The UK High Court has found that delays in personal independence payments (PIP) were unlawful but not in breach of human rights, resulting in no compensation for the applicants.
The applicants, Ms. C and Mr. W, judicially reviewed the Department for Work and Pensions’ PIP application process. The applicants argued that the process was unlawful because it breached the duty on the part of the defendant to act within a reasonable time, it breached their Article 6 right to fair procedures, and that the State had interfered with peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The applicants in question were applying for PIP – which replaced the Disability Living allowance in 2013 – to help them with their cost of living. Ms. C suffered from ME and severe depression. She waited 13 months to have her eligibility assessed. She lived from ‘hand to mouth’ spending £8 a week on food. Ms. C was required to travel some distance for face-to-face PIP assessments, despite the fact that she had explained her difficulty in travelling. She was told if she did not travel her payment would be cancelled. The PIP was eventually granted on the basis of phone and paper evidence. Mr. W was a carpenter who had contracted ulcerative colitis and had his colon removed in 2014. He suffered from significant pain and was no longer able to work. He waited 10 months to have his eligibility assessed. Both applicants were struggling financially with their income consisting of Employment Support Allowance and housing benefit.
In delivering her judgment, Justice Patterson noted that there was no statutory period within which claims for PIP were to be determined but there was a duty for them to be determined within a reasonable period. She noted that the claimants’ cases called for “expeditious consideration” as they were amongst the most vulnerable people in society. She ruled that the delay was “not only unacceptable, but was unlawful”.
Justice Patterson found, however, that there was no breach of human rights, in that a temporary backlog in the application process did not breach Article 6. Article 1, Protocol 1 was also not engaged in this instance. Justice Patterson rejected the applicants’ claim that the case should be treated as a test case for this purpose. She noted that it was “inappropriate to grant a declaration in wider terms because of the considerable variations in individual circumstances”.
Click here to read the judgment in full.