Judicial review of lawfulness of procedures for Managed Payments to Landlord and Third Party Deductions for rent
The claimant had deductions applied to his UC for both ongoing rent, and arrears. As his social landlord had access to the Landlord Portal, DWP applied their policy of granting Managed Payments on the request of a Trusted Partner, without first allowing the affected tenant to make representations. DWP was therefore unaware that the rent was in dispute in this case. The High Court here decides that DWP's policy on how to apply managed payments, and also the DWP's procedure for approving third party deductions for rent arrears, is unlawful due to its procedural unfairness. DWP accepts that these measures are for the protection of the tenant, not the landlord, and the court noted various reasons why the tenant's input should assist DWP to decide whether or not to apply them. The opportunity for the tenant to challenge a decision after the fact (and in effect likely more than one UC assessment period later), was an insufficient protection.
This follows the Court of Appeal decision in Timson
[2023] EWCA Civ 656, which found that procedures for third party deductions for utility arrears to be taken from ESA without first allowing the claimant to make representations, was similarly unfair and unlawful.
DWP informed the court that:
- an interim policy was now in place which gives a tenant 7 days to provide reasons, and 14 days to provide evidence, to show why a decision to makes arrears deductions or an alternative payment arrangement should be reversed; and
- a further revised policy is planned to be in place by the end of 2025, to align requests from Trusted Landlords with those from other landlords, which are only decided after a 7 day window in which the tenant has been asked to provide any objections.
Blundell & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Case Nos: CO/820/2020 and CO/1616/2020
The High Court ruled that the DWP's policy of automatically deducting the maximum possible amount and its failure to use discretion was unlawful. The Court ruled that the DWP was fettering its discretion by adopting 'a rigid arithmetical formula embodying an inflexible rule, rather than, as the legislation requires, exercising a discretion'.