High court finds that two claimants caring for relatives for upwards of 35 hours a week were effectively in work and should be exempt from cap

The welfare secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, unlawfully discriminated against disabled people by failing to exempt their carers from the benefit cap, a high court judge has ruled.



Mr Justice Collins said the government’s decision to apply the cap to full-time carers for adult relatives had created serious financial hardship for them, forced many to give up caring for loved ones, and loaded extra costs on to the NHS and care services.

The benefit cap, which limits working-age unemployed people to £500 a week in benefits, was introduced by the government on the basis that it sent a strong message to so-called workless families that they had to try harder to get a job.

The court ruled that the two carers who brought the case – and who were caring for upwards of 35 hours a week – were effectively in work even though they were in receipt of benefits, and therefore should be exempt from the cap.

Collins said: “To describe a household where care was being provided for at least 35 hours a week as ‘workless’ was somewhat offensive. To care for a seriously disabled person is difficult and burdensome and could properly be regarded as work.” The court ruled that the government had breached article 14 of the European convention on human rights.

Laywers acting for the secretary of state had argued that unpaid carers should be treated as unemployed people who should have to make the same choices as anyone else about whether to work or cut their living costs. But Collins said those providing full-time care could not be in full-time work unless they gave up or cut back significantly on their caring responsibilities.

Unpaid carers made “a huge contribution to society” and saved the taxpayer the equivalent of £119bn a year, he said. Were carers forced to give up their role, taxpayer-funded services would have to spend huge amounts providing the care instead.

The judge said the government should exempt these carers because “the cost to public funds if the cap is to be maintained is likely to outweigh to a significant extent the cost of granting the exemption”.

The court heard that the benefit cap affects approximately 1,400 people in receipt of carer’s allowance. Up to a quarter of previously full-time carers had stopped or reduced their hours as a result of the cap being imposed.

Collins ruled that by applying the cap to unpaid family carers the secretary of state had unlawfully discriminated against seriously disabled people, because it meant they would no longer receive care from a trusted family member or relation.

He said: “For many it matters deeply that they are cared for by a family member. Thus there is adverse treatment since, although care can be provided by others, the loss of a trusted carer can be devastating”.

The solicitor for the families, Rebekah Carrier, said: “My clients have been hit by the benefit cap because they are disabled or they provide essential care to their disabled relatives. They are not skivers, they are strivers. They provide full-time care and save the state money.”

A Department for Work and Pensions 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.”

The case was brought by two families affected by the cap. In both instances an adult relative was providing essential full-time care to an elderly and disabled grandmother.

One of the claimants, Ashley Hurley, 26, who cares for her grandmother Mary Jarrett, 72, in Peckham, south-east London, said the cap had been a nightmare. She said: “I had understood that the benefit cap was meant to encourage people to work and to address the problem of children growing up in workless families. I do not understand why it should apply to me as I do work, looking after my grandmother.”

If she stopped caring, the state would have pick up the tab for her grandmother’s care, she said: “I do not feel that I would be able to allow this to happen, and I do not understand why the government would think it was better for the state to care for my grandmother instead of her own family.”

Heléna Herklots, chief executive of Carers UK, which supplied evidence to the court in support of the challenge, said: “Subjecting those who provide unpaid care to the benefit cap is unfair, counterproductive and inconsistent with the government’s stated aims for the policy. We hope the government accepts the high court’s decision and brings forward new regulations to give all carers equal rights.”

The ruling is the second this year to criticise the benefit cap. In March the supreme court found that although the cap was legal, it left claimants unable to house, feed or clothe their family and was therefore in breach of the UK’s obligations on international human rights.