Current

CPAG successfully challenged HMRC’s refusal to award retrospective child tax credits (“CTC”) for the period between a refugee’s claim for and award of refugee status. The High Court heard the case on 16 June 2021 and handed down judgment in favour of the claimant on 5 July 2021. The Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court's decision on 8 February 2022.

The electronic claim form for universal credit does not ask a claimant whether they wish their claim to be backdated (paid from an earlier date than the day the claim form is completed). The maximum allowable backdating is one month. DWP maintain that if a claimant has not requested backdating by the time their claim comes to be decided then (1) the Decision Maker does not have to consider whether the conditions for backdating were met and (2) any request that the claim be backdated made after the claim is decided cannot succeed because in this case the one month backdating runs from when it is requested and as universal credit claims are not decided until one month after they are made then even if granted backdating would not produce any extra entitlement. The Upper Tribunal is asked by AM, who CPAG represent, to decide that approach is wrong and that a decision awarding universal credit can be revised if the backdating conditions are fulfilled but were not considered when the claim was initially decided.

This is a challenge to the policy of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) that she will not make payments of universal credit (UC) unless and until a claimant has a national insurance number (the ‘NINo Rule’).

CPAG brought judicial review proceedings on behalf of two EU nationals, a severely disabled man and his carer, who were refused universal credit on the basis that their limited leave to remain in the UK under Appendix EU to the immigration rules (‘pre-settled status’) was not a qualifying right of residence for the purposes of means-tested benefits. On 27 April 2020, the High Court dismissed the claim. The Claimants sought permission to appeal and, following the grant of permission by the Court of Appeal, the Court found in favour of the Appellants/Claimants in a judgment handed down on 18 December 2020. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile on 15 July 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a judgment which the parties in the case brought by CPAG accept is binding on the Supreme Court, ruled that it was not unlawfully discriminatory to have such a rule (i.e. that the basis on which the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal was wrong). The Supreme Court gave a final decision allowing the Secretary of State's appeal on 01 December 2021.

On 12 September 2019, CPAG issued judicial review proceedings on behalf of a single parent and her children challenging the application of the benefit cap to the mother’s universal credit award. The cap is applied to the mother despite the fact that she works 16 hours per week at national living wage, simply because she is paid 4 weekly rather than monthly. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 5 December 2019 and the case was heard on 12 May 2020. Judgment was given on 20 July 2020 with the court finding in the claimants' favour. The SSWP appealed to the Court of Appeal and the SSWP's appeal was allowed on 8 October 2021. The claimants have made an application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal and a decision on that application is awaited.

This case successfully challenged the rigidity of the monthly assessment period regime under universal credit (UC) and the way that earned income is calculated for certain claimants. The case concerned four single working mothers whose regular monthly pay dates for their wages fell close to the start/end of their assessment periods, resulting in them sometimes having two paydays in one assessment period. This issue caused them to experience fluctuations of their income and significant cash losses.

On 12 May 2020, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in favour of the appellants in this case. The appellants were originally in receipt of legacy benefits but had to claim universal credit (UC) when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) decided that they were no longer entitled to legacy benefits and terminated their awards.  Even though those decisions were ultimately overturned on revision, the appellants were stuck on UC and received less than they would have if they had remained on legacy benefits.  The Court found that the appellants had been unlawfully discriminated against compared with legacy benefit claimants who had not had any wrongful decision terminating their legacy benefit awards and who would be moved to UC through managed migration when they would benefit from transitional protection. The SSWP applied directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal but that application was refused on 26 February 2021. DWP has said that it hopes to have a scheme in place covering those within the scope of the Court of Appeal judgment in early 2022.

These cases challenge the legality of the revised past presence test (PPT), which requires a child to have been in the UK for 104 of the past 156 weeks before being eligible to claim disability living allowance (DLA) (referred to as the ‘2 year PPT’). The appellants argue that the 2 year PPT is unlawful as a result of non-compliance by the SSWP with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and the discriminatory effect of the 2 year PPT is in breach of their human rights. The cases were heard together before UTJ Ward at a two-day Upper Tribunal hearing on 3 - 4 June 2020 and judgment, dated 12 October 2020 and sent to the parties on 17 November 2020, found in favour of the appellants on human rights grounds. The SSWP has confirmed that she is not appealing the decision of the UT. Subsequent claims for carer's allowance by the children's mother's for the earlier period that their children were now recognised as being entitled to DLA from were initially refused by the SSWP but appeals were successful before the FTT.

Jackson & Others v SSWP [2020] EWHC 183: On 07 February 2020, the High Court handed down judgment in this case. It was held that the requirement under the Pensions Act 2014, in conjunction with the Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017, to be married or in a civil partnership in order to claim higher rate bereavement support payment (BSP) was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The SSWP did not appeal that judgment. A proposal of a draft remedial order to address the incompatibility was published on 15 July 2021. The period for commenting on the proposal closed on 12 November 2021 and a finalised draft remedial order should be laid before Parliament at some point in 2022 though DWP has not given any timeframe for when they will be doing this.