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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll