A landmark ruling in the Court of Appeal has held that the government is required to consider the fundamental rights of EU citizens and their families residing in the UK, including their right to live in dignified conditions, before refusing universal credit support.
This research study examines the extent to which universal credit adheres to the rule of law principles of transparency, procedural fairness and lawfulness.
Digital aspects of universal credit (UC) routinely lead to wrong amounts being awarded to claimants – often the most vulnerable - and to breaches of rule-of-law principles, new Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) research finds.
An EU citizen (WV) who is a carer for his severely disabled British wife (J) has – with support from Child Poverty Action Group - won a legal battle with the DWP after a Tribunal found the couple were wrongly underpaid universal credit for nearly 2 years while he had pre-settled status, since the couple’s joint claim was refused by the DWP in 2020.
A three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal has held that AT, an EU national with pre-settled status (limited leave to remain) but no qualifying EU right to reside in the UK for the purposes of universal credit, is entitled to rely upon the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights even after the end of the Brexit “transition period” (ie after 31 December 2020).
At the start of the pandemic, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relaxed some evidence checks for people making a universal credit (UC) claim to provide quicker access to benefits. In January 2021, the DWP began reverifying the details of claims made while evidence checks were eased. This has resulted in some claimants being asked to pay back the entirety of their UC award. More than a year after the exercise started, we continue to hear from people who have had their UC payments stopped, who have received demands to repay all the UC they received, and who are unable to understand or challenge the DWPs decision.
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.
