Legal test cases

This is a challenge to the policy of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in relation to MJ, a claimant in receipt of the carer element and transitional SDP element, to erode the whole of her transitional SDP element when she was found to have limited capability for work and work related activity. The UT allowed the SSWP’s appeal and re-made the FTT decision in MJ’s favour, finding that she had been unlawfully discriminated against.

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 judgment was given on 8 October 2021, allowing the SSWP's appeal.  Ms Pantellerisco applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on 1/12/21 and this was refused by order dated 04/08/22. 

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.

CPAG represented the appellant in a challenge to the universal credit (UC) rules that prevent certain 19 year olds who are in full-time, non-advanced education from being included in their parents’ UC claim, while they are also prevented from claiming UC in their own right, on the basis that the provisions are discriminatory and irrational. The appeal was heard by the First-tier Tribunal on 24 November and was dismissed.