Campaigners responded with rage after judges supported Iain Duncan Smith in the harsh bedroom tax and benefit capping. It’s a significant setback, as the Court of Appeal denied claims that the welfare reforms were illegal.
Lawyers announced the decision left thousands of victims of the despised system in danger of destitution and removal from their homes, and in an additional setback, it surfaced that the Work and Pensions Secretary Mr Duncan Smith and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling are contemplating charges for anybody disputing social security decisions.
Judge Lord Dyson admitted that the bedroom tax and benefits capping were the most contestable measure, and recorded that Mr Duncan Smith was cognizant the benefit clampdown would generate hardships to a few, perhaps numerous people who are on benefits, but the court still denied allegations that the bedroom tax, which deducts housing benefit off council householders with a spare room, was not illegally discriminating the disabled.
It as well threw out claims that the benefit capping infringes human rights law and common law because of its impact on defenseless families, and Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, announced the court could step in only if the measures were manifestly without feasible grounds, but the test was not satisfied, and both challenges failed, so he decreed in favour of Mr Duncan Smith’s policies.
Lawyers said they are baffled by the outcome and signalled that they would appeal to the Supreme Court.
The proceedings were drawn to court in the interest of two women who were coerced into temporary accommodation after escaping violent marriages, and five disabled victims of the bedroom tax.
Lawyer Rebekah Carrier stated the judges had deserted sufferers of household violence, and Ugo Hayter, who was representing two disabled appellants said, an appeal to the Supreme Court was under consideration, he also stated that he was greatly dissatisfied by the decision and was baffled by the judgments.
Anne McMurdie, who acted for three other disabled people stated, that the government had endeavored to make savings by targeting the most defenseless, and that on the government’s own figures at least 440,000 disabled homes would suffer under the current regulations.
She in addition stated that there was compelling and increasing confirmation of the conflicting appalling repercussions on disabled householders, because they were having to make the terrible choice between paying the rent and purchasing food or heating their houses. Disabled householders are not requesting additional funds, they are asking for housing benefit to be afforded at a level which reaches their requirement, for the equivalent right as another person, and that discretionary payments are not the answer.
This ruling is a setback for campaigners and a significant setback for the four hundred thousand disabled people who are feeling the impact of this policy. For the greater number of disabled people there are no spare bedrooms. These are essential rooms because the greater number of people affected by this policy are disabled.
Disabled people are being forced to move, or attain the additional money they don’t have to pay their rent, but of course the Department of Work and Pensions are gratified that the courts have once again found in their favour and agreed their policies are legitimate.
They also announced, that reconstructing of housing benefit in the social quarter is a need to guarantee the long term sustainability of the benefit, but apparently they have secured discretionary housing assistance, which is accessible for defenseless folk.
The decision came as leaked official papers exposed that the Ministry of Justice was looking to charge people who appealed benefit decisions. The government review stated that the installation of a charge for people making appeals in opposition to such decisions to social security tribunals was under inquiry by officials.
This could see people having to pay as much as £250 if they want to appeal for having their benefits deducted or axed, and when the government’s own figures exhibit a huge 58% of appeals in opposition to the Department for Work and Pensions decision to dock Jobseeker’s Allowance, it’s obvious that the system is falling apart.
Rather than punishing thousands of people by charging them to appeal, ministers need to inquire why they are presiding over a broken system which is making so many poor decisions, which are upturned on appeal, particularly when the government has made it plain that decreasing the deficit is their topmost priority.
Evidently it’s fair that the Ministry of Justice looks at all opportunities to bring down the cost of the services to the taxpayer, and they think that it’s ethical to look upon those who use tribunals should make a bigger donation to their costs, where they can furnish to do so, which is why they introduced charges for employment tribunals last year.
Evidently in January, it was disclosed that the Department for Work and Pensions had misplaced £1.2 billion as a consequence of deception, £1.6 billion because of blunders by benefits claimants and £800 million by officials paying out too much, in spite of the Prime Minister, David Cameron’s promise of an unyielding crackdown on fraud and mistakes at the department.
There are 550,000 retired persons living overseas who have made a payment for an indexed pension, which has been frozen, and they get no increases at any time. These pensioners live in the Commonwealth mainly, but there are roughly 650,000 retired persons living in some other place, like the USA, the Philippines, Macedonia and Israel, and additionally the EU who get the yearly increases in the same way as if they were living in the United Kingdom.
This is not just wrong, but its wrongful discrimination, and the Pensions Minister has even had the impertinence to include the equivalent policy to the new Pensions Bill in clause 20. This will freeze impending pensioners and displays particularly the lewdness of the current government ministers, and especially those who battled for this to be modified in opposition and the situation is the same right now as it was then.
This move to charge for appeals is the ultimate resolution to the legal difficulties. They took money off Citizens Advice so they could not act for people, then stopped legal aid, and presently they propose charging the most poverty stricken and defenseless people in society. The Bishops came out in the face of this unlawful band of racketeers who are destroying the welfare system that has supported the disadvantaged for decades since the last war.
The Churches should now set up a fighting fund to back claimants if they bring in these charges, for this would be a genuine test of Christian benevolence for all who actually believe, and if victorious, would bring additional embarrassment on this assemblage of psychotic criminals.