CPAG search

Decision in brief

But ‘giving support to collect medication is self-evidently not assistance with managing medication’ – the keyworker played no part in ensuring the appellant took his medication and no points were to be awarded for that in this activity.

Note from CPAG

Although as a decision of the Northern Ireland Commissioner this is not formally binding in Great Britain, it has been highlighted on the Upper Tribunal website.

Decision in brief

Where claimant has appealed against such a refusal, s/he is then a person subject to immigration control – fact that reference in section 115(9)(d) of the Immigration Act 1971 is to now revoked provisions is immaterial – applying s17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, the reference is now to leave extended under section 3C of the Act, and the effect is the same.

Note from CPAG

The judge also held that where leave was extended under section 3D of the Act (appeal against requirement to leave the UK – since repealed), the person was not subject to immigration control, as held in GO v HMRC (CHB) [2018] UKUT 328 (AAC).

Decision in brief

Claimant lost control of bladder during epileptic seizure – this is ‘altered’ consciousness – claimant who loses control of his bowel or bladder while in a state of altered, as opposed to lost, consciousness, cannot score points under the descriptors linked to Activity 9 – CE/1928/2017 approved.

Summary

The claimant was prelingually deaf and communicated by British Sign Language (BSL). When a DWP compliance officer visited the claimant at home to ask her about evidence regarding her savings, her parents were present and assisted her, but there was no signer present. The claimant, when pressed, provided bank statements regarding all her savings accounts, which showed that her savings were above the capital limit. The overpayment was held to be recoverable. The First-tier Tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that as no BSL signer had been present, the department was in breach of its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the claimant put at a disadvantage, so that the evidence gathered at the interview was inadmissible.

Judge Wikeley rejected the claimant’s further appeal. In the circumstances, which included the presence of the claimant’s parents at the interview, that there was no challenge to the accuracy of the claimant’s signed statement and the bank statements, that the DWP already had evidence from its generalised matching service and that the DWP could have in any case applied to the tribunal for a direction that the statements be produced, the tribunal was ‘plainly entitled to come to the view that the evidence in question was properly admissible’ (paragraphs 25–30). It was the case that under section 20 of the Equality Act the department was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments, which could include provision of a BSL interpreter (paragraph 24). Evidence could be excluded under the overriding objective (at rule 15 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, No.2685) of dealing with cases fairly and justly (paragraph 28). But even if there had been a breach of the Act (the judge did not say that there had been), it remained that, on the facts, the tribunal had been entitled to consider the evidence admissible (paragraphs 28–32).

The judge also rejected an argument (based on the decision in CSIS/45/1990) that the decision maker and tribunal had erred in only revising (ie, regarding the overpayment) only one decision where there had in fact been a number of decisions in the history of the award. CSIS/45/1990 was made under a previous and now repealed statutory regime. The current statutory test ‘does not require the identification of each and every preceding decision’ (paragraph 36).

Comment from CPAG

This decision illustrates that, while a potential breach of the Equality Act in evidence gathering might be the basis for, for example, complaints and requests for compensation, it does not necessarily follow that the evidence cannot be considered by a tribunal.

Summary

The claimant TD was a single parent with a disabled child, entitled to income support (IS), carer's allowance and child tax credit. The DWP wrongly stopped her IS and advised her to claim UC. She claimed UC and successfully challenged the stopping of her IS, but (due to transitional rules) was unable to make a new claim for IS. She was worse off on UC by £136.99 per month, due to the absence of equivalent amounts for disabled children in UC compared to IS and no transitional protection. In the case of PR, the claimant was getting income-related employment and support allowance (ESA) including the severe disability element and support component. The DWP stopped her ESA and, although she successfully challenged that, because she had claimed UC in the meantime she was also unable to start a new claim for ESA. She was worse off by £178.09 due to the absence of equivalent amounts for severely disabled persons in UC compared to income-related ESA and no transitional protection.

The claimants argued that their treatment amounted to unlawful discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read with Article 1 of the First Protocol (rights to possessions) and in the case of TD/AD, in breach of Article 8 (right to family life). They also argued that the inability of people in their position to return to legacy benefits without transitional protection in UC awards was irrational, and that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with her public sector equality duty (PSED).

Mrs Justice May rejected the claimants’ claims. Regarding unlawful discrimination, it was agreed that the relevant test was whether the treatment was ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ (paragraph 59). It was also accepted that a legitimate comparator ground (ie, in relation to which the claimants had suffered discrimination) was legacy benefit claimants who had not had erroneous decisions made. But the judge accepted that the discrimination there was justified (ie, not without reasonable foundation) as, in contrast to the claimants in R (TP and AR) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWHC 1474, the evidence showed that proper consideration had been given to people in the claimants’ position before the rules were finalised (paragraphs 77–80). The judge doubted that the other two potential comparator groups (namely those who were to be subject in the future to ‘managed migration’ to UC, where transitional protection will apply, and disabled people) were eligible as comparator groups, but in any case any discrimination there was, for the same reason, also justified (paragraph 77). Regarding irrationality, again the justification for the alleged discrimination answered that point (paragraphs 81–82). Regarding the alleged failure to comply with the PSED, that had been rejected in TP and AR and there was no reason to hold differently here (paragraph 87).

Note

CPAG represented the claimants and is applying for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Summary

The claimant was homeless and suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome. He did not know from week to week whether he would be in hospital, staying with friends or elsewhere. He could not always travel so could not pick up mail from a job centre, and did not have a phone. He repeatedly tried to persuade the DWP to communicate with him by email. The department refused to do so for some time. Eventually the department came up with a ‘workaround’ under which his mail was initially sent to an internal address and then converted to email. The workaround was allegedly necessary because of the department’s ‘relatively antiquated IT infrastructure’ (paragraph 51). The claimant refused to accept the workaround and argued that the department was in breach of both the public sector equality duty (PSED) and the duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Jeremy Johnson QC held that ‘as matters stand’, the DWP had offered the claimant a system of communication that (subject to effective implementation) amounted to reasonable adjustment and complied with the PSED, and therefore dismissed the claim for judicial review (paragraph 108). The department told the judge that ‘the department’s policy in relation to email as a reasonable adjustment is clear; email is made available to disabled customers who require it as a reasonable adjustment’ (paragraph 41). However, the judge also said:

‘The approach of the DWP to the claimant, and to many other disabled claimants, failed over a period of years to comply with its statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (and before that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). Those with disabilities that meant that they had difficulty communicating by post were, in many instances, unable to secure a satisfactory means of communication with the DWP. This in turn meant that some went without benefits that were essential to them’ (paragraph 107).

Decision in brief

Dutch invalidity benefit in payment – Holland competent state for payment of ‘sickness benefit’ – tribunal erred in deciding there was a difference in view about competent state between UK and Holland leading to entitlement to care component on a provisional basis – no evidence of a difference of view – no entitlement on basis of being a pensioner as neither the mobility component nor the care component of DLA is a pension.

Decision in brief

No smaller chalets available and no other caravan sites in area to move to – no violation of claimant’s rights as a gypsy traveller under the European Convention on Human Rights as council provided discretionary housing payments to mitigate in full the adverse effect of the bedroom tax on the claimant.

Comment from CPAG

The judge noted that it was not in dispute that in general terms ‘gypsy travellers’ have rights to respect for their homes and protection from unjustified discrimination under the Convention. The judge placed heavy reliance on the role of discretionary housing payments in avoiding a breach of the Convention. Had those payments not been in place, it would seem that such a breach may well have been an issue.

Decision in brief

Not possible in such a case for an appeal against the section 14 decision to lapse because a section 18 decision is purported to be made – if the three-judge panel’s comments about lapsing appeals in LS and RS v HMRC [2018] AACR 2; [2017] UKUT 257 (AAC) were intended to apply to decisions under section 14 not to award tax credit, they overlooked that no section 18 decision can be made in such a case and are not followed.