Prime Minister’s statement, an Inquiry cannot wait. Echoing the demands of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families Justice Group, we call on the Government to: 

i)      Convene an immediate public inquiry within the next 3 months into the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Such an Inquiry is necessary to prepare for a potential second wave of the virus, to learn lessons and ensure that the necessary steps are taken to prevent a further crisis in health and care provision;  

ii)     Commit to a longer-term, independent public inquiry in order to adequately address the many concerns not only outlined in our letter of the 9th July 2020 but also those raised by the groups and organisations who have supported it, as well as the Covid-19 Bereaved Families Justice Group; and 

iii)   Finally, both the immediate and long-term inquiry must be independent, properly resourced and chaired by a Judge, but also employ a panel of experts with a wide range experiences of understanding surrounding issues of racism, disabilities, frontline and low paid work as well as public health and social care. There would need to be full and frank disclosure of all the evidence, including statements and live evidence from Ministers so that they may be properly held to account. 

We are not convinced by the Prime Minister’s vague promise of an Inquiry at some point in the future. Not only is his statement lacking in detail, but crucially lacks the urgency that is required in order to ensure that lessons are learned, and adequate measures are put in place to prevent further unnecessary loss of life prior to a second wave.

23Jun 2020

Important win for homeless families in Lambeth

2020-06-23T17:38:41+01:0023rd June 2020|

Lambeth Council agrees to amend a housing allocations scheme that had resulted in hundreds of vulnerable families being removed from its social housing register 

Lambeth’s Temp2Settled Policy 

Since 2014 Lambeth Council has been encouraging its homeless families to withdraw their homelessness applications, and to move into temporary private sector accommodation, by offering them higher priority for social housing. However, in very many cases, the deal that Lambeth was offering actually prevented these families from staying on the social housing waiting list at all.

Under the ‘Temp2Settled’ Scheme, those approaching the council as homeless were told that if they agreed to forego their rights under the housing and homelessness legislation, they would be placed in Band B (rather than Band C) and therefore have a ‘much better chance’ of successfully securing council housing or housing association tenancies. 

However, what these families were not told was that if they were placed outside the borough (as hundreds were) they would almost certainly be removed from the housing register altogether before they were able to bid successfully for social housing and be rehoused. That was because they would lose their ‘local connection’ to the borough after two years. 

These families never had any real prospect of securing permanent accommodation, as the average wait time for securing permanent family-sized accommodation in Band B has always been more than five years. We therefore suspect that Lambeth council may have designed the policy with a view to denying applicants their housing rights.

Other consequences – suitability of accommodation and eviction 

Apart from being removed from the housing register and losing their local connection, these families also felt the wickedness of Lambeth’s policy in other ways. 

Unlike the accommodation provided under the homelessness legislation, there is no statutory requirement for  ‘Temp2Settled’ accommodation to be ‘suitable’, and there is no right to challenge the suitability of the offer of accommodation by way of statutory review. Families therefore often found themselves in unsanitary or uninhabitable living conditions and forced to stay there as they were unable to challenge private sector accommodation that was unconstrained by suitability requirements. 

Given the unstable nature of the accommodation, many families faced threats of eviction from private landlords. On top of all this, having been placed many miles outside the borough of Lambeth, some had no choice but to travel long distances in order to retain their support networks and to get to and from work or school. 

The legal challenge 

The Public Interest Law Centre, with support from Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth (HASL), brought a legal challenge on behalf of four families affected by the ‘Temp2Settled’ scheme. Each client had either faced eviction or felt forced to reside in unsuitable or uninhabitable living conditions. In many cases this led to them and their children suffering a deterioration in their mental wellbeing and physical health. 

As a result of the challenge, and not long before the case was due in court, Lambeth agreed to amend its policy and reinstate the four families to its housing register with immediate effect. Applicants who opted for the Scheme (only to be placed in private rented accommodation outside of the borough and removed from the housing register after two years) are also to be reinstated. 

Barristers Nick Bano and Liz Davies (Garden Court Chambers) and David Wolfe QC (Matrix Chambers) were instructed.


Elizabeth Wyatt from HASL says:

“Our members told us they were tricked and deceived by Lambeth council when they visited the housing office as homeless. More and more people were coming to the group telling us they had been removed from the waiting list with no idea why. This allowed us to build our legal challenge, but there are still hundreds of households who have been struggling alone. 

Lambeth’s Temp2Settled scheme is yet another example that so-called homeless prevention which pushes families into the private sector does not work and is not fair. 

PILC and HASL have successfully challenged it here and we will continue to do so wherever these schemes fail to act in the best interests of homeless people. 

Real homeless prevention is safe, secure, high quality council housing in our communities, and a welfare system accessible to everyone that ensures a dignified life free from poverty.”

Helen Mowatt, solicitor at PILC, says:

“This case is an important victory for the hundreds of families who have been affected by the  ‘Temp2Settled’scheme, and we hope sends a message to councils – that it is not acceptable to place targets above the needs of the community. We know that there is a culture in housing departments that regardless of how vulnerable you are, the ultimate goal is to get the numbers down. Schemes like ‘Temp2Settled’ are adopted to further the gentrification agenda, as it is in the commercial interests of councils to get as many homeless and low-income families out of the borough as possible. 

Of course, this mentality trickles down from central government and is linked to the limited housing stock and to a decade of austerity measures. But councils need to be pushing back against this—and not taking it out on homeless families who approach the council for support. We must continue the campaign to ensure that those families no longer feel forced to reside in uninhabitable living conditions, are protected from eviction, and have access to secure council-owned accommodation.”

One of the four claimants had this to say:

“I first encountered Lambeth council’s ‘Temp2Settled’ Scheme when I became homeless in 2017 and was at my most vulnerable.  The council officers sugar coated the nature of the Scheme and persuaded me to agree to enter into it – they told me that it was the best option for myself and my baby as we would be provided with permanent council accommodation in our home borough within a matter of weeks. However, I later discovered that relying on this advice had put myself and my daughter at great risk. The conditions of the property I was placed in were very poor and it was not safe for us to live in. I have also been threatened with eviction on several occasions. 

My intention has always been to do right by my daughter and to do the best for her. I believe that Lambeth Council took advantage of this and of me when I was at my most vulnerable and when I had no choice but to place my trust in them. When given the option of a stable and secure home for my daughter, of course I was going to take that – even if it meant living away from our home borough for what I was told would be a short period of time. 

My daughter is now 3 years old and at the crucial age of starting nursery and settling down for the starting of her educational life. This should be an exciting time for us, but the consequences of the council’s scheme (the suitability of accommodation, threats of eviction and being forced away from the place I call home) had impacted us both greatly – causing so much stress and anxiety. Not knowing what my future for my daughter looked like and whether we would be able to return to our home borough, made making important life decisions for me very hard. 

Without HASL and the Public Interest Law Centre, who dedicated their time in helping us not only get justice, but also to expose the way me and others were treated, this would still be happening undetected, and Lambeth council would be able to continue to treat families in this way without any accountability for their actions. 

I am proud of myself and of all the other residents who stood up to the council and I hope this sends them a message that council officers cannot continue to treat us like we are just numbers which they need to reduce at any cost. We are human beings and have families, just like they do.”

10Jun 2020

Interim findings from NRPF research

2020-06-10T14:35:54+01:0010th June 2020|

PILC has been working with the Institute of Community Research and Development at the University of Wolverhampton, Project 17, Migrants’ Rights Network and ASIRT on a research project investigating local-authority support for people with NRPF during the Covid-19 pandemic. The research is funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

The data collected so far makes for disturbing reading. Some headlines are below:

  • Before the pandemic, most local authorities did not provide easily-accessible information or guidance on support options for people with NRPF
  • Most local authorities have not published any Covid-19-related information or guidance for people with NRPF
  • People with NRPF appear to be particularly likely to die or become seriously ill if they contract Covid-19
  • Many people with NRPF have struggled to access food, shelter and subsistence support during
    the pandemic, despite the government’s apparent promise to ‘bring everyone in’.

Our interim findings are out now and can be downloaded below. The full report is due in July.

8Jun 2020

The protests of the last two weeks

2020-06-08T16:23:07+01:008th June 2020|

A statement from the PILC team on George Floyd and the protests of the last two weeks

The use of lethal force by state agents against people of colour is nothing new. It should not have taken George Floyd’s murder to show that racial injustice and police brutality are deeply embedded in the institutional, economic and social fabric of the United States, a nation founded on white supremacy. The structural racism and anti-blackness we see in America today reflect an unbroken tradition stretching back to colonialism and slavery.

The past and present of our own country are equally implicated in this tradition. Systemic racism pervades our politics, economy, culture and society. We encounter this truth every day in our work defending victims of police surveillance, survivors of domestic violence and those at the sharp end of the UK border regime.

Racist structures deprive young people of access to education, deny safety and shelter to women fleeing violence, and expose people with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) to destitution, exploitation and abuse. Austerity and dispossession have hit communities of colour hardest through mass evictions, social cleansing and the sale of public land and community assets.

Our criminal justice system is rigged against people of colour. Black men in the UK are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched, rising to as high as forty times when a Section 60 notice has been issued removing legal protections. Black men are more than twice as likely to die in police custody. While black people make up 3% of the English population, they make up 12% of our prison population.

The protests taking place across the world are a response to decades of state violence and racist law enforcement. The racist roots of our societies seep through into all of our institutions, including the legal profession.

The law under capitalism has never been a neutral tool. It operates to legitimate and reproduce systems of domination and oppression.

We cannot begin to fight injustice in and through the legal system unless we properly address racism in our own circles. Law firms are rife with prejudice and attitudes are not changing. Just 8 percent of partners in large law firms, 8 percent of judges and 7.2 percent of QCs are from BME backgrounds. The Law Centres movement, and our own workplaces, are not immune from these issues.

Expressing solidarity is not enough. The legal profession must do better. Where we remain neutral or silent, we are complicit in the oppression that many of us came to the law in order to challenge.

We cannot dismantle structural racism if we do not acknowledge that our current system of laws is not only broken but has been designed to preserve racial inequality. We must not be afraid to unsettle and disrupt the legal system, even as we work within it.

We hope the current protest movement will spark a new wave of struggle. Lawyers must do their part in resisting not only police brutality, but also the violence done to communities of colour by the poverty and inequality that are essential features of life under capitalism.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with Black Lives Matter.

 “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.” Angela Davis.