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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll