This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/05/benefits-cap-high-court-rejects-challenge

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Benefits cap: high court rejects legal challenge by lone mothers Benefits cap: high court rejects legal challenge by lone mothers
(35 minutes later)
Lone mothers and their children have lost their legal challenge to the government's flagship benefit cap policy.Lone mothers and their children have lost their legal challenge to the government's flagship benefit cap policy.
Two high court judges ruled on Tuesday that new capping regulations introduced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, are lawful.Two high court judges ruled on Tuesday that new capping regulations introduced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, are lawful.
The capping affects housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credit to families who do not work sufficient hours to qualify for working tax credit, and is set at £500 per week for couples or lone parents.The capping affects housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credit to families who do not work sufficient hours to qualify for working tax credit, and is set at £500 per week for couples or lone parents.
Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, say the "cruel and arbitrary" measure is reminiscent of the days of the workhouse, and the women fear it will leave them destitute.Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, say the "cruel and arbitrary" measure is reminiscent of the days of the workhouse, and the women fear it will leave them destitute.
Dismissing their claim for judicial review, Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that many considered the cap to be "too parsimonious" but they ruled it was "ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts".Dismissing their claim for judicial review, Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that many considered the cap to be "too parsimonious" but they ruled it was "ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts".
During the court hearing, lawyers for the Department for Work and Pensions argued the cap was "manifestly justifiable to make savings, and seek to reduce the fiscal deficit, by capping benefits at the level of average earnings".During the court hearing, lawyers for the Department for Work and Pensions argued the cap was "manifestly justifiable to make savings, and seek to reduce the fiscal deficit, by capping benefits at the level of average earnings".
A DWP spokesman said: "We are very pleased that the court has ruled that the benefit cap complies with the European convention on human rights.
"The benefit cap sets a fair limit to what people can expect to get from the welfare system - so that claimants cannot receive more than £500 a week, the average household earnings."
The three mothers and the youngest child from each family had asked the judges to rule that the cap unlawfully breaches the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect for home and family life.
Ian Wise QC, appearing for the families, told the judges at a hearing last month that capping would result in families receiving state assistance "below destitution levels" and less than that afforded to asylum seekers.
Rebekah Carrier, solicitor acting for the claimants, who come from the boroughs of Hackney, Haringey, and Hammersmith & Fulham, said: "This is a cruel and arbitrary policy."
Carrier, from law firm Hopkin Murray Beskine, said the DWP claim that families hit by a loss of benefits would be protected by additional funding through discretionary housing payments (DHPs) was misleading as DHPs were only short-term solutions.
The legal challenge was supported by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Women's Aid Federation.
The campaign groups warn that the "unjustifiable" cap threatens to reduce the income of poor mothers - especially those from ethnic and religious backgrounds with traditionally large families fleeing domestic violence - to a level that makes it impossible to provide adequate food, clothing and other essentials.
The mothers who brought the challenge include "MG", a member of the Roma community who fled Poland 16 years ago and was granted refugee status in the UK.
She has been granted a DHP for 13 weeks, but fears what will happen when the payments end.
The judges were told that she had lived with four of her five children, aged between 12 months and 15 years, in damp, rodent-infested accommodation in Fulham for five years after her husband left her.
Outside court, she said through an interpreter: "My number one priority in life is my children and the second is to bring them up as proper citizens of this country."
She said that if the cap bit "I cannot imagine how I am going to manage".
Another applicant is "NS", a mother of three daughters aged between three and 11 living in Haringey who, the court heard, fled "horrific" sexual and domestic violence and abuse from her husband.
She is living in a two-bedroom, privately rented flat, which was the former matrimonial home before her husband was forced out by a court order.
The third mother is "SG", who is from an Orthodox Jewish family in north London. She has six children, three of whom aged three to nine are living with her. She has also fled alleged sexual and physical violence.
Carrier said it was expected that the impact of the cap would be most acute in London because of the lack of affordable housing in the capital and high housing benefit costs.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.