Asylum seeker wins £300 a week payout

[Slack lines]

Firstly let me state this is NOT a racist post, my reason for posting this thread is to ask a question. If the family concerned are failed asylum seekers, then why should they still be in this country, let alone getting paid to do so??

 

 

 

 

COVENTRY City Council has agreed to pay a family of eight who are failed asylum seekers nearly £300 a week.

 

The agreement came after a High Court hearing was told they were being given just £60 a week and were living in poverty.

 

The court was told Adeolo Banwo and his family were so poor they could not afford heating bills, winter coats or proper food for the children, who had to go to school with no more than bread and butter in their lunch boxes.

 

Coventry City Council finally agreed to pay the family £285 a week when faced with a legal challenge by the family's lawyers who claimed their human rights were being violated.

 

Mr Banwo, a failed asylum seeker from Nigeria, lives with his wife, three daughters, aged 20, 18 and 10, his two sons, aged 13 and four, and his grandson, aged two, in Villiers Street, Stoke.

 

Ian Wise, representing the family, told Mr Justice Wilkie the council began paying the family £30 a week for their subsistence in January.

 

That was increased to £60 in August, but that was still "clearly insufficient" for a family of eight.

 

Mr Banwo, his wife and eldest daughter, have to "sign on" twice a week in Salford, Greater Manchester, and, after travel costs, the family was left with just £48 a week on which to survive.

 

They were, said Mr Wise, unable to pay utility bills or buy proper food or winter clothes for the children who "took bread and butter to school".

 

Describing the family's position as "dire", Mr Wise accused the city council of failing in its duty, both under domestic law and under the Human Rights Act, to properly assess and provide for the family's basic needs.

 

He said the council's handling of the family's case had been "peppered with faults".

 

However, after last-minute negotiations at the doors of the court, Mr Wise told the judge the council had now agreed to pay the family £285.95 a week.

 

Mr Justice Wilkie remarked: "£60 a week doesn't seem to be very much on which to feed these children. On any view, these are obvious needs".

 

Lorna Findlay, for the city council, told the judge the council became aware of the family in December last year and had since been paying their £400-a-month rent.

 

She said the council had been in the process of arranging a full assessment of the family's needs when their lawyers launched the judicial review challenge.

 

Arguing the family's legal team should have engaged in "constructive discussion" instead of rushing to court, she said the legal proceedings had been a "distraction" to the council.

 

However, Mr Justice Wilkie ordered the council to pay the legal costs of the case - likely to run into several thousand pounds - saying the council had been "galvanised to an extent" by the imminent High Court challenge.

 

Yesterday's agreement, he said, would probably have not been reached had it not before for the threat of legal action.

Taken from IC COVENTRY

[*Ant*]

Come on Slacky, these things don't really happen, it's just a figment of the imagination of BNP morons.

[bluezulu]

nice chap mr Banwo.i like him anyway.

[Newt]

A question please - what, exactly, is a "failed asylum seeker"?

 

I understand each of the three words but I would have thought that if a person sought asylum and it was refused, they would have failed to be granted asylum and then sent back whence they started (deported, as it were) and in that case, would not be around to be given subsistance money.

[Tigger2000]

I suppose it is a sign of compassion by our government to spend taxpayers money to allow failed asyum seekers to stay in the U.K while they work through the endless appeals proceedure ! I would be interested to know what other countries do this, as I would be suprised to hear that this policy is followed everywhere.

[Colin Brett]

Newt,

You are correct in your assumption. However this is the UK.

 

If the story is true, then yes they should be sent home, but until that time surely they have a right to feed themselves?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the way immigration is being handled. Sorry that should say isn't being handled.

 

Colin

[Slack lines]

A question please - what, exactly, is a "failed asylum seeker"?

 

I understand each of the three words but I would have thought that if a person sought asylum and it was refused, they would have failed to be granted asylum and then sent back whence they started (deported, as it were) and in that case, would not be around to be given subsistance money.

 

That's my point Newt, how long does a failed asylum seeker get to stay in a country? If you read the post, the family in question have been getting some sort of payment since January.

[chesters1]

despite the govs boast that immigrants, asylum seekers and just about anyone else not in employment cant claim benefits ,their human rights make sure they do (you dont see starving corpses on the streets today unless they'r models).

you wont see any foreigner being put on the streets to live (strangely though that doesent apply to all) basic human rights say the opposite.

whilst the gov act the hard man behind our backs they contradict everything they say.

not picking on foreigners in particular the same rights belong to all but unfortunatley our less privilaged have to fight a damn sight harder.

if a person is a failed asylem seeker then they should be removed and appeal from where they were sent to .

i find it amusing (and strangely repeditive) that some "fleeing" oppresion find time whilst waiting the decision return home for holidays ,and one on telly today (waiting for the decision of his appeal) asking how he can get his future wife here after marrying her in his old village ,the lady said it was best to divorce the person he married here first before going back home for a new one

another amusing call was from a daughter of a 70 year old father on benefits going back to pakistan to marry a 40 year old with 3 kids and would he get benifits for them on returning

most (but not all) calls on the immigration hour are failed asylem seekers trying to get round the system! unfortunately the person usually and freely tells them the loopholes to use

the asylum process is so complicated and full of loopholes it takes years (literally) to sort each case out and quickly have kids because after 4? years their citizenship means the parents get leave to remain and if you stay out of sight for a few more years you have an automatic right anyway.

one lady had been waiting 7 years for a decision

Edited November 8, 2006 by chesters1

[Sportsman]

Whatever the legality of being a failed asylum seeker, and I don't know what that means either, it is surely not right to think that a family of 8 can live on 60.00 a week, or is humanity no longer to be practised in this country.

BTW Ant, I didn't say it was all your imagination

[Dan]

My guess is that he is appealing against his failed assylum application, which can take months I believe