High Court rules that student finance regulations discriminated against students who were unable to prove their immigration status in time due to pandemic delays

High Court rules that student finance regulations discriminated against students who were unable to prove their immigration status in time due to pandemic delays

Re Jawad Naeem v Secretary of State for Education and Kyra Morris [2022[ EWHC 15 (Admin)

The High Court has ruled that two students who were prevented from accessing student loans for the whole of their courses were unlawfully discriminated against by the Secretary of State for Education. They had been unable to meet a deadline date set in Regulations governing student loans owing to administrative problems caused by the pandemic.

The court ruled that the Secretary of State for Education breached both students’ rights under Article 14 and Article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR.

The case was conducted by Keith Lomax, solicitor, of Watkins Solicitors.

Jawad Naeem and Kyra Morris are both young people who have lived in the UK for some time. Both had planned to use the Home Office Super Priority System to obtain proof of their residence status prior to the first year of their studies. However, when the Home Office, with only a few days’ notice, withdrew the Priority Service on 31 March 2020 due to the pandemic, both students had no option but to apply using the slower route with uncertain timescales.

They both started their degrees at their respective universities in the autumn term in 2020 and obtained notification of indefinite leave to remain status. However, they discovered that under the Regulations they were unable to obtain student finance if they did not have indefinite leave to remain in the UK by 1 September before the start of the first term of their respective courses. For Kyra Morris the Home Office issued confirmation on 4 September, just a few days after the deadline under the regulations, and Jawad Naeem’s confirmation came through later in the term. They also discovered they were precluded by the student loan regulations from obtaining a student loan for the duration of their degree courses, not just the first year. Both went through the appeal procedure without success, despite Independent Adjudicators appointed by the Secretary of State for Education concluding that they were not at fault but were in a difficult and unfair position owing to delay resulting from the pandemic.

Without student loans, both students faced being required to withdraw from their respective courses of study with an outstanding debt to their respective universities.  

Mr. Naeem, supported by Ms. Morris, brought judicial review proceedings in reliance on the Human Rights Act. The Secretary of State agreed that the issue was one which properly engaged their human rights but argued among other points that the ‘bright line’ rule and its effects on the claimant were justified. But the court took the view that the very narrow class of affected persons and the disproportionately severe impact upon them was unlawful and capable of remedy with little inconvenience to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State has now agreed to an order to re-determine Mr. Naeem and Ms. Morris’s application for student finance as soon as practicable, disapplying the requirement to demonstrate “settled status” by 1 September in paragraph 2(1)(a)(i) of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011.

Ms. Morris previously gave an interview to ITV about the difficulties she has faced in accessing student finance which is available here:https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2021-05-27/theres-so-much-anxiety-bristol-university-student-left-in-limbo-by-loan-battle

Jawad Naeem was represented by Amanda Weston QC and Grainne Mellon of the Garden Court Public Law Team. They were instructed by Keith Lomax, solicitor, of Watkins Solicitors on behalf of the Claimant. The Secretary of State was represented by Leon Glenister of Counsel, instructed by the Government Legal Department.