The High Court has provided guidance on how local authorities must assess support needs under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 for families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) when the parent is in the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). The case concerned a family receiving support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (MSVCC) and the court considered whether this support was sufficient to meet the family’s accommodation and welfare needs.
Although the judgment primarily addresses the broader assessment process undertaken by the local authority, it also sets out important clarifications regarding entitlement to support for NRPF families who are in the NRM. The court made findings regarding the test for establishing when accommodation and financial support can be provided to a family with NRPF under section 17, the importance of undertaking thorough child in need assessments, how section 17 interacts with MSVCC support, and whether return can be considered whilst a person is awaiting an NRM decision.
In this article we explain these findings and what councils may need to consider in their practice.
Case background
R (GW) v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2140 concerned a family with no recourse to public funds, who were receiving MSVCC support through the NRM due to the mother’s status as a potential victim of trafficking. The family consisted of a mother who was on a Health and Care Worker visa, her partner, and two children. The mother was working in the care sector and entered the NRM after experiencing exploitation by her employer. The family had since received a section 8 possession notice from their landlord, outlining plans to evict them from their privately rented accommodation on the basis of rent arrears. Although the mother had limited income from employment alongside MSVCC support, the family sought additional assistance from the local authority, arguing that the MSVCC provision was insufficient to meet their accommodation and welfare needs.
The local authority declined to provide section 17 support, prompting a legal challenge. The High Court was asked to consider whether the council had lawfully assessed the family’s needs and whether its decision to withhold support was consistent with its duties under the Children Act. The judgment ruled that Dudley had not acted unlawfully and provides important clarification on how section 17 should be applied in cases involving NRPF families, particularly where other forms of support are in place.
Read more on MSVCC support for survivors of trafficking and modern slavery.
Key findings
(1) MSVCC support does not preclude section 17 support from being provided
MSVCC support consists of two payments:
- The Essential Living Rate of £49.18 per person for the potential victim and any dependent children
- The Recovery Rate of £26.84 per week for the potential victim only
In this case, no financial support was provided to the father, and the family did not receive accommodation which in some cases can be provided under the MSVCC.
The court considered whether receiving MSVCC support would prevent a family from being eligible for section 17 support and found that it does not automatically exclude a family from receiving this assistance. There is no legislative barrier to providing section 17 support to a family in receipt of MSVCC assistance.
However, the court emphasised that when a family is receiving MSVCC support, a local authority may reasonably conclude it does not have a duty to provide additional support, provided it has taken into account the full circumstances of the family and the extent to which the child’s needs are being met through MSVCC support and any other available resources. The adequacy of the assessment is key.
The judge also set out that only the Essential Living Rate could be considered when assessing the family’s financial situation, as the Recovery Rate is intended to support the potential victim’s recovery, not their essential living needs.
(2) Section 17 threshold is distinct from homelessness or asylum support tests
The court confirmed that the legal threshold for providing section 17 support to NRPF families is not the same as the thresholds used in homelessness or destitution assessments under other statutory schemes, such as for eligibility for homelessness assistance under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 or asylum support under section 95 (3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Local authorities must not apply these thresholds when determining eligibility for section 17 support. Instead, a decision to provide support under section 17 must be based on a holistic assessment of the child’s needs, taking into account the impact of the family’s circumstances on the child’s welfare and development.
(3) A pending NRM decision must be treated as a barrier to return
The court confirmed that a local authority cannot refuse section 17 support solely because it expects a family to leave the UK, where the family includes a potential victim of trafficking (PVOT) who is awaiting a decision from the NRM on their trafficking case.
In its decision, the court explained that section 61 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 prevents the removal of a potential victim of trafficking while a decision on their trafficking status is pending. Although it acknowledged that exploring departure options may be appropriate, a willingness to return cannot lawfully be used as a basis to withhold support in the context of assessing a PVOT under section 17. A pending NRM decision must be considered a barrier to return.
In this case, the family had leave to remain, so Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 also did not apply. This means the local authority could not rely on Schedule 3 to refuse section 17 support on the basis that the family could be expected to return to their country of origin to avoid destitution in the UK.
Implications for practice
We are aware that in recent years councils have seen growing numbers of referrals from families on work visas who are experiencing financial hardship. This includes families on the Health and Care Worker visa who have experienced issues with their sponsorship.
When a family has valid leave and has insufficient income to meet their basic living needs, the local authority may need to step in and provide section 17 (or equivalent) support. For families in this position, as with all other families, councils must:
- Undertake a holistic child in need assessment in all section 17 cases
- Apply the correct legal threshold, focusing on the child’s needs, welfare and development, rather than homelessness or destitution criteria
- Be aware that section 17 support can still be provided when a family is getting MSVCC support, and that only the Essential Living Rate payments can be taken into account in the needs assessment
- Avoid basing decisions on assumptions about future departure from the UK where the family includes a potential victim of trafficking or is not excluded from support under Schedule 3
When assessing whether MSVCC support meets a family’s welfare needs, councils will also need to consider the legal thresholds regarding section 17 subsistence rates. Where families have leave to remain, they must be supported to the ‘welfare standard’, meaning MSVCC support alone is unlikely to be sufficient to meet a child’s needs.
The case also demonstrates that Health and Care Workers who are experiencing exploitation may be able to enter the NRM. As First Responders can consider making referrals into the NRM in such cases. Individuals impacted by employment issues on this route should also be assisted to access advice. See our webpages on employment.
Ultimately, the case reminds us of the importance of guidance and training for social workers to ensure assessments are compliant with legal duties and responsive to the individual circumstances of each family.
Councils can refer to our practice guidance on supporting and assessing families with NRPF when undertaking these assessments. The NRPF Network can also provide case-specific advice to councils subscribed to NRPF Connect, and through our advice inbox.