Pensioners have taken the DWP and Labour Party government to court over the Winter Fuel Payment axe.
State pensioners have had a Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) perk scrapped – with little prospect of it the decision being reversed. Pensioners have taken the DWP and Labour Party government to court over the Winter Fuel Payment axe.
But the £300 payment axe complied with the Equality Act, they’ve been told. Pensioners Peter and Florence Fanning are challenging the UK and Scottish governments in court over the move to means-test the £300 payouts.
The couple argue the DWP failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes. But Andrew Webster KC, representing the UK Government, argued the decision to cut Winter Fuel Payments complied with the Equality Act 2010.
READ MORE 11 counties in England face ‘3cm per hour’ snow next week with 723 miles covered
Webster KC said on Friday “the reasons why the petitioners do not get pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) is because they are just below the threshold” for the devolved Scottish benefit. He added there is “no general common law duty to consult residents who may be affected by such a law”.
Mr Webster said: “At all stages, pensioner poverty and the effect of pensioner poverty was being considered, and effects to mitigate were being put forward – what can be done to encourage take-up, to encourage those who aren’t claiming but who are entitled to get the benefit of winter fuel payment.”
Mr Webster said a deliverability assessment on 20 July “identified that the policy will have a higher proportion on couples; older pensioners will be less affected”. He claimed it had been “done with rigour”, adding: “Clearly considerations and possibility have been put forward and adopted, it is structured, it has looked at the details.
“It has been recorded, so it can be seen.” Mr Webster cited “engagement with Age UK and the Citizens Advice Bureau”, and said documents looked at “the impact of pensioners in poverty” and those just above the threshold who would experience “cash loss”.
In his submission, Mr Webster argued the Equality Act had been “complied with”.
