Szoma v Southwark

A local authority may ordinarily change asylum-support payments from payment in advance to payment in arrears where the decision falls within the range of rational administrative choices. That discretion is constrained by the requirement that temporary support remain adequate for the claimant and dependants. Transitional arrangements must not cause hardship to persons who would otherwise be destitute. A payment which is manifestly inadequate for the relevant period is unlawful. The court may require the authority to reconsider the amount of support, but should not itself determine the proper sum.

The claimant and her family received accommodation and cash support from the defendant under the Asylum Support (Interim Provision) Regulations 1999. The defendant changed the cash payments from fortnightly payments in advance to payments in arrears. The transition left the family without support for two weeks, followed by a hardship payment of £120.08.

Judicial review permission was granted by Crane J on 18 November 2002. The claimant challenged the change in payment arrangements and the adequacy of the transitional support. The central issues were whether payment in arrears was lawful and whether the hardship payment complied with the requirement that temporary support be adequate.

1. The application succeeded in part. The change from payment in advance to payment in arrears was lawful. The defendant had rational reasons for the change, including avoiding irrecoverable overpayments and aligning asylum support with other benefits.

2. The court applied the ordinary judicial-review question: whether the decision fell within the range of decisions open to the decision-maker. It was not concerned with whether the judge would have made the same decision.

3. The discretion to determine the manner of payment was subject to the Asylum Support (Interim Provision) Regulations 1999. Under paragraph 4(3), temporary support had to appear adequate for the needs of the claimant and dependants. The authority therefore had to remain alert to hardship caused by the transition.

4. The payment of £120.08 for a fortnight was manifestly inadequate for a family consisting of two adults and five or six children. The decision to limit the hardship payment to that sum was outside the ambit of a properly directed decision-maker and required review.

5. The court declined to determine the correct amount. The defendant was required to reconsider the hardship payment in light of any further representations by the claimant. There was no order for costs. Permission to appeal was refused.

This was a first-instance judicial-review claim. Permission to apply was initially refused on the basis that the challenged decision had been withdrawn. Crane J subsequently granted permission on 18 November 2002. Mr Justice Wall refused permission to appeal.