Campaign group the3million has lodged a claim at the High Court alleging the Home Office breached the Brexit withdrawal agreement by informing 1,473 EU citizens that their pre-settled status was “granted in error” without offering appeal or proportionality safeguards. The papers were filed on Friday 6 November 2026, the group said.
The statement of claim argues that the department’s so called “grant in error” policy removes rights without the procedural protections required by the withdrawal agreement, including a right of appeal and an assessment of proportionality. The3million is asking the court to declare the policy unlawful, to excise the offending parts from the published policy, and to provide whatever further relief the court considers appropriate.
The 1,473 figure quoted in the claim is the Home Office’s own published count of notifications stating pre-settled status had been granted in error between 2018 and 2026. The department told the group in September that the number of people notified was 1,473. That figure is a published number and is not a finding of unlawful conduct.
Personal cases and wider effects
The statement of claim sets out individual cases it says illustrate the human impact of the policy. Among those named is a 33 year old Brazilian Italian engineer who has lived in London since 2018 and who was initially told he could remain in the UK while his Brazilian wife could not. According to the claim, that decision was reversed in recent weeks.
Another example given is an NHS worker studying for a PhD in dentistry, who said the notification that her pre-settled status had been granted in error “turned her life upside down”. The3million said many of the cases involve people who claim Italian citizenship by descent, known as jure sanguinis, who were unable to obtain Italian passports during pandemic lockdowns.
In October 2026 the Home Office accepted that evidence of Italian citizenship obtained through jure sanguinis would be treated as establishing Italian nationality from birth, the campaign group noted. The3million says that acceptance underlines the inconsistency of removing rights without an adequate process for review, contest or appeal.
Legal background and previous rulings
The claim makes reference to earlier case law. The group drew attention to a 2022 High Court ruling brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority which found that conditions requiring EU citizens to reapply for settled status were unlawful. The3million says that ruling supports the proposition that immigration policy affecting retained EU rights must include procedural safeguards.
Monique Hawkins, acting chief executive of the3million, said: “The Home Office is putting the cart before the horse. It denies people the safeguards the withdrawal agreement guarantees.” The group frames the judicial review as necessary to secure the protections it says were promised under the withdrawal agreement.
The statement of claim sets out the legal argument that the grant in error policy is incompatible with the withdrawal agreement and with common law protections. It asks the court to remove from the published policy any provisions that permit removal of status without the procedural protections the claimants say are required.
The Home Office said in September that it had notified 1,473 individuals that their pre-settled status had been granted in error between 2018 and 2026. The department has not provided a substantive response to the High Court papers, and said it could not comment on the matter because proceedings are ongoing.
The claim has been filed but no decision on permission to proceed or hearing date has yet been announced. The allegation that the Home Office breached the withdrawal agreement is the claimants’ case and remains contested.
Legal experts said any challenge will require the courts to consider how the withdrawal agreement’s safeguards apply to administrative decisions on immigration status, and whether domestic procedures implemented by the Home Office give effect to those safeguards. The3million said it is seeking a swift resolution to prevent further removals of rights without what it describes as required protections.
For those affected, the group says the consequences can be severe, touching on employment, access to services and family life. The claim invites the High Court to rule on whether the policy stands and, if it does not, to order the excision of the parts of the policy that the3million says are unlawful.
