Oh dear forgot to link to judgment in thread: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/aac/202...

We have seen the "this is policy sorry" response often. DWP should take steps to eradicate the practice- a useful start might be a training session on rule of law for all case managers- interesting point here was the policy nonsense came from case managers not decision makers (5 of 5)

Para 31: "The [unrepresented] Appellant in this case has shown remarkable persistence and resilience to maintain his challenge. It is acutely concerning that many other claimants would have given up in the face of the Department’s stalling and thereby been at risk of potential injustice." (4 of 5)

Para 30: "Such statements by DWP officials are, to put it mildly, concerning. They display a worrying ignorance of the principles underpinning the system of adjudication for [...] benefits. They also indicate a woeful lack of understanding of the role of the rule of law more generally." (3 of 5)

Para 28 records DWP response to attempted challenge:
"You have mentioned a mandatory reconsideration, we would not be able to raise this as the way your housing costs are calculated is set out by the government and is not something we can change as this is policy." (2 of 5)

Ministers of course are planning to cut LCWRA as a category altogether... at least then there will be no statistics on it for them to get wrong, just a whole load of much poorer (and probably sicker) people. (2).

@tomroyston.bsky.social and @alexathompson.bsky.social

Thanks to our amazing client for defending the UT judgment in her case and to Tom Royston and Alexa Thompson at Garden Court North who did a great job in the Court of Appeal.

Super deserved. Well done Hubsters.