This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33020987

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
PIPs disability benefit delay unlawful, says High Court PIPs disability benefit delay unlawful, says High Court
(about 1 hour later)
A delay in paying welfare benefits to two disabled people was "unlawful" but did not breach their human rights, the High Court has ruled. A delay in paying welfare benefits to two disabled people was "unlawful", the High Court has ruled.
The unnamed pair had said their nine-month waits for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) left them dependent on loan sharks and food banks. A judge said nine and 13-month waits for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) for two of the "most vulnerable people in society" were unreasonable.
The government said the rejection of their "absurd" human rights claim meant they were not entitled to compensation. But the court ruled the pair's human rights were not breached which means they are not entitled to compensation.
But the pair's lawyers said the ruling showed "clear failings" in the scheme. The pair's lawyers said the ruling showed "clear failings" in the system but ministers said it was improving.
There are currently 78,700 people waiting to hear if they can claim PIP, of whom 3,200 have waited more than a year to have their claims processed, and 22,800 have waited more than 20 weeks.There are currently 78,700 people waiting to hear if they can claim PIP, of whom 3,200 have waited more than a year to have their claims processed, and 22,800 have waited more than 20 weeks.
'Test case' rejected
The claimants, known only as Ms C and Mr W, said delays meant they struggled to pay for food and fuel, and this caused their health to decline.
Ms C waited from September 2013 to October 2014 to have her eligibility assessed while Mr W waited from February to December 2014.
Their lawyers said they had a right to the benefits and should have received them within a "reasonable time".
The judge ruled that in both cases, the delay was "not only unacceptable, as conceded by the defendant, but was unlawful".
The judge said both cases suffered significant disabilities and therefore called for "expeditious consideration" and that the DWP's actions regarding these cases was "unreasonable in the sense of being irrational".
The pair had argued their claim should be a treated as a test case but the judge rejected this.The pair had argued their claim should be a treated as a test case but the judge rejected this.
In her ruling, Mrs Justice Patterson said that due to the "considerable variations in individual circumstances", it would be "inappropriate" to grant a declaration in wider terms covering other cases of late payments. In her ruling, Justice Patterson said that due to the "considerable variations in individual circumstances", it would be "inappropriate" to grant a declaration in wider terms covering other cases of late payments.
She added: "I do not think it is the role of the court to give guidance in a situation which has been evolving and with which the defendant now appears to be grappling in a way which is entirely appropriate." The court heard that the two claimants had asked Mrs Justice Patterson to declare that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith breached common law and human rights duties to make payments within a reasonable time.
The court heard that the two claimants, Ms C and Mr W, had asked Mrs Justice Patterson to declare that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith breached common law and human rights duties to make payments within a reasonable time. This breach was caused, they said, because of the magnitude of the delay but Justice Patterson ruled this was not the case.
This breach was caused, they said, because of the magnitude of the delay.
The judge ruled that in both cases, the delay was "not only unacceptable, as conceded by the defendant, but was unlawful". However, the judge did not find that their human rights had been breached.
What are Personal Independence Payments?What are Personal Independence Payments?
PIPs are benefit payments to help people aged 16-64 with "some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability".PIPs are benefit payments to help people aged 16-64 with "some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability".
They are available to employed and unemployed people, and claimants can receive £21.80 to £139.75 a week, depending on how their condition affects them.They are available to employed and unemployed people, and claimants can receive £21.80 to £139.75 a week, depending on how their condition affects them.
This is determined by an assessment, and claimants are regularly reassessed, but government figures show more than 3,000 have been waiting for more than a year for their claims to be processed.This is determined by an assessment, and claimants are regularly reassessed, but government figures show more than 3,000 have been waiting for more than a year for their claims to be processed.
From April 2013, PIPs began replacing Disability Living Allowance.From April 2013, PIPs began replacing Disability Living Allowance.
This process is ongoing and the government says everyone who needs to switch to PIPs should have been contacted by late 2017.This process is ongoing and the government says everyone who needs to switch to PIPs should have been contacted by late 2017.
'Most vulnerable'
The claimants said delays meant they struggled to pay for food and fuel, and this caused their health to decline.
Their lawyers said they had a right to the benefits and should have received them within a "reasonable time".
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued the delays were unacceptable but not unlawful, and said more than 800 extra staff were assigned to work on PIPs after problems emerged.
Justice Patterson said in Ms C's case the delay was some 13 months, from 9 September 2013, until the determination of her benefit on 24 October 2014.
In Mr W's case the delay was from 3 February 2014 until December 2014.
The judge said both cases suffered significant disabilities and therefore called for "expeditious consideration".
She added: "They were each to be regarded as the most vulnerable people in society."
'Rethink' rollout'Rethink' rollout
The judge also heard that the National Audit Office said the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had not left enough time to fully test the government's new benefit system before it took on new claims in June 2013.
The DWP had agreed the delays were unacceptable but argued they were not unlawful, and said more than 800 extra staff were assigned to work on PIPs after problems emerged.
Anne-Marie Irwin, the public lawyer leading the cases, said it was a "significant legal judgement".Anne-Marie Irwin, the public lawyer leading the cases, said it was a "significant legal judgement".
She added: "Today's decision sends a clear message that the unacceptable delays faced by many people, may also be unlawful.She added: "Today's decision sends a clear message that the unacceptable delays faced by many people, may also be unlawful.
"While the decision is undoubtedly welcome and emphasises the clear failings seen with this scheme, attention must now turn to rethinking the planned wider rollout in October until reassurances can be provided that the delays seen in the past are not repeated in the future."While the decision is undoubtedly welcome and emphasises the clear failings seen with this scheme, attention must now turn to rethinking the planned wider rollout in October until reassurances can be provided that the delays seen in the past are not repeated in the future.
"In addition, while this case related to two specific clients, it is vital that the other thousands of people who have experienced delays are not forgotten.""In addition, while this case related to two specific clients, it is vital that the other thousands of people who have experienced delays are not forgotten."
Mr Tomlinson said he was pleased the court has recognised the "huge progress" made by the DWP.Mr Tomlinson said he was pleased the court has recognised the "huge progress" made by the DWP.
He added: "The average new Pip claimant now waits only seven weeks for an assessment.He added: "The average new Pip claimant now waits only seven weeks for an assessment.
"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.""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."
Elliot Dunster, of the disability charity Scope, said the judgement "demonstrates the importance of extra costs payments to disabled people".Elliot Dunster, of the disability charity Scope, said the judgement "demonstrates the importance of extra costs payments to disabled people".
Richard Kramer, from the national deafblind charity Sense, said these cases were "a reminder that there is some way to go before the system can be regarded as fit for purpose and customer-facing for all disabled people".Richard Kramer, from the national deafblind charity Sense, said these cases were "a reminder that there is some way to go before the system can be regarded as fit for purpose and customer-facing for all disabled people".