JR challenging DWP’s failure to collect and enforce maintenance arrears is dismissed

While we don’t always cover child support issues, thought the following case might be of interest - Ingold & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWHC 3207 (Admin)

Claimants argued -

Ground 1: the ongoing failures of collection and enforcement in the Claimants’ cases and the policies and practices giving rise to the same constitute a disproportionate interference with the rights of both the children and their mothers to the payment of the monies due to them as protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

Ground 2: the ongoing failures to collect and enforce the maintenance payments in the Second to Eighth Claimants’ cases (including investigatory steps preparatory thereto) and the policies and practices giving rise to the same breach of the Defendant’s positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR (“Article 8”) to protect the Claimants, as known victims of domestic violence, from ongoing economic abuse.

Ground 3: the failures to collect and enforce the maintenance payments in the Claimants’ cases (including investigatory steps preparatory thereto) and the policies and practices giving rise to the same, constitute discriminatory treatment on the part of the Claimant mothers under Article 14 ECHR (“Art 14”) read with A1P1 and/or Article 8 on grounds of sex. The scheme has a particular disparate impact on the Second to Eighth Claimants, as victims of domestic violence, both because the data shows that they are more likely to be affected by the enforcement failures; and because these failings enable and perpetuate economic (and psychological) abuse, a form of gender based violence against women (and their children).

Ground 4: the failures to collect and enforce the maintenance payments in the Claimants’ cases, and the policies and practices giving rise to the same, breach the Defendant’s Padfield obligation to promote the legislative purpose of the 1991 Act.

All 4 grounds dismissed