Universal credit – the court’s decision
Mike Nicholas, editor, summarises the law, the arguments and judgment in a judicial review case that has profound implications for the way by which calculation of the amount of eachmonth’s benefit is to be performed F ollowing the general election in 2010, the coalition government progressed the Conservative bit.ly/2UUcytA). In a case from 2017 about the effect of timing of reporting of real time information the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withdrew its appeal against the tribunal’s decision (see https://
Judicial review hearing Four claimants (see below) sought judicial review of the proper method of calculating the amount of UC payable to each under the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (‘the 2013 Regulations’). They challenged the method of calculation on the basis that it led to effects that were irrational, or failed to promote the policy and objectives of the underlying statute, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (‘the 2012 Act’), and so was ultra vires the parent statute or that it led to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’) read with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, those being Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. A claimant also contended that the defendant (the DWP) failed to comply with its duty to have due regard to certain matters as required by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. However, during the course of the court hearing it became clear that another more fundamental submission was available to the claimants. The hearing of the claims took place
party’s manifesto pledge to introduce universal credit (UC) to replace several other social security benefits. The delivery of this new benefit would require the use of employment earnings obtained from employers (and pension payers) in real time rather than being based on averaging historical amounts of earnings obtained from the P14 annual returns submitted by employers. Irrespective of any conceptual merit, UC has a troubled history, and there are many things seemingly amiss with the benefit which are causing severe financial difficulties for claimants. Design, operational and calculation problems continue to impede the implementation and delivery of UC. A particular issue is timing of pay days falling within the claimant’s UC assessment period. It has even been suggested that employers should change claimants’ contractual pay dates. Unsurprisingly, there have been several cases dealt with by the courts (see https://
bit.ly/2X4PkDa). Here the claimant’s earnings for January were reported as paid on 1 February 2016 whereas she said payment had actually been made on 31 January. The effect was that she had two payments in the assessment period 1 February to 29 February. ...it became clear that another more fundamental submission was available to the claimants A very recent case (see https://bit. ly/2N6I7xK) heard at the High Court casts light on the implications of more than one monthly pay day in the UC assessment period.
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | March 2019 | Issue 48 42
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker