Wed 09-May-07 06:05 PM by Martin_Williams

Hi.

Given the current position with the "means tested benefits are possessions" in UK law (ie Stec says they are but because there is domestic authority to the contrary that is not yet binding on lower UK courts/tribunals) I was wondering about the following:

Can it be argued that State Pension Credit nonetheless comes within Article 1, Protocol 1 because a situation could arise whereby a claimant's entitlement to the savings part of the credit is as a result of the contributions they paid in to get a higher SRP than the guarantee amount of the SPC (hence entitling them to SPC savings element)?

I only want to use the Art 1, Prot 1 point in order to be able to run a discrimination argument. In doing this does it matter that on the particular facts of this case, there is no sense in which client's amount of SPC would depend on her contributions (she has not made any)? In other words cas I argue that in some cases SPC could be based on contributions and therefore discrimination arguments can be run relating to all SPC potential claimants (ie we get within the ambit of a convention right but do not actually say it is breached).

I have had a quick look at Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M (2006) UKHL 11 and suppose it comes down to how tenuous the link to Art 1, Prot 1 suggested above is judged to be.

Any other cases, articles or musings much appreciated.