header-logo header-logo

31 May 2023
Issue: 8027 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Unlawful DWP policy denied help to destitute claimants

The government cannot refuse advance payments of universal credit to claimants in financial hardship simply because they don’t have a national insurance number (NINo), the Court of Appeal has held.

Universal credit, which is paid in arrears, is not paid until at least five weeks after making a claim. However, the secretary of state may make advance payments where there is financial need and where it looks likely the conditions of benefit will be satisfied. Where a person does not have a NINo, however, no advance payments are made until the claimant’s entitlement to a NINo has been verified by a specialist team.

R (BUI) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (Onakoya) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ 566 concerned two individuals who did not have NINos.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and Central England Law Centre (CELC) successfully argued at appeal that the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP’s) blanket practice of refusing advance payments without a NINo was unlawful. The court held the legislation did not prevent advance payments to claimants without a NINo.

Michael Bates, head of public law at CELC, said: ‘The transition to mainstream support for those whose immigration status has been recently regularised has been problematic for many years.

‘Delays in allocating NINos and the knock-on delays to benefits payments has left many facing destitution just at the point of increased need. This judgment now means that the DWP will be required to consider putting benefits payments in place almost immediately.

‘It will also remove the need for costly emergency expenditure by local authorities who are often left to pick up the pieces.’

Claire Hall, head of strategic litigation at CPAG, said: ‘This is an important win and must be implemented by the DWP urgently.’

Issue: 8027 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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