Legal action
Protecting disabled people from unfair cuts to benefits
Published: 3 December 2019
Last updated: 29 January 2020
Case details
Protected Characteristic | Disability |
---|---|
Types of equality claim | Other |
Court or tribunal | Court of Appeal (Civil) |
Case state | Concluded |
Our involvement | Intervention (section 30 of the Equality Act 2006) |
Outcome | Judgment |
Areas of life | Living standards |
Human Rights law | Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms, Protocol 1, Article 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property |
Case name: R (on the Application of TP, AR & SXC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Legal issue
Was the removal of the Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and the Enhanced Disability Premium (EDP) for some groups of disabled people following the introduction of Universal Credit discriminatory contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)?
Background
TP and AR previously received Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and Enhanced Disability Premium (EDP) benefits but were migrated to Universal Credit when they moved to a different local authority area. Under Universal Credit (UC) they no longer received SDP/EDP, leaving them around £180 a month worse off. Disabled people who moved within the same local authority area were not migrated to UC and continued to receive the higher level of legacy benefits payment including SDP and EDP. The High Court found that the difference in treatment between the two groups, who have the same support needs, constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14, read with Article 1 Protocol 1, of the ECHR.
Why we were involved
This came within our core priority aim – upholding the system of equality and human rights protections.
What we did
We intervened in these cases using our powers under section 30 of the Equality Act 2006.
What happened
After the High Court judgment in the first case, the Department for Work and Pensions introduced new regulations which proposed to pay disabled people who had been migrated to UC £80 in transitional payments rather than the £180 they had lost. A further challenge was then brought against this discrepancy. The High Court found that the Department for Work and Pensions' regulations were discriminatory.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower courts that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had unlawfully discriminated against this cohort of disabled people and upheld both High Court rulings.
Who will benefit
Thousands of disabled people now have more protection against a sudden and substantial benefit cut.
Date of hearing
Date concluded
Page updates
Published:
3 December 2019
Last updated:
29 January 2020