Government faces High Court challenge over impact of universal credit on disabled households

Campaigners to argue welfare reform has ‘disproportionately adverse effect’ on disabled claimants

The government’s universal credit system is “irrational” and has a “disproportionately adverse effect” on disabled claimants, campaigners will claim as they challenge the controversial welfare reform in the High Court.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) is bringing the action on behalf of a single mother with a severely disabled 12-year-old and a disabled woman who lives alone.

The charity claims the women were left worse off after being “forced” to move to universal credit from previous benefits, following incorrect decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

As a result they are challenging a policy which prevents claimants from returning to their previous benefits after moving to universal credit following an “incorrect” decision.

They are also challenging the “lack of protection against cash losses” for people affected in this way.

CPAG says that in the case of the mother she received £140 a month less for more than 18 months after switching to universal credit.

The other woman continues to receive about £180 a month less than she did previously, the charity says, adding that the women had “no option” but to claim universal credit after their existing benefits were stopped incorrectly, and that they were entitled to “significantly less” on the new system than on their previous benefits.

They were not entitled to cash top-ups designed to protect against loss of income because they were not part of the planned “mass managed migration” from existing benefits to universal credit, it says.

The DWP has since introduced measures to prevent people from transferring to the new system before the first planned migration, which is due to take place in July, and also to compensate people who suffer losses by moving to the new benefit.

But CPAG claims those who are more severely disabled will be more than £100 a month worse off under universal credit than the previous arrangements.

“The government has consistently said no one will be worse off if they move to universal credit without a change of circumstances,” said Carla Clarke, the CPAG solicitor representing the claimants. “But our clients suffered significant income drops. Neither chose to claim universal credit – they were forced to, following incorrect decisions by the DWP.

“We say what happened to them is both irrational and unlawful discrimination, treating them less favourably purely on account of DWP’s own incorrect decisions. To their credit, they are bringing the case to stop any more claimants from having to take the fallout of the DWP’s poor decision-making.“

The case follows a successful High Court challenge against the DWP earlier this month brought by four working single mothers who claimed they were struggling financially because of the way their payments were calculated.

Two senior judges concluded that the secretary of state for work and pensions had “wrongly interpreted” the relevant regulations.

A DWP spokeswoman said: “We are unable to comment on an ongoing legal case. Universal credit is a force for good and over 1.6 million are receiving the benefit successfully.”