18 June 2026
18 June 2026
This page explains how to respond to a breach of asylum support conditions.
It is for advisers supporting clients who have received a decision from the Home Office about not following the conditions of their support.
It focuses on what a breach means in practice, how to assess the decision, and how to respond effectively.
If you still have questions or need further information and advice after reading this factsheet, please contact our advice line on 020 3716 0283. It is open Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 2pm to 4pm. Please note, this is a ‘second-tier’ advice line. This means that we can give advice to other advice workers but not to individual clients.
A breach occurs when a person has not complied with the conditions attached to their asylum support.
This can lead to a warning, suspension or stopping of support.
Different regulations apply to Section 95 and Section 4 support. However, in practice, support is often discontinued for similar types of behaviour across both.
Decisions are fact-specific and depend on evidence and explanation. Advisers should focus on whether there has been serious non-compliance, or whether the client’s circumstances provide a reasonable explanation. Destitution and vulnerability also remain central considerations.
Common reasons for breach decisions include:
Important (section 4 cases):
There is no formal condition about concealing financial resources. However, clients must remain destitute to be eligible for section 4 support. Decisions to discontinue section 4 support due to undisclosed funds will generally be based on lack of destitution rather than breach of conditions.
However, as of the 2nd of June 2026, section 4 support can now also be discontinued for a breach of conditions where someone has been found to be working illegally.
The Home Office has powers to discontinue support under:
These rules allow support to be stopped where conditions are not met.
The relevant Home Office policies are:
Home Office policy requires decisions to be:
When deciding to discontinue support because of an alleged breach of conditions the Home Office should consider: the seriousness of the breach; the explanation for the breach; and the extent to which there have been previous breaches of conditions. page 13 Conditions of support V3 March 2026
Decision-makers should also assess whether the individual is vulnerable. Home Office policy adopts the definition of a “vulnerable person” set out in Regulation 4 of the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005. page 13 conditions of support V3 March 2026, for section 95 cases, see also Reg 20(3) ASR
This includes, children, disabled persons, elderly persons, those who are pregnant, lone parents and a person who has been subjected to torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence who has had an individual evaluation of his situation that confirms he has special needs.
Where children are involved, the Home Office must consider its duty under section 55. Section 55 of the Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
A decision to discontinue support should explain:
Decisions should also be proportionate. (see our briefing note on support for families)
Example:
Stopping support to a household with children for a missed reporting event may be disproportionate.
If support is stopped due to a breach of conditions, there is a right of appeal to the Tribunal.
When preparing an appeal, it is important to review what information has already been provided to the Home Office. You should identify what has been explained and what gaps remain and support your client address any inconsistencies.
The Tribunal will issue a Directions notice to your client. It is important to review this document carefully and where possible support your client to provide the information or documents requested. If something cannot be provided, the reasons should be explained.
Advisers should take a structured approach when assessing the case.
Key questions might include:
In an appeal against a discontinuation of support, the burden of proof is on the Home Office to demonstrate that a breach has occurred. It is important to carefully review the decision letter. It is crucial to establish which condition(s) the Home Office say have been breached and why?
Clarify your client’s account in detail and, if relevant, why the allegation(s) are incorrect. Has the Home Office relied on incorrect or incomplete information?
You should explain the circumstances and any vulnerability. Supporting evidence might include medical evidence, bank statements, witness statements, texts and emails.
In R v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, ex parte Kujtim [1999] 2 CCLR 340, the Court of Appeal held that a refusal to observe the requirements of accommodation should only result in accommodation being withdrawn if the breach ‘manifests a persistent and unequivocal refusal’ rather than a ‘single transgression’ (para 32). The Court also suggested the need to look at the individual circumstances and indicated that a warning letter should be issued.
What communication has your client had from the Home Office in relation to the breach. Was a warning letter issued? Was it one instance or a prolonged breach?
It is important to review the relevant Home Office policy and check that the correct steps were taken in your client’s case. Below are some examples of the steps the Home Office should take according to their policies. It not an exhaustive list. It is reasonable to expect the Home Office to act fairly and adhere to their policies and you should assist your client highlight any failure to do so to the Tribunal.
For example:
In breach cases under Section 95 where the Home Office allege the client has concealed some financial resources, a breach only arises if, as a result of the concealment, they received asylum support to which they were not entitled.
Did your client have access to sufficient financial resources to mean they were no longer destitute (see proving destitution factsheet)?
Home Office policy states that decisions should be based on the specific situation of the person concerned and should consider the explanation given for what happened and the seriousness of the breach P,13 conditions of support V3 March 2026.
A reasonable explanation may help show either that the breach did not occur in the way described, or that it should not lead to support being withdrawn.
Even where a breach is accepted, the explanation may still be important. It can support an argument that withdrawing support would be disproportionately harsh, given the client’s circumstances.
For example: “The client missed a reporting requirement due to hospital admission. This was outside their control and supported by medical evidence.”
Destitution can be a key issue in breach cases. Destitution will be relevant when assessing if it is proportionate to discontinue support and if the consequences of not having access to accommodation and support would be a breach of your client’s human rights.
In an appeal, the Tribunal will take a forward-looking approach. This means it will consider the client’s situation if support were to stop, including whether they would be left without any accommodation or money, and the impact this would have in practice. The focus is on the real effect on the individual, including whether removing support would lead to a harmful or unreasonable outcome.
In illegal working cases, Home Office policy says that Home Office caseworkers should apply the destitution test. P.11 Illegal working as a breach of asylum support conditions, V1 2026 This means they assess whether the person would meet the statutory definition of destitution. Home Office policy states that if the person would be destitute, and they are otherwise eligible for support, support should usually continue even if illegal working is established.
In all cases, advisers should clearly show what the client’s situation would be if support were to end, including any risk of homelessness and inability to meet basic needs.
Where a client in receipt of asylum support fails to travel to alternative accommodation, the Home Office may decide to discontinue support on the basis that the client has breached the conditions of their support Reg 20(1)k for section 95 cases; r6(2)(c)(i) for section 4.
There is no right of appeal to the Tribunal regarding the location of asylum accommodation see Dogan v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 1673.
However, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision to discontinue support. There is no right of appeal on a decision to discontinue s98 support In such appeals, the Tribunal can consider whether the client had a reasonable excuse for breaching the conditions of their support by failing to travel, and/or whether the Home Office failed to follow its own policies on allocation of accommodation and dispersal correctly.
Where support is discontinued because a person has not complied with travel arrangements, Home Office policy sets out a specific process. Failure to travel to Asylum accommodation policy guidance, V1 July 2025
After eviction, the Home Office will normally keep the offer of accommodation open for 5 calendar days. If the person does not take up that offer within this period, support may then be discontinued.
This means the decision to discontinue support is made after eviction and after the 5-day period has passed. The person will be notified through a discontinuation letter, which explains that support has been stopped due to persistent failure to comply with travel arrangements.
Important:
Unlike other discontinuation appeals, the person will not usually remain in accommodation while waiting for the outcome of an appeal.
Clients should be advised that some of the allegations made in a breach of conditions decision, if established, may also be a criminal offence. Working without permission is an offence section 24B, Immigration Act 1971. It is also an offence to make dishonest representations to obtain support. section 105 1999 IAA Advisers should seek legal advice where possible, particularly where there is a risk of criminal investigation or prosecution.
The Home Office may seek recovery of asylum support payments where an individual is found not to have been destitute under Section 17A of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. In such cases, an overpayment letter requesting repayment may be issued at the same time as a decision to discontinue support on the basis of a breach of conditions. Even if your client’s appeal regarding the discontinuation of support is allowed, the Home Office may continue to pursue the repayment of support.
At the time of writing, the Home Office have no published policy on how recovery of support operates.
Unlike a decision to discontinue support, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear challenges against a decision to recover asylum support payments. To challenge a recovery decision, it may be necessary to refer the client to a community care or public law solicitor to consider a judicial review. (See our briefing note on the effect of income)