DB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor.
[2023] UKUT 70 (AAC)
CD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
22 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 256 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A dad with 50/50 custody of his son lost his appeal for extra housing benefit. The court said the rules, which only give the benefit to one parent, are fair because they're easier and more efficient, even though it might seem unfair to some dads.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, a father with equal shared care of his son, appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision denying him an additional bedroom allowance in his Universal Credit (UC) housing costs calculation.
- •The FTT dismissed the appeal, relying on existing case law that only one parent is responsible for a child in shared care arrangements for UC purposes.
- •The appellant argued indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 14, in conjunction with Article 8 or Article 1 of the First Protocol).
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) lacked jurisdiction to consider the Equality Act claim.
- •The appellant ultimately conceded the appeal, acknowledging the weight of previous case law.
Legal Principles
Only one parent is treated as responsible for a child in shared care arrangements for Universal Credit purposes.
Regulation 4(4) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013
The Upper Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims on statutory appeals.
Section 113 of the Equality Act 2010; JA-K v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) [2017] UKUT 420 (AAC); TS (by TS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA); EK (by MK) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) [2020] UKUT 284 (AAC)
Indirect discrimination under Article 14 ECHR requires evidence of disproportionate adverse effect on a particular group and lack of objective and reasonable justification.
DH –v- Czech Republic (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 3
The state's method of delivering support for children is a separate question from how children spend their time; targeting funds to one household is more efficient and effective.
Humphreys –v- Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18
Government policy aims to keep the current principle that only one parent is eligible for child elements of benefits in shared care situations.
Universal Credit: welfare that works (2010); Explanatory Memorandum to the Social Security Advisory Committee (June 2012)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant's arguments based on indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and Article 14 ECHR failed due to lack of jurisdiction for the former and insufficient evidence and justification for the latter. The appellant's concession also contributed to the dismissal.