Welfare and Human Rights

The right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment may be at risk when refusing welfare support to someone leaves them destitute.

Eight-year-old W was a British citizen living with his mother, J, who was a Ghanese national granted leave to remain in the UK. J’s immigration status meant that she had no recourse to public funds – meaning she was unable to access most benefits including child benefit. This is known as an NRPF condition. Although J worked as a carer for disabled people, the NRPF condition meant that she and W lived through periods of destitution, including becoming street homeless at one point. In some circumstances, the Home Office can remove the NRPF condition but the guidance to caseworkers made it sound like they could only do this if applicants are already suffering inhuman or degrading treatment. The court said that the Home Office should remove the condition when someone was about to suffer this treatment, rather than waiting for it to happen. This meant the guidance breached W’s Article 3 rights. The Home Office was ordered to rewrite the guidance and pay £3,000 damages to W.

The right to a fair trial (Article 6) may be at risk where bad advice from a public authority can undermine court proceedings.

Daniel applied to receive Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) but was refused after a medical exam. Daniel asked the Job Centre to contact his GP to help him gather evidence, but they did not. Daniel appealed the refusal and the case went to the First-Tier Tribunal. Daniel asked the Job Centre for advice, and they told him not to do anything. The appeal carried on without him, but he would have had a better chance of success if he had sought legal advice and appeared at court. The First-Tier Tribunal agreed with the Job Centre’s decision. The Upper Tribunal later found that the Job Centre had given him bad advice, and this had impacted the case and breached his right to a fair trial (Article 6) under the Human Rights Act. The decision was set aside and had to be made again following a fair procedure.

The right to private and family life may be at risk when removing welfare support can result in a family facing financial hardship and being unable to visit their family whilst in care.

Craig’s son, Cameron, had severe disabilities and both his parents had to give up their work to care for him. Cameron was admitted to hospital for symptoms of chronic bowel obstruction and remained there for over one year, with one of his parents with him at all and remaining as his primary caregivers. His parents had to pay for travel and other expenses during this time which came to around £8,000. However, the DWP had a policy of stopping children’s Disability Living Allowance payments after 84 days in hospital. This caused the family financial hardship, and the Supreme Court found it was a breach of their right to possessions as well as their rights to family life and to be free from discrimination. Parliament decided to change the rules as a result.

The right to be free from discrimination may be at risk if public authorities create or apply policies in a way that discriminates between physical and mental health issues when providing welfare support.

In RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2017), the High Court considered changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) rules that excluded people from receiving mobility support if their difficulties were caused by psychological distress rather than physical impairment. These amendments were introduced to overturn an earlier tribunal decision that had recognised mental health-related barriers to travelling. The claimant argued that the new rules were unfair, discriminatory, and introduced without proper consultation.

The Court agreed, ruling that the changes were “blatantly discriminatory” against people with mental health conditions because they treated them less favourably than those with physical disabilities, even when their needs were similar. It found the policy was not justified—particularly as it was partly driven by cost-cutting—and breached the right to be free from discrimination (Article 14) under the Human Rights Act. As a result, the government chose not to appeal and instead reviewed around 1.6 million PIP claims, recognising the need to correct the unfair impact of the changes.

The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions may be at risk when public authorities fail to protect recipients of welfare benefits from loss of income due to changes in welfare policies.

In TP & AR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2018), two severely disabled claimants challenged how Universal Credit was introduced. When they moved to a different local authority area, they were forced onto Universal Credit, which did not include extra disability payments they had previously received. As a result, they lost over £170 a month, causing serious hardship—while others with similar needs who did not move area kept their higher payments under the old system.

The High Court ruled that although the design of Universal Credit itself was lawful, the way it was implemented was unfair and discriminatory. It found that forcing some disabled people to switch systems without any financial protection—while others in similar situations were treated more favourably—was a breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1, Protocol 1) and the right to be free from discrimination (Article 14) of the Human Rights Act. The court declared this difference in treatment unlawful, meaning the government had to reconsider and fix the system to address the inequality.