Ralitsa Peykova

Solicitor

"These cases were tiring, and at times relentless... Ralitsa showed exceptional resilience and unwavering commitment no matter what was thrown her way. She is a true fighter. It was clear that each client trusted that she would fight their corner to the very end and to the very best of her abilities, whatever the circumstances. Any client should be glad to have her in their corner."

Barrister

Background

Ralitsa is a solicitor in DPG's London office and works in Ahmed Aydeed's public law team. She specialises in judicial reviews and strategic public law litigation, with a particular focus on challenges to decision-making affecting broad cohorts of people.

Before joining DPG, Ralitsa worked at the AIRE Centre, where she specialised in EU free movement law, advising and representing clients in matters concerning deportation, residence rights and access to welfare benefits, with a particular focus on vulnerable individuals and survivors of domestic abuse, gender-based violence and modern slavery.

Ralitsa joined DPG as a paralegal in January 2020 and completed her training contract with the firm before qualifying as a solicitor. During her training she worked on a range of complex and high-profile public law cases, gaining experience in anti-trafficking, immigration detention and migrant support cases.

Ralitsa speaks Bulgarian and Greek.

Expertise

Ralitsa specialises in judicial review and strategic public law litigation. She acts for individuals and groups in challenges against government departments, local authorities and other public bodies, particularly where unlawful policies or systemic administrative failures affect large cohorts of people.

She has particular experience in litigation concerning immigration and asylum policy, asylum support, trafficking and modern slavery decision-making, access to accommodation and support services, and the public law duties owed to vulnerable individuals. Much of her work involves challenges that raise issues of wider public importance and seek not only to secure remedies for individual clients but also to achieve lasting changes in policy, guidance and decision-making practice.

Sample Cases

COL v DPP [2022 EWHC 601 (Admin)]: A judicial review case against the Director of Public Prosecutions which examined whether the decision not to prosecute a UAE diplomat for offences related to modern slavery was lawful. The court concluded that the Director of Public Prosecutions had erred in law.

R (HAL) v SSHD (AC-2025-LON-001600) - Judicial review challenge concerning the Home Office's application of an unlawful "objective evidence" threshold in reasonable grounds trafficking decisions. The litigation resulted in the Home Office confirming that its guidance and operational materials would be amended to remove references inconsistent with the correct legal threshold.

R (Solomon & Others) v SSHD (AC-2025-LON-004377 and linked claims) - Strategic litigation challenging the Home Office's policy of terminating asylum support 28 days after a grant of leave. The claim argued that the policy left many newly recognised refugees at imminent risk of street homelessness before they were able to access mainstream benefits and housing support. The proceedings resulted in significant concessions from the Home Office, including changes to policy and operational guidance and, ultimately, the extension of the refugee "move-on" period from 28 to 42 days, providing newly recognised refugees with additional time to secure accommodation and financial support following a grant of status

R (Mugabo) v Transport for London (AC-2025-LON-002759) - Strategic challenge to systemic failures in Transport for London's private hire licensing system. The claim concerned TfL's failure to determine licence renewal applications before the expiry of existing licences, leaving drivers unable to work lawfully despite having applied for renewal in good time. The proceedings raised important issues concerning statutory duty, fairness in administrative decision-making, and the impact of licensing failures on the livelihoods of private hire drivers across London.

R (KGT, KMK and KLM) v SSHD (AC-2026-LON-002066) - Strategic judicial review challenging the Home Office's process of the closure of asylum accommodation hotels and the relocation of vulnerable asylum-seeking families. The claim raised significant issues concerning the adequacy of asylum support accommodation, the Public Sector Equality Duty, and the Home Office's obligations towards vulnerable asylum seekers, including survivors of domestic abuse and potential victims of trafficking. The proceedings also challenged systemic failures in the assessment of accommodation needs and the implementation of hotel closure policies affecting asylum-seeking families across the UK.

R (Sadat & Others; Farah & Others) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 2157 (Admin) – A challenge to the Home Office's ‘Student Visa Brake’ policy restricting access to student visas for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The case raised significant issues concerning immigration policy, equal treatment, access to education, and the limits of executive decision-making.