header-logo header-logo

11 June 2015
Issue: 7656 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Government PIP delays slammed

High Court rules payment delays for disabled people “unlawful”

The government unlawfully delayed personal independence payment (PIP) to people with disabilities, the High Court has held.

Ruling in R (on the application of Ms C and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Zacchaeus 2000 Trust intervening) [2015] EWHC 1607 (Admin), Mrs Justice Patterson held that work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith acted unreasonably and unlawfully by not awarding PIP, which replaced disability living allowance in October 2013, within a reasonable timescale.

The claimants argued that the government took an “unlawfully long time” to provide them with the new benefit. Government figures released in March showed more than 3,000 people making new claims for the benefit had waited for more than a year to receive their payments.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) accepted that there is an implied duty to determine applications within a reasonable time but argued that this was a flexible concept dependent on the context and circumstances.

Delivering her judgment, Patterson J said the delay in both cases was “not only unacceptable, as conceded by the defendant, but was unlawful”.

However, she held there was no breach of C and W’s human rights since it was a “temporary backlog”, and also rejected the argument that their claims should be treated as a test case because of the “considerable variations in individual circumstances”.

The court heard how many applicants had experienced desperate financial struggles and been forced to borrow from friends or turn to loan sharks.

Leigh Day solicitor Ugo Hayter, who represented Z2K, a charity intervening in the case, says: “Even now, two years on from its inception in spring 2013, there remains a backlog of over 60,000 claimants, 23% of whom, as at April 2015, had been waiting over 20 weeks for their decision.

“Just under two million disabled people currently receiving DLA will be moved over to PIP later this year.”

Minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, says: “We have taken decisive action to speed up PIP waiting times and we are pleased the court has recognised the huge progress made. The average new PIP claimant now waits only seven weeks for an assessment.”

Issue: 7656 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll