× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

DLA ‘Takeaway’ appeal heading to Supreme Court

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

‘This week there has been some welcome news for our ‘Stop the DLA Takeaway’ campaign, which is calling for the Government to abolish the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) regulation that suspends vital benefits for disabled children in hospital.

A family has been granted permission to take their legal challenge against the so-called ’84-day rule’ to the Supreme Court ...’

http://www.thechildrenstrust.org.uk/news.asp?itemid=5877&section=30

‘Contact a Family is delighted that a family has been granted the right to appeal in the Supreme Court the decision to remove their son’s Disability Living Allowance (DLA) when he was in hospital.

For several years the Mathieson family has taken their case through the courts arguing that the removal of their son’s disability benefits was discriminatory ....’

http://www.cafamily.org.uk/news-and-media/great-news!-supreme-court-to-hear-dla-takeaway-appeal/

The case is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court within the next nine to 15 months.

nottsadvisor
forum member

Welfare rights - Nottingham City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 129

Joined: 29 June 2010

When I read the title of this thread I only half jokingly imagined some DWP argument along the lines of ‘claimaint can order takeaway, therefore can prepare a main meal and does not satisfy cooking test’.

 

benefitsadviser
forum member

Sunderland West Advice Project

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 22 June 2010

or “client is in hospital, and therefore has no problem in social engagement” (ESA not DLA, but, well, y’know!)

Im not joking. Client of mine can apparently socially engage as she visits her CPN…....

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

benefitsadviser - 07 August 2014 03:24 PM

or “client is in hospital, and therefore has no problem in social engagement” (ESA not DLA, but, well, y’know!)

Im not joking. Client of mine can apparently socially engage as she visits her CPN…....

see CE/4183/2012 - summary in briefcase - difference between social contact and encounters with professionals

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

nottsadvisor - 07 August 2014 02:52 PM

When I read the title of this thread I only half jokingly imagined some DWP argument along the lines of ‘claimaint can order takeaway, therefore can prepare a main meal and does not satisfy cooking test’.

Me too. I am profoundly disappointed.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

benefitsadviser - 07 August 2014 03:24 PM

or “client is in hospital, and therefore has no problem in social engagement” (ESA not DLA, but, well, y’know!)

Im not joking. Client of mine can apparently socially engage as she visits her CPN…....

Yeah, recently had a client who scored no points on LCWA due to being blue lighted to hospital with acute appendicitis.

“The evidence does not suggest significant difficulty getting about or coping with social engagement”

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Case was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday ... Judgment reserved

Cameron Mathieson, a deceased child (by his father Craig Mathieson) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32066078

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Judgment handed down - DWP wrong to suspend child’s DLA after 84 days in hospital - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0166-judgment.pdf

However -

‘Although Mr Mathieson invites the court to disapply the provisions for the suspension of DLA under
the 1991 Regulations in the case of children, the court declines to do so, leaving it to the Secretary of
State to decide what measures should be taken to avoid the violation of the rights of disabled children
such as Cameron following their 84th day in hospital’

Mike Spencer
forum member

Welfare Rights, Child poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 14

Joined: 16 January 2013

The Court refused to make a declaration, because the FTT has no power to do so and the decision is “necessarily individual”, but they do explicitly say:

“accordingly the First-tier Tribunal should have allowed Cameron’s appeal against that decision; should have set it aside; and, if only for the sake of clarity, should have substituted a decision that Cameron was entitled to continued payment of DLA with effect from 6 October 2010 to the date from which payment of it was reinstated;” (para 48(d))

That means other claimants can rely on this judgment at the FTT level, even if the Secretary of State doesn’t change the regulations.

The judgment is also good for casting doubt no the Stec “manifestly without reasonable foundation test” (para 25) and the applicability of the UNCRPD and UNCRC to cases involving disabled children.  All good signs for the MA bedroom tax case.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Tremendous decision for them however I can’t but help think “what next”?

It strikes me that the moment when PIP for children is introduced grows ever closer.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Mike Hughes - 08 July 2015 02:01 PM

Tremendous decision for them however I can’t but help think “what next”?

.

A bad cold being sufficient to ground article 14 discrimination is what’s next.

I must say I’m slightly gobsmacked at how broad art 14 is becoming; no bad thing mind as this decision will be really useful but it wouldn’t surprise me if this stokes anti ECHR sentiment in the bowels of government.