header-logo header-logo

Government PIP delays slammed

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll