Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
High Court orders urgent hearing to challenge reduced benefit cap
Excellent news! Makes such a lot of sense that the wider challenge to the cap for all lone parents and their children is heard at the same time as the challenge relating to lone parents of children aged under two.
forum member
Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project
Total Posts: 200
Joined: 22 May 2016
Hi. Is there any news here? - I know things move slow at this level ...
forum member
Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London
Total Posts: 786
Joined: 16 June 2010
No update on this I am afraid. Given it is a 7 member Supreme Court and it was heard slightly before the summer recess I think realistically it will take some time. We are all hopeful that a decision is made by end of next term (ie before Christmas). We will update as soon as we are able to (although judgment will be on Supreme Court website on the day of handing down in any event and we can’t be any quicker than that….).
Judgment now given - appeal dismissed by 5-2 - discrimination against lone parents is not manifestly without reasonable foundation -
The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal by a majority of 5-2. Lord Wilson (with whom Lord Hodge agrees) gives the main judgment. Lord Carnwath (with whom Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) and Lord Hodge (with whom Lord Hughes agrees) give concurring judgments. Lady Hale agrees with Lord Wilson on the principles, but not the outcome. Lord Kerr disagrees with him about both.
forum member
Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow
Total Posts: 1221
Joined: 13 April 2016
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3317
Joined: 7 January 2016
ClairemHodgson - 15 May 2019 12:30 PMhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/21.html
have to say i find this hard to grasp….
On justification for the policy.
para.88 The appellants have not entered any substantial challenge to the government’s belief that there are better long-term outcomes for children who live in households in which an adult works. The belief may not represent the surest foundation for the similarity of treatment in relation to the cap; but it is a reasonable foundation, in particular when accompanied by provision for DHPs which are intended on a bespoke basis to address, and which on the evidence are just about adequate in addressing, particular hardship which the similarity of treatment may cause.
Is this the most mealy-mouthed judgment ever?
HB urgent bulletin now out -
There will be no change to the application of the cap to lone parents, including lone parents which children under school age. The judgment does not require any local authority to re-assess the Housing Benefit (HB) of existing claimants or to reinstate HB previously capped.
Discretionary Housing Payments remain an important option to help households adjust to the benefit cap and other Welfare Reforms, and awards should continue to be made in appropriate cases in the usual way having regard to, amongst other things, the published guidance.
File Attachments
- UB2_2019_SCJ_bencap.doc (File Size: 75KB - Downloads: 2094)
forum member
Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow
Total Posts: 1221
Joined: 13 April 2016
ClairemHodgson - 15 May 2019 12:30 PMhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/21.html
have to say i find this hard to grasp….
in the context of the evidence cited as to lack of free childcare, policy on children under 2 & 5, etc etc….
as you say, paul, mealy mouthed.
and not sure how majority got to the conclusion (reasons wanting) from what went before…
forum member
Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland
Total Posts: 382
Joined: 17 June 2010
The reasoning sounds very out of touch/misinformed….?
We know that there is long term disadvantage to being in poverty as a child so the comments about advantages in the future (via the parent working) only operate if that work is found pretty swiftly on application of the cap?? And it’s not that easy (for all the reasons cited already, incl childcare).
Without knowing exactly what evidence the DWP submitted, parts of this read as if the court (apart from the dissenting judgments) took it on trust that work is a universal good all the time, whatever the circumstances….