Disabled payment delay unlawful, judge rules | Politics | The Guardian

Iain Duncan Smith’s Department of Work and Pensions took an “unlawful and unacceptably long time” to pay new welfare benefits to two unnamed disabled people, a high court judge has ruled.

The judge was told at a recent hearing that vulnerable people have been forced to turn to loan sharks and food banks because of the delays in providing them with personal independence payments (Pips).

The payments are replacing the disability living allowance (DLA) in a government overhaul of the benefits system. They are designed to help disabled adults meet the extra costs caused by disability.

Two claimants, Ms C and Mr W, asked Mrs Justice Patterson to declare that – because of the magnitude of the delay – Smith, the work and pensions secretary, breached his common law and human rights duties to make payments within a reasonable time.

The judge ruled the delay in both cases was “not only unacceptable, as conceded by the defendant, but was unlawful”.

The judge said in Ms C’s case the delay was 13 months, from 9 September 2013 until the determination of her benefit on 24 October 2014. In Mr W’s case the delay was 10 months, from 3 February 2014 until December 2014.

The judge said both cases had called for “expeditious consideration” as they both suffered significant disabilities. She said: “They were each to be regarded as the most vulnerable people in society.”

The judge added: “There is a high duty on local authorities to act promptly, consistently and appropriately to recognise social welfare benefits. There can be no public interest in delays such as was the case here.”

Source: Disabled payment delay unlawful, judge rules | Politics | The Guardian

13 thoughts on “Disabled payment delay unlawful, judge rules | Politics | The Guardian

  1. Mr.Angry

    This is only two to surface what about the rest of the poor souls waiting an outcome to what they are entitled to.

    Why does it take an expensive legal battle and a High court judge to expose the
    wrongdoings by the DWP and their worshipful master IDS.

    Enough is enough for these poor individuals or is it that the tories get some kind of pleasure out of someone else’s suffering.

    Kick them when their down Tory malpractice at it’s best.

  2. M de Mowbray

    It is a true indication of UK under Camoron that the Law and the Church are now the only things left which are saving people from the worst and most divisive British regime since WW2

  3. tommaz jay

    “The court has rightly dismissed the claimants’ absurd suggestion that their human rights had been breached. As a result, they are not entitled to damages.”

    So typical of Tory mentally & dogmatic believe in an Eugenics policy Shame on you Mr Tomlinson you are truly the minster for without compassion for the disabled.

    1. AM-FM

      The minister for disabled people doesn’t realise he’s supposed to fight FOR disabled people, dumb or what!

  4. NMac

    Just about everything Duncan-Smith touches is unlawful, from his embezzlement of expenses in 2003 to this present nasty fiasco. The man is a corrupt and dishonest cretin.

  5. concernedkev

    If they have been unlawfully deprived of their entitlement to support I fail to see how the judge can say their human rights have not been infringed. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can explain this.

  6. alistair lazenby

    The courts have said it’s unlawful, so why an’t the ex- officer of the SCOTS GUARDS being summoned to give due cause, his department his fault, he should be shot for whats he getting away with, the evil spore of the devil.

  7. hayfords

    The article above misses an important part. The Judge said that the human rights of the claimants had not been breached, therefore they were not entitled to any compensation. In other words, it was just an unacceptable delay.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I’m going to.
      If someone has to resort to loan sharks, simply to stay alive, because the government department responsible for helping them can’t be bothered to do its job properly, then that department has failed in its duty of care. There is certainly a case to be made for the DWP to pay compensation.
      Perhaps the judge’s ruling was political.

  8. hayfords

    They weren’t deprived of their entitlement. It was just delayed and would have been backdated.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      If they had to go to loan sharks, a backdated entitlement would not have paid off their debts.
      It is unacceptable that the Tory-run DWP should push people into such a situation.

Comments are closed.