PR v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] UKUT 290 (AAC)
FL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
11 December 2023
[2024] UKUT 6 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman's Universal Credit payment was much lower than her old benefits. The court ruled this was unfair and discriminatory, similar to a previous case. The court sent the case back to the government to recalculate her benefits fairly.
Key Facts
- •FL's Universal Credit (UC) entitlement was significantly lower than her previous legacy benefits (IRESA and Child Tax Credit).
- •FL experienced a 'cliff edge' reduction in benefits due to the loss of her Enhanced Disability Premium (EDP) upon natural migration to UC.
- •The DWP's transitional protection only compensated for the loss of Severe Disability Premium (SDP), not EDP.
- •FL's case is analogous to TP (No.3), which found the DWP's transitional protection scheme unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR.
- •The DWP argued that the difference in treatment was justified due to administrative difficulties and cost-saving measures.
Legal Principles
Discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1.
European Convention on Human Rights
Tribunals' power to disapply unlawful regulations.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, sections 11 and 12
Principles of disapplication from RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 52.
RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 52
The basic principle: a tribunal should not apply unlawful regulations.
TS (by TS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) [2020] UKUT 284 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by applying unlawfully discriminatory regulations. Disapplication of the relevant regulations wasn't possible without undermining the statutory scheme. Therefore, the decision was set aside and remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination on a lawful basis.