After forcing tenants to take court action (and losing), DWP brushes off impact of judgement
The impact of a landmark Universal Credit payments legal case has been diminished significantly by the government after it claimed that only 1,000 people and not the 85,000 originally claimed by campaigners had been affected, and would appear to be why it has decided not to appeal the judgement.
As LandlordZONE reported last week, the Court of Appeal gave its decision on the case of four women who had challenged the government on its Universal Credit ‘fixed assessment period’ payment policy. It was brought as a test case on behalf of the claimants by campaigning group the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), and was successful.
The policy was irrational and unlawful, the judges argued, and forced people into debt including rent arrears, causing problems for them and their landlords.
“Between them, the claimants fell into rent arrears, defaulted on council tax, incurred bank overdraft charges, borrowed money and even become reliant on food banks to make ends meet,” says CPAG.
“The threshold for establishing irrationality is very high, but it is not insuperable,” the judge said. “This case is, in my judgement, one of the rare instances where the [Secretary of State’s] refusal to put in place a solution to this very specific problem is so irrational that I have concluded that the threshold is met because no reasonable [Secretary of State] would have struck the balance in that way.”
The four claimants – Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart – said that, because the DWP’s fixed assessment periods often straddle two pay dates, the system then assumes their pay has increased significantly and reduces or cancels their benefits including the housing element.
“We’ve raised this problem with Ministers repeatedly but to no avail and it shouldn’t take four months and going all the way to the Court of Appeal to have this obviously daft policy declared irrational,” said Baroness Sherlock yesterday during a House of Lords debate.
The government’s Department of Work and Pensions representative in the Lords, Baroness Stedman-Scott, replied that her department is now considering retrospective payments to claimants caught up in this red tape loophole.
But she went on to say that the figure of 85,000 ‘did not resonate with us’ and that she believed the figure to be closer to 1,000 people, but nevertheless agreed to keep parliament up to date on progress to prevent claimants being impacted in the future.
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – After forcing tenants to take court action (and losing), DWP brushes off impact of judgement | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: After forcing tenants to take court action (and losing), DWP brushes off impact of judgement
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’