Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Challenge to MR heading to the High Court ....
A law graduate is taking the government to court to challenge the way decisions on benefit claims are made, arguing it breaches human rights laws.
... He claims his 22-week wait for a review result breached his right to a “fair” hearing “within a reasonable time”.
He called the delay “unacceptable” and said he believed it represented a breach of article six of the European Convention on Human Rights which states everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing “within a reasonable time”.
The High Court has allowed [him] to bring his case before the court, saying the delay he experienced is a “point of some wider public importance”.
In court documents, the DWP said the delay was due to “human error and oversight”. It said the delay was “regrettable” but “not unlawful” as “there is no statutory period within which MR must be determined by”. The DWP also claims the delay does not fall under the remit of article six ...
More: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-50506789
I’d be really interested to read the SoS’s full argument as to why they think Article 6 does not apply.
I’ve cited Article 6 myself on a number of occasions, particularly in two instances where the DWP had not paid the mobility part of PIP to people who were in residential accommodation funded by CHC. On both occasions it was damned difficult to get them to even respond to communications.
I’m of the mind that simply saying there no statutory timescale, does not mean that you can procrastinate indefinitely - and this does seem to be their modus operandi when you present them with an in depth precedent supported argument.
We understand that this is to be heard on 19 March 2020
High Court has found that MR unlawful - Judge Swift says -
My conclusion is that regulation 3ZA of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations is a disproportionate interference with the right of access to court, so far as it applies to claimants to ESA who, once an appeal is initiated, meet the conditions for payment pending appeal under regulation 30(3) of the ESA Regulations. (para 28)
High Court has found that MR unlawful
The Court has not declared MR unlawful.
It has held that MR amounts to a disproportionate interference only in the context of ESA claimants who get interim payments once their appeal is lodged but do not get interim payments whilst the MR is considered.
Yes, sorry, shorthand on my part, meant the MR process in this case - thought was explained by para 29 I quoted - in terms of disposal - Mr Justice Swift says -
‘The parties agreed (and I accept) that the appropriate remedy is a declaration to the effect that regulation 3ZA of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations is unlawful insofar as it is applied to ESA claimants who would, if pursuing an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, subject to compliance with the condition at regulation 30(2) of the ESA Regulations, be entitled to receive payment pending appeal pursuant to regulation 30(3).
Sorry I just think it is important to be precise because people are definitely going to pick up the wrong end of the stick on something like this…
Certainly :)