Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Benefit cap challenge goes to Court of Appeal
Inside Housing blog by Christine Land of Croftons Solicitors on appeal against High Court judgment in JS & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors -
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/blogs/benefits-abuse/7002044.article
judgment due tomorrow morning ...
C4 reporting “Two lone parents lose their Court of Appeal challenge to the legality of the Government’s so-called “benefit cap”
from DWP’s Barristers -
http://www.11kbw.com/knowledge-events/case/court-of-appeal-rejects-benefit-cap-challenge
The Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR, Longmore and Lloyd Jones LJJ) has today rejected a challenge to the Government’s ‘Benefit Cap’ legislation (R (SG) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions).
The Claimants (a number of welfare benefit recipients) supported by Child Poverty Action Group and Shelter, contended that the legislation contravened their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights—Article 8, and/or Article 14 read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 and/or Article 8 – and was Tameside irrational. The Divisional Court (Elias LJ and Bean J) had rejected the challenge in November. The challenge was renewed in the Court of Appeal, but was rejected.
The Court of Appeal held that although the legislation indirectly discriminated against women, this was justified. In finding that the legislation was justified, the Court gave considerable weight to the fact that (i) the cap is an aspect of social policy on the distribution of state benefits; (ii) the essential controversial issues were debated in Parliament; and (iii) the regulations were approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
The Court acknowledged that the cap is a ‘controversial statutory measure which will cause hardship to some (possibly many) people who are on benefit’. However, the cap reflects ‘the political judgment of the Government and it has been endorsed by Parliament after considerable debate’. It was not ‘the role of the court to say whether it agrees with this judgment or not. The court’s sole function is to rule on whether the cap is lawful.’ The Court decided that the cap plainly had a ‘reasonable foundation’ and so did not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998.
Clive Sheldon QC and Karen Steyn were instructed by the Treasury Solicitor to represent the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
DWP statement (they’re ‘pleased’)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-on-the-judgement-on-the-benefit-cap
Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors who represented the Appellants ...
‘We are very disappointed with the decision of the Court of Appeal and hope to continue this challenge in the Supreme Court. In particular it is disappointing that the Court declined to decide important issues of principle affecting the large numbers of women and children made homeless by domestic violence every year. The Government promised to address htis in April 2013, ten months ago, but has failed to do so. The Court recognised the problem and expressed concern about the Government’s delay in addressing it, but they have abandoned many domestic violence victims to their fate until the Government chooses to act. That is not good enough for my clients, or for the many women who will face a stark choice about whether to stay with a violent partner, or flee and risk losing their home or being destitute.
The benefit cap is already causing serious hardship to families across the country and to local authorities who are struggling to find accommodation for homeless families in crisis. It is not an exaggeration to say that the long term impact of the cap is going to trap some women and children in violent relationships, leave others hungry, homeless and isolated at times of crisis. The government seeks to justify the cap by the financial savings achieved but the long term consequences of this arbitrary benefit cap are likely to have not only devastating consequences for individual children but serious financial costs as the fallout impacts on other public services including social services, education and the justice system.’
http://www.hmbsolicitors.co.uk/news/category/item/index.cfm?asset_id=1561
This is really frustrating especially when some councils will not pay DHP if the claimant is in receipt of DLA and the subsequent premiums stating that their income takes into account additional costs for their disability.
judgment now available @
From para.33 (my emphasis): “As for the benefits to be taken into account, the Government’s inclusion of child-related benefits within the cap was, as we have said, the subject of much debate during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. The Government successfully opposed an amendment to exclude them. Mr Holmes [of DWP] summarises the position at para 104 in these terms:
“The Government argued that its exclusion would have undermined one of the key drivers for introducing the cap, that ultimately there has to be a limit to the overall amount of financial support that households in receipt of out of work benefits can expect to receive in welfare payments. Agreeing to exclude child benefit from the cap would have effectively resulted in there being no limit to the amount of benefit a household could receive. Further, Child Benefit, like other welfare benefits, is provided by the state and funded by tax payers and therefore with the aim of reducing welfare expenditure and reducing the deficit the Government believes it is right that it is taken into account along with other state benefits when applying the cap.”
Is the statement highlighted utter tosh, or am I having a senior moment?
It’s tosh
from Doughty Street Chambers -
‘Supreme Court grants permission in gender discrimination Benefit Cap case.
On Wednesday 2nd April the Supreme Court ordered that an appeal brought by two lone mothers and their children concerning whether the Regulations implementing the Government’s flagship ‘benefit cap’ policy unjustifiably discriminate against women should proceed.
The Supreme Court granted the families permission to appeal and ordered that the hearing be expedited, to be heard later this month, on 29 and 30 April 2014.’
confirmation that in supreme court next week ...
http://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/case_2014_0079.html
http://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/easter-term-2014.pdf
follow live coverage ...... on sky!
Supreme Court’s judgment due next Wednesday @ 9.45
Supreme Court now saying:
SG and others v DWP: judgment postponed to allow for further submissions. Will publish rescheduled date as soon as available.