iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

The two claimants LL and AU have done a service to many others in their position by persisting in hard fought litigation - and great job in a complex case by all team at @leigh-day.bsky.social

140

(This also appears to be first case from a senior court holding s.19A EA 2010 breached.)

121

Trafford will have to revisit all 2025 council tax reduction decisions. Other councils will need to consider how they approach scheme creation. All public authorities will need to consider the lessons on the pitfalls of introducing automated decision making

132

Scheme was attempting to facilitate more automatic decision making, but effect was council didn’t understand sufficiently how it worked, and may have let 'tail wag dog' – fitting scheme to computer rather than other way round.

131

- Ultra vires because the full council didn’t vote on it – scheme adoption unlawfully delegated - Irrational and discriminatory because its rules double-counted some income, particularly disability related income - Breached PSED because council didn’t understand or evaluate disability impact

120

The decision is R (LL and AU) v Trafford Council [2025] EWHC 2380 (Admin) (19 September 2025). Read it here: files.gcnchambers.co.uk/wp-content/u...

files.gcnchambers.co.uk

Really important High Court decision today, quashing a local authority’s council tax reduction scheme. The judgment contains many lessons about these schemes. Trafford's scheme was ultra vires, irrational, and unlawfully discriminatory, and breached the PSED @rightsnet.org.uk @nawra.bsky.social

Judgment header of R (LL and AU) v Trafford Council [2025] EWHC 2380 (Admin) (19 September 2025)

1106

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 16/09/2025

I once worked in a CAB which had a bath upstairs. But we escaped tough questions from the media about it.

010

The Court of Appeal gave permission to appeal in this case on 15 September 2025. Full hearing probably later this year/early next.

130

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 03/09/2025

For the latest news and ideas from the front line in social welfare law, Garden Court North Chambers is now on Bluesky @gcnchambers.bsky.social - follow now, while stocks last!

011

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 18/07/2025

Judgment here: www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u...

judiciary.uk

100

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 18/07/2025

High Court today dismisses judicial review challenge to operation of the 'rape clause' in the two child limit. Exempting non-consensually conceived children if they are born third or later, but not if they are born first or second, is lawful. Claimants seeking permission to appeal.

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 12/07/2025

The AAC hear appeals against decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service, eg to stop people from working as care workers. If you look for cases where the DBS is respondent you will see there are quite a lot www.gov.uk/administrati...

gov.uk

Administrative appeals tribunal decisions

Find decisions on appeals to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), including social security and child support appeals.

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 12/07/2025

They are all subject matter descriptors (in social security cases, you see suffixes like ‘PIP’ or ‘UC’ which are both probably self explanatory to you). I *think* the two you ask about will be ‘Health and Social Care’ and ‘Vetting’

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 29/05/2025

Proposed disability benefit changes would decrease number of people exempted from benefit cap. End of two child limit, if it happens (+any annual benefit rate increases) would increase number affected by benefit cap. In combination, could make benefit cap a *lot* more significant in years to come

021

Reposted by Tom Royston

the3million @the3million.bsky.social · 14/05/2025

We're in the Court of Appeal today - defending EU citizens' rights to live with dignity. 👩🏾‍⚖️ This case is about achieving equal welfare access for people with pre-settled status - with no unfair barriers. www.crowdjustice.com/case/eu-citi...

crowdjustice.com

Help us defend EU citizens’ rights to live with dignity

the3million is the largest grassroots organisation for EU citizens in the UK, formed after the 2016 referendum to protect the rights of people who have made the UK their home.

146

Reposted by Tom Royston

Alice Welsh @awelsh.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

Are the EU free movement rules wildly out of step with the new realities of work? My new book, the MARKET CITIZENSHIP ILLUSION answers this by looking at the law in action – and it is available now to *everyone for free*! www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?do... 🧵on key arguments... (1/10)

125020

Reposted by Tom Royston

Alan Markey @alancov.bsky.social · 02/05/2025

Come and join us for our 50th anniversary summit and celebration. Link below.

032

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 16/04/2025

The 0.5m difference between those figures presumably represents DWP's guesses about (i) behavioural change, and (ii) background trends. The expectations about behavioural change must therefore be enormous: DWP expect the background trend to be growth not contraction. @rightsnet.org.uk

152

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 16/04/2025

So 1.34m current claimants would not meet the proposed new requirement. But DWP's projection of the real world impact is in contrast only 0.8m: Impact Assessment, Table A4: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67e667...

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

124

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 16/04/2025

DWP's wording is unhelpful, but I think actually the stats being provided re the 'all' and the 'any' FOIs are the same: if you sum 13% of 1.6m (standard DL) and 87% of 1.3m (enhanced DL) you get an overall 46% of the 2.9m total DL awards excluded.

141

Reposted by Tom Royston

Paul Treloar @paulietandoori.bsky.social · 16/04/2025

DWP figures in response to FOI request indicate 87% of claimants currently receiving PIP daily living component at standard rate, and 13% of claimants receiving enhanced rate are likely to lose their entitlement if “score 4” changes go ahead. That means virtually everyone on standard rate PIP.

057

Reposted by Tom Royston

Cornerstone Barristers @cornerstonebarristers.com · 15/04/2025

Admin Court today: claimant challenges the DWP’s refusal to pay Universal Credit using common law powers, after supporting his child’s cancer treatment abroad. Raises key questions about state discretion & welfare. @jogilvieharris.bsky.social is instructed by North West London Law Centres.

113

Reposted by Tom Royston

Will Ford @willfordosblaw.bsky.social · 02/04/2025

Amending regs to the legal aid Remuneration regs now out and take effect from 1 May 2025. Reintroduces an escape fee for Welfare Benefits legal aid casework. Very pleased to have played a role in bringing about this change. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/41...

legislation.gov.uk

011

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 28/03/2025

Wednesbury! If I was their council I would put FAMOUSLY REASONABLE on all the road signs

111

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 27/03/2025

Ribblehead, but I don’t have a photograph, and it is less handy for the tube

010

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · 26/03/2025

Extraordinary use of statistics. DWP might as well claim their proposals will massively improve child mortality because they have decided not to proceed with Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents. The ‘previous Conservative plans’ are not in effect, are not law, and the Conservatives are not in power!

11114

Reposted by Tom Royston

Charlotte O'Brien @cobrien.bsky.social · 21/03/2025

How many UK Supreme Court judges do you think ever acted as lawyers for a claimant in a social security case? ZERO. *Extremely nervous* to announce this rather bolshy ('somewhat contentious' and 'robust in tone') piece in the JSSL. I argue there is a 'professional diversity deficit' in UKSC, AND...

Screenshot of title and abstract of journal article. Title is 'The professional diversity deficit: the UK Supreme Court’s social security law blind spot'. Abstract is: 'It is no secret that the UK Supreme Court lacks demographic diversity. But there is very little commentary on a different diversity gap—that of professional experience. UK Supreme Court judges are typically drawn from lucrative areas of legal practice, creating a pronounced professional practice gap in the realm of social security law. None of the sitting Supreme Court judges have ever acted in a reported security case for social security claimants against the State. This creates a problem of perspective; would we really expect a panel of Goliath advocates to give David a fair hearing? This article highlights the hitherto under-explored evidence of a professional deficit on the Court, and argues that this cannot help but have an influence upon judicial perspectives. One such possible influence is the “alegalisation” of social security law—the treatment of it as not-law but as a matter of pure politics. Here, the article analyses how the line is drawn in key cases, in which it seems the Court feels responsible for defending some “pure law” human rights, while defending the courtroom from other human rights claims—those relating to social security. But poverty is a human rights issue, and human rights are (still) a matter of law. We need to bring social security expertise and claimant perspectives to the bench if we are to reassert the legal nature of social security rights.'

1611047

Most workplace pension schemes (e.g. the one which members of parliament benefit from) address the social risk of permanent incapacity for work, and provide for medical retirement. If MPs reasonably need that, why not others?

070

Time limiting to 6-12 months would make the system *vastly* meaner for people who have eg. worked all their life, then get permanently ill in their 50s-60s (perhaps with a life limiting condition which means they will never collect a retirement pension).

162

An important part of the function of contributions based ESA currently is as a medical retirement income replacement benefit for people who become permanently incapable of work.

151