Court Finds Benefits Cap Discriminates Against Disabled People's Carers
Page 1 of 1
Court Finds Benefits Cap Discriminates Against Disabled People's Carers
Iain Duncan Smith suffered defeat on Thursday when a High Court judge ruled that his plan to cap carers' benefits was discriminatory.
The ruling comes after two carers brought the case against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) following concerns that the benefits cap would unfairly hurt those who care for their disabled children and relatives.
Carers are able to claim about £60 a week if they care for relatives. These claims, however, can be included in the £500 benefit cap.
Those who care for children or spouses are exempt from the benefits cap, but people who look after another adult, such as parents, grandparents or disabled children over the age of 18, have their benefits included in the £500 cap.
On Thursday, the High Court ruled that family carers who receive Carer’s Allowance should be exempt from the benefit cap.
Campaigners have welcomed the decision, highlighting the damaging effects the cap would have had on carers looking after disabled relatives.
Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “We are pleased that the court has found the impact on disabled people of losing a family carer had not been properly considered.
“The effect could be profound and the loss of a trusted carer devastating.
“The substantial reduction of income could jeopardise the ability of those affected to continue to care for severely disabled relatives. The court noted that the Secretary of State did not provide any information to Parliament about the effect on disabled people if their family carer were unable to continue.
“The court also held that, rather than saving public money, it would cost considerably more for the care to be provided by local authorities or the NHS.”
The High Court ruled that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had indirectly discriminated against unpaid carers for disabled family members by failing to exempt them from the benefits cap.
The Court upheld the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission that carers’ Article 14 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been contravened by not considering the impact on disabled people.
A DWP spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court agrees that the benefit cap pursues a legitimate and lawful aim.
“The Government values the important role of carers in society – and 98% are unaffected by the cap. We are considering the judgment and will respond in due course.”
Today's ruling comes after the government made a series of embarrassing u-turns during the Autumn Statement on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, the government also lost a "landmark" legal battle regarding the teaching of GCSE Religious Studies in schools
The court ruled yesterday that Education Secretary Nicky Morgan had made "an error in law" following complaints from families supported by British Humanist Association that priority had been given to religious views, particularly Buddhism, Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/benefits-cap-discriminate-disabled-peoples-carers-court_n_8655438.html?1448556947
Up yours IDF, preferably with a very sharp implement.
The ruling comes after two carers brought the case against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) following concerns that the benefits cap would unfairly hurt those who care for their disabled children and relatives.
Carers are able to claim about £60 a week if they care for relatives. These claims, however, can be included in the £500 benefit cap.
Those who care for children or spouses are exempt from the benefits cap, but people who look after another adult, such as parents, grandparents or disabled children over the age of 18, have their benefits included in the £500 cap.
On Thursday, the High Court ruled that family carers who receive Carer’s Allowance should be exempt from the benefit cap.
Campaigners have welcomed the decision, highlighting the damaging effects the cap would have had on carers looking after disabled relatives.
Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “We are pleased that the court has found the impact on disabled people of losing a family carer had not been properly considered.
“The effect could be profound and the loss of a trusted carer devastating.
“The substantial reduction of income could jeopardise the ability of those affected to continue to care for severely disabled relatives. The court noted that the Secretary of State did not provide any information to Parliament about the effect on disabled people if their family carer were unable to continue.
“The court also held that, rather than saving public money, it would cost considerably more for the care to be provided by local authorities or the NHS.”
The High Court ruled that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had indirectly discriminated against unpaid carers for disabled family members by failing to exempt them from the benefits cap.
The Court upheld the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission that carers’ Article 14 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been contravened by not considering the impact on disabled people.
A DWP spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court agrees that the benefit cap pursues a legitimate and lawful aim.
“The Government values the important role of carers in society – and 98% are unaffected by the cap. We are considering the judgment and will respond in due course.”
Today's ruling comes after the government made a series of embarrassing u-turns during the Autumn Statement on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, the government also lost a "landmark" legal battle regarding the teaching of GCSE Religious Studies in schools
The court ruled yesterday that Education Secretary Nicky Morgan had made "an error in law" following complaints from families supported by British Humanist Association that priority had been given to religious views, particularly Buddhism, Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/benefits-cap-discriminate-disabled-peoples-carers-court_n_8655438.html?1448556947
Up yours IDF, preferably with a very sharp implement.
Guest- Guest
Similar topics
» Boy with no arms or legs told he must prove he is disabled to keep benefits
» Charities 'very worried' after leak suggests Tories plan to tax disabled benefits if re-elected
» Shropshire mother in call on benefits rules after work interview trauma for severely disabled son
» Survey Finds Working From Home Has So Many Benefits, 48% of Workers Would Take Pay Cut to Continue
» Supreme court to decide whether UK benefits cap is unlawful
» Charities 'very worried' after leak suggests Tories plan to tax disabled benefits if re-elected
» Shropshire mother in call on benefits rules after work interview trauma for severely disabled son
» Survey Finds Working From Home Has So Many Benefits, 48% of Workers Would Take Pay Cut to Continue
» Supreme court to decide whether UK benefits cap is unlawful
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:28 pm by Ben Reilly
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:14 pm by Tommy Monk
» Interesting COVID figures
Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:00 am by Tommy Monk
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:33 pm by Tommy Monk
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:59 pm by Tommy Monk
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
Mon Dec 12, 2022 1:21 am by 'Wolfie
» Quill
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:28 pm by Tommy Monk
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:04 pm by Tommy Monk
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:19 am by Ben Reilly
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:02 pm by Maddog
» PHEW.
Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:33 pm by Syl
» And here's some more enrichment...
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:46 pm by Ben Reilly
» John F Kennedy Assassination
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:40 pm by Ben Reilly
» Where is everyone lately...?
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:33 pm by Ben Reilly
» London violence over the weekend...
Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:19 pm by Tommy Monk
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:44 am by Tommy Monk
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:11 pm by Tommy Monk
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:58 am by Tommy Monk
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:50 pm by Tommy Monk
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...
Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:31 pm by Original Quill