This research study examines the extent to which universal credit adheres to the rule of law principles of transparency, procedural fairness and lawfulness.
Emergency support plays a small but vital role in the social security system. It is there to help families through one-off shocks that cause a sudden drop in income or increase in costs, such as the onset of a health problem or the washing machine breaking down. But, in practice, many families are not getting the support they need when they need it, and this is contributing to the rising demand for food banks.
The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) panel recently invited the submission of evidence on how well or effectively judicial review balances the legitimate interest in citizens being able to challenge the lawfulness of executive action with the role of the executive in carrying on the business of government, both locally and centrally. Our response emphasises the important role of judicial review in ensuring good governance and that decisions which affect some of the most vulnerable members of society are made in compliance with basic standards of good administrative decision making.
In the second in this series, our report looks at problems with understanding decisions, challenging errors and protecting the rights of people claiming universal credit (UC). It outlines some of the problems claimants experience when they try to challenge a decision about their UC award. These problems have been identified by analysing case studies received via CPAG’s Early Warning System (EWS).
This report presents case studies and analysis from CPAG’s Early Warning System to highlight problems with the information provided to people claiming universal credit.