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 3 Version 4
Single mothers lose benefits cap legal battle Single mothers lose benefits cap legal battle
(about 4 hours later)
Lone mothers and their children have lost their legal challenge to the government's flagship benefit cap policy. Senior judges have rejected an attempt to challenge the lawfulness of the central plank of government's welfare policy.
Two high court judges ruled on Tuesday that new capping regulations introduced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, are lawful. The policy imposes a £500-a-week cap for couples or lone parents on benefits, including housing benefit, child benefit, and child tax credit, if they do not work enough hours to qualify for working tax credit.
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 families affected by the cap had argued that it unlawfully discriminates against children and women, particularly those affected by domestic violence.
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. The claimants' lawyers described the cap as a "cruel and arbitrary" policy that would trap vulnerable women in violent relationships, and would reduce capped household income to a level that would make it it impossible for parents to provide adequate food, clothing and other essentials for their children.
Dismissing their claim for a 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". But two high court judges dismissed the claim for a judicial review, ruling that although the cap may be seen by some to be "too parsimonious" it was consistent with a "broad political concept of fairness" outlined by the secretary of state for work and pensions.
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". Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that the cap 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".
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. A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions 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 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. Rebekah Carrier, a solicitor acting on behalf of the families, said she intended to appeal against the ruling.
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. She said: "We are disappointed by this judgment. Two of the claimant families had fled domestic violence. The court failed to grapple with the difficulties caused by the way that women seeking a safe space for themselves and their children are charged for their accommodation, including in women's refuges.
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." "It is shocking that government ministers failed to ensure they were properly informed about how the cap would actually work in practice and the adverse impact on lone parents, victims of domestic violence and children".
Carrier, from law firm Hopkin Murray Beskine, said the DWP's 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. Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid charity, said: "No woman should be forced to choose between homelessness and domestic violence, but this decision will present many women with that choice. We urge the government to act swiftly to fulfil its earlier promise to make refuges exempt from the benefit cap, and to ensure there is enough emergency funding available to women fleeing domestic violence."
The legal challenge was supported by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Women's Aid Federation. The three mothers and the youngest child from each family had asked the judges to rule that the cap unlawfully breached the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect home and family life.
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. One of the claimant mothers, known as "MG", has lived in temporary accommodation in London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for five years. A Roma with refugee status, she has four children living with her. Under the cap her income reduced to £104.50 a week, or £2.98 per person per day. She is receiving a temporary discretionary payment from the council which tops up her income to £3.38 a week, but she will become destitute when this runs out.
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."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". She said that when the temporary help from the council expires "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. Another applicant "NS", is a mother of three daughters aged between three and 11 living in Haringey in north London who, the court heard, fled "horrific" sexual and domestic violence and abuse from her husband. The court heard that if she were living with her husband, who receives working tax credit, the cap would not apply, but the judges noted that "no one suggests returning to her husband is a practical proposition in NS's case".
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, "SG", from an Orthodox Jewish family in north London, . She has six children, three of whom are living with her. She has also fled alleged sexual and physical violence.
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.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.
A study of the first four months of the benefit cap in Haringey, published by the Chartered Institute of Housing last month, found it was failing to achieve its aims. It was neither forcing unemployed people to take a job nor saving taxpayers' money.
The study noted "several reports" of women choosing to stay with violent partners with a job, because they believed that if they took the children and left the family home they would be subject to the benefit cap.
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.