Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Single working mother issues High Court challenge to UC childcare provisions

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1291

Joined: 6 June 2010

Leigh Day reports that Nichola Salvato has issued a claim against the DWP in the High Court arguing that the current universal credit childcare provisions indirectly discriminate against women because they disproportionately affect single parents who are predominantly women. She also argues that the provision which provides that childcare payments can only be recovered if they are paid upfront is irrational because it undermines universal credit’s stated aim of encouraging and supporting parents seeking to move into or advance within the work place.

Working mother challenges Universal Credit childcare provisions

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 833

Joined: 21 March 2016

Permission to appeal has been granted - Leigh Day press release includes -

Granting permission for the case to proceed, the High Court confirmed that the case brought by single parent, Nichola Salvato, was arguable…. Nichola, who is represented by Tessa Gregory and Carolin Ott of law firm Leigh Day, argued 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.

She also argued that the provision which provides that childcare payments can only be recovered if they are paid upfront is irrational because it undermines Universal Credit’s stated aim of encouraging and supporting parents seeking to move into or advance within the workplace.

 

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3387

Joined: 14 April 2010

Yay ....

In a judgment handed down today, Friday 22 January 2021, it was ruled that the Department of Work and Pensions’ mechanism for assessing and paying the childcare costs element of Universal Credit (the “Proof of Payment” rule), which requires proof of payment from working parents before they receive funding, is unlawful.

More: https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/Press-releases-2021/January-2021/Working-mum-wins-her-claim-challenging-the-require

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3093

Joined: 16 June 2010

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3081

Joined: 14 March 2014

Written answer yesterday confirms that DWP have been granted permission to appeal

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 360

Joined: 17 June 2010

I love the way they say 85% compared to 70% in legacy benefits but never add it used to be 80% in tax credits but we cut it!

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1031

Joined: 27 February 2019

Also ignores that for people on HB and/or CTR that can actually be up to 95%!

Paul Stockton
forum member

Epping Forest CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 136

Joined: 6 May 2014

And Will Quince’s Answer also says: “The policy of reimbursing actual childcare costs paid has, as intended, resulted in a significantly lower level of fraud and error than in the legacy system, which was based on projected costs.” No doubt true, but disingenuous. The judgment makes it clear that the particular, discriminatory, scheme adopted was not designed the reduction of fraud and error as the main purpose. The government rejected other schemes which would have reduced fraud and error even more, or which would have been neutral, but without the adverse effects on single working mothers. As the judgment says (para 173 (g)): “Indeed, it is not obvious why a system of awards based on liability to pay (evidenced by an invoice) would be any more likely to result in error or fraud than a system based on actual payment (evidenced by a receipt). In both cases, the claimant has incurred a contractual liability to pay. In both cases, the amount of that liability is fixed. The only difference is that, in the former case, the liability has not been discharged.”

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 833

Joined: 21 March 2016

Court of Appeal 2.5 day hearing has started today of government’s appeal against Nichola Salvato’s case where High Court found that the childcare proof of payment rule was both discriminatory and irrational

More - Court of Appeal to hear Universal Credit childcare appeal

The hearing is also being live streamed.

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3081

Joined: 14 March 2014

Court of Appeal judgment out - SSWP appeal allowed :(

While proof of payment rule does indirectly discriminate, it is justifiable and not irrational.

Salvato, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions [2021] EWCA Civ 1482

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 2655

Joined: 17 June 2010

Words fail.

Well actually they don’t but probably best not posted in the public domain.

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1291

Joined: 6 June 2010

Leigh Day Solicitors reports that Ms Salvato has decided to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court -

Single mum Nichola Salvato will ask for Supreme Court ruling on childcare payments