Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Court of Appeal victory in TD & Ors
Just out .... Court of Appeal’s judgement in TD & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions:
83. What is crucial, in my view, is that these Appellants were treated as they were despite their successful reviews, for reasons to do with administrative cost and complexity, which have nothing to do with the merits of their cases; and that the only reason in reality why they moved from legacy benefits to UC was as a result of errors of law by the state itself.
84. The point was expressed succinctly by Ms Reynolds in her witness statement, at para. 21, where she says: “I fail to see why, because DWP got it wrong ... I should be the one who has to pay the price for their wrong decisions.”
...
91. In the case of these Appellants it is acknowledged that, were it not for the effect of regulation 13(3), they would have continued to be on the same level of legacy benefits as previously: indeed, as its terms make clear, that is the situation in which regulation 13(3) applies. There was no change in their underlying circumstances.
92. I have come to the conclusion, that in the present context, the difference in treatment was manifestly disproportionate in its impact on these Appellants having regard to the legitimate aim which the Respondent sought to achieve. It was therefore manifestly without reasonable foundation.
93. I would therefore grant a declaration that these Appellants’ rights under Article 14 have been violated. That is similar to the remedy which the European Court of Human Rights usually grants to a successful applicant, when it pronounces that the applicant’s Convention rights have been violated. It is also the remedy which Lewis J granted in TP (No. 1) in a decision which was upheld by this Court.
94. It will be a matter for the Secretary of State to decide how to respond to a declaration by this Court that there has been a violation of these Appellants’ rights under Article 14. That may or may not lead to a scheme being designed which benefits other people, who are not before this Court, but the design of any such scheme will in the first instance be for the Secretary of State, although it must be done in a way which is lawful, including by reference to the Convention rights.
Thought it might be worth highlighting here that the Secretary of State’s application for permission to appeal in this case was dismissed on 26/02/2021.
See towards the bottom of the CPAG note on the case.
We now wait to see what measures the SSWP takes to fix this.
Could be interesting….
....Any such scheme would either need to provide a form of transitional protection or allow for a return to legacy benefits