High Court rules against benefits sanctions
The government acted unlawfully in stripping a jobseeker of his benefits for six months after he refused to take part in its “back to work” scheme, the High Court has held.
However, the scheme was lawfully set up under the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (2011/917), and its implementation did not breach Art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
R (on the application of Reilly and Anor) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin) was brought by Caitlin Reilly, who took part in the “sector-based work academy” against her wishes, and Jamieson Wilson, who refused to take part in the Community Action Programme after he was told he had to clean furniture for 30 hours per week for six months without pay. Wilson’s jobseeker’s allowance was stopped for six months.
Mr Justice Foskett held that the DWP unlawfully withheld Wilson’s benefits because it failed, as required by law, to inform him about the consequences of non- participation. Wilson received a standard DWP letter about the scheme.
Tessa Gregory, solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for the claimants, says that up to 44,000 people may have been affected by benefit sanctions and that many of them may now be entitled to re-imbursement by the DWP.
.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=9a8f1ea9_1)
