Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

The statutory housing benefit scheme requires a balance between assisting claimants with rent and protecting public funds. The primary legislation does not require benefit to meet actual housing costs in every area, nor does it require unrestricted area-based determinations. The Secretary of State may therefore impose national maximum caps on local housing allowance.

The statutory equality duty requires due regard to equality objectives before and when a policy is considered. It is a substantive, non-delegable duty requiring an open-minded and vigorous assessment, but it does not require a formal impact assessment or a particular result. The court reviews whether due regard was given, while the weight assigned to countervailing factors remains primarily for the public authority.

The claimant challenged reforms to housing benefit introduced in March and April 2011. The reforms imposed maximum weekly caps on local housing allowance and reduced the maximum accommodation category from five bedrooms to four.

The claimant alleged that the caps were ultra vires the Housing Act 1996 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It also alleged failures to comply with the general equality duties under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Permission was granted to add the race-equality challenge to the caps.

1. Ultra vires challenge dismissed. The purpose of the housing benefit scheme is to assist with rent while protecting the public purse. The scheme requires an appropriate balance between claimants’ interests and those of taxpayers. It is not designed to ensure that claimants can remain in any chosen area or that benefit covers their actual rent in every locality.
2. Section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State broad power to specify rent officers’ functions in connection with housing benefit. Section 122(6) does not require substantive housing benefit provision in every area. Even if “provision” in section 122(6) were construed more broadly, the legislation contains no express requirement that benefit fully cover any claimant’s actual housing costs.
3. Sections 130 and 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 do not prevent a maximum being set at a level that places some areas beyond a claimant’s reach. The primary legislation contains no requirement for unrestricted area-based determinations or for the use of broad rental market areas. The national caps were therefore lawful.
4. Equality duties. The duties under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 required due regard before and when the reforms were considered. They required consideration with sufficient information, but no formal equality impact assessment and no particular outcome. The court reviewed whether due regard had been given; the weight given to socio-economic and other countervailing factors was for the Secretary of State unless unreasonable or perverse.
5. The July and November 2010 equality impact assessments contained adequate information. There were proper reasons for relying on the Family Resources Survey rather than the Annual Population Survey, and the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the measures may, rather than were likely to, affect ethnic minority groups disproportionately. The claim accordingly failed on all grounds.