header-logo header-logo

Upper Tribunal rules DWP acted unlawfully

11 August 2017
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

The government’s time restrictions on access to the social security appeals system are unlawful, the Upper Tribunal has ruled.

Since 2013, social security claimants wishing to challenge a refusal of benefit must apply for a ‘mandatory reconsideration’ before they can appeal to an independent tribunal. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refuses to allow the appeal if it decides a mandatory reconsideration application has been made too late.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) brought a test case on behalf of CJ and SG, two women with serious health problems, who were refused employment and support allowance and made late applications to challenge the refusal decisions. In both cases, the DWP initially refused to allow the appeal but it was subsequently established that the women were entitled to the benefits.

The DWP argued that its decisions were lawful as they could be challenged by judicial review. However, the Upper Tribunal observed that out of 1,544,805 mandatory reconsideration decisions since 2013, nobody had managed to bring a judicial review.

The Upper Tribunal unanimously held the Secretary of State’s position unlawful as it would make the Secretary of State ‘gatekeeper to the independent tribunal system’. It held the correct position is to give the claimant 13 months from the original decision to make a mandatory reconsideration request, in R (CJ) and SG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 0324 (AAC).

CPAG’s legal officer Carla Clarke said: ‘This decision ensures that even if the DWP thinks there is no good reason for their delay, it cannot prevent such individuals pursuing an appeal before an independent tribunal. To have found otherwise would have been to uphold a system where the decision maker also acts as arbiter of whether an individual could challenge their decision or not—a clear conflict of interest and an affront to justice.’

Issue: 7758 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In NLJ this week, Ian Smith, emeritus professor at UEA, explores major developments in employment law from the Supreme Court and appellate courts
Writing in NLJ this week, Kamran Rehman and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper examine Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV plc v Spain, where the Commercial Court held that ICSID and Energy Charter Treaty awards cannot be assigned
back-to-top-scroll