Welfare Benefit in UK Law

Equally, the fact that the line may have been drawn imperfectly does not mean that the policy cannot be justified. Of course, there will come a point where the justification for a policy is so weak, or the line has been drawn in such an arbitrary position, that, even with the broad margin of appreciation accorded to the state, the court will conclude that the policy is unjustifiable.

In terms of the person who moves within a local housing authority area, the position appears to be dealt with (albeit curiously) in regulation 6(3) of the Transitional Regulations. That provides that a person makes an application for a benefit if he takes any action which results in a decision on a claim being taken under certain regulations.

In those circumstances, the 2013 Regulations pursue a legitimate aim, namely the proper allocation of resources and the appropriate method of structuring a welfare benefits system to provide, amongst other things, assistance to those with disabilities. The conclusion reached on how to achieve those aims was not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

On the material before me, there appears to have been no consideration of the desirability or justification for requiring the individual to assume the entirety of the difference between income related benefits under the former system and universal credit when their housing circumstances change and it is an appropriate moment to transfer them to universal credit.

However it is clear from what we have already said that in order to qualify for prosecution at all, the offence must be something other than minor, and it seems to follow that it will only be the apparently more serious cases which will come before the Crown Court. These offences involve the dishonest abstraction of honest taxpayers' money, and are not to be treated lightly. They are easy to commit and difficult and expensive to track down.

Although Mr Armstrong invoked section 21B of the DDA, his submissions focused on the general duty under 49A. That is understandable, because in my view, putting to one side whether the Administrative Court is an appropriate forum for a section 21 claim, there are insuperable difficulties in the claimantclaimant establishing that there has been discrimination as defined in section 21D.

Fairness is a protean concept, not susceptible of much generalised enlargement. But its requirements in this context must be linked to the purposes of consultation. Such are two valuable practical consequences of fair consultation. But underlying it is also a third purpose, reflective of the democratic principle at the heart of our society.