High Court finds 2017 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Regulations unlawful

Published: December 21 2017

 High Court finds 2017 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Regulations unlawful

The High Court has found that part of the rules governing Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) are unlawful and discriminate against people with mental health impairments.  The full judgment can be read here.

The Public Law Project’s client, RF, had all three grounds of her case accepted by the Court (RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions). The judge quashed the 2017 Personal Independence Payment Regulations because they discriminate against those with certain disabilities, in breach of Human Rights Act 1998. As they were discriminatory the judge also found that the Secretary of State did not have lawful power to make the Regulations (i.e. they were ‘ultra vires’) and he should have consulted before making them, because they went against the very purpose of what the PIP regime sought to achieve.  Contrary to the Secretary of State’s defence, the judge found that the decision to introduce the Regulations was ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ and commented that the wish to save money could not justify such an unreasonable measure.

The judge heard that the Regulations were laid by negative resolution in February 2017, received relatively little parliamentary attention, and were rushed through the parliamentary process by the Secretary of State.

During the trial, the Secretary of State accepted that the testing carried out for PIP had not looked at whether the basis for treating those with psychological distress differently was sound or not, and the testing done was limited.

RF’s claim was supported by The National Autistic Society, Inclusion London, Revolving Doors and Disability Rights UK. All of those organisations gave statements to the court that the Regulations were unfair and that the intention to treat those with psychological distress differently had not been made clear in the early PIP consultation stages. The claim was also supported by two interveners: Mind and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC made written submissions to the Court on the ongoing and persistent breaches by the UK Government of its obligations under UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities arising from its austerity measures. The Judge found that this inconsistency with the UN Convention supported his finding that the measure had no objective justification.

RF said, ‘This judgment is important for a community of people with mental health problems fighting for their lives against discrimination.’

Note to Editors:

The case was previously known as SM and RF, but is now known as RF v Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions. There is an anonymity order in place protecting SM and RF. Further enquiries can be made to o.persey@publiclawproject.org.uk

Back