Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC challenge to childcare element - supportive evidence needed
From Leigh Day solicitors
Tessa Gregory and Carolin Ott of law firm Leigh Day represent a single mother who is bringing a judicial review challenging the provision under Universal Credit which requires parents to pay for childcare costs upfront if they then want to claim up to 85% of them back through Universal Credit. The case, which is supported by organisations including Save the Children and Gingerbread, argues that the provision which requires upfront payment of childcare under UC indirectly discriminates against women because it disproportionately affects single parents who are predominantly women. It is also argued on the Claimant’s behalf that it is irrational because it undermines Universal Credit’s stated aim of encouraging and supporting parents seeking to move into or advance within the workplace.
Permission has been granted for the judicial review to proceed and supportive evidence is therefore now being collated to prepare for the substantive hearing. It would be helpful for the court to be provided with other examples which show the broad and varied range of situations in which parents struggle to meet the requirement to pay upfront, as well as the different ways in which the application of the requirement is continuing to affect peoples’ lives, particularly as they are returning to work now that the lockdown is being lifted and parents are dependent on childcare to be able to work.
If any of your clients are struggling to meet childcare costs upfront, we would be grateful if you could provide a short summary of their situation which sets out how the requirement to pay childcare upfront is affecting them (e.g. those who have already provided evidence have had to incur debt, reduce their working hours or give up work promotions because of the difficulties caused by the provision). You may also wish to inform them of our ongoing challenge which may be of interest to them. We are happy to consider any queries in relation to this challenge that any of your clients may have.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you require any further information or if your clients have any questions in relation to the ongoing challenge.
Leigh Day has announced that the case is to be heard in the High Court on 10 and 11 November.
Nichola Salvato, has been granted a judicial review of the Government’s requirement for that costs for childcare be paid upfront before they can be reimbursed through Universal Credit (UC).
The way the UC payments are calculated and made means that Nichola and thousands of other parents have to find the money upfront before they can claim 85 per cent of it back from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). This causes real difficulties as many parents like Nichola who are getting back into work do not have spare money to pay for childcare up front – they need to work before they can afford childcare.
Despite working full time as a welfare rights advisor Nichola was unable to afford the high costs of childcare up front especially during the school holidays. She had to borrow money from a payday lender to help pay for childcare and in the end she had to reduce her working hours so she could care for her child herself.Nichola’s judicial review hearing will be held on Tuesday 10 November and Wednesday 11 November.
High Court Judgement dated 22/01/2021 in Nichola Salvato v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(2021) EWHC 102 (Admin). This held that:
“The Claimant is a single mother who wishes to work but would be unable to do so without help to cover childcare charges. She is in principle eligible to receive the Child Care Element. She wants to work full-time, but says that, because of the Proof of Payment Rule, she cannot afford to pay the fluctuating costs of childcare and as a result has become indebted and ultimately had to reduce the number of hours she works. She contends that, by failing to provide for payment of childcare charges which have been incurred but not paid, the Secretary of State has: (a) subjected her to unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 14, read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”) to the ECHR (ground 1); and (b) acted irrationally in the sense described by the Court of Appeal in R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] PTSR 1872.”
Decision made in favour of claimant. Does anyone know if DWP are intending to appeal this decision or how we can find out what they are going to do?