C & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Anor

A public authority operating a statutory benefits scheme must determine applications within a reasonable time. The assessment is contextual. It includes the claimant’s vulnerability and hardship, the statutory entitlement, the causes and scale of delay, available resources, administrative arrangements and remedial steps. A system need not achieve ideal standards, but delay caused by an irrational system remains unlawful. Article 6 is not engaged by delay in determining an uncontested benefit application before any dispute exists. Article 1 of Protocol 1 is not engaged before entitlement to the benefit has been established. Relief for unlawful delay may properly be confined to declarations concerning the individual claimants where circumstances vary materially between claimants.

The claimants sought judicial review of delays in processing their applications for Personal Independence Payment under the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Their claims alleged breach of the public law duty to act within a reasonable time, Article 6 of the Convention, and Article 1 of the First Protocol.

Both applications were eventually determined and awards were backdated. The first claimant waited approximately thirteen months and the second approximately ten months. Zacchaeus 2000 Trust intervened and relied on evidence of wider delays and hardship. The central issues were whether the individual delays were unlawful, whether the Convention provisions applied before a dispute or confirmed entitlement arose, and what relief was appropriate.

1. Reasonable time. The Secretary of State was under a public law duty to determine PIP applications within a reasonable time. The assessment required consideration of all the circumstances, including the statutory entitlement, the claimant’s vulnerability and hardship, the complexity of the assessment, the causes of delay, resources, and the rationality and fairness of the administrative system. The court was not required to identify the best system or highest attainable standard. However, unacceptable delay could not be excused by insufficient resources where it resulted from an irrational system.
2. The delays in the two individual claims were unlawful. The claimants were significantly disabled and required expeditious consideration. The first claimant had been identified as requiring additional support, yet the system twice required her to attend a distant face-to-face assessment despite her explained difficulties. The evidence showed substantial backlogs, inadequate testing before roll-out, capacity problems among assessment providers and significant hardship. The defendant’s later remedial measures were relevant but could not excuse the earlier handling of these claims.
3. The claims were not suitable as general test cases. Disability and hardship were highly fact-sensitive, and the evidence did not establish that the claimants were typical. The wider systemic declaration sought was therefore inappropriate.
4. Article 6. The determination of entitlement to PIP concerned civil rights, but Article 6 was not engaged by delay occurring before any dispute existed between the applicant and the decision-maker. Ground two failed.
5. Article 1 of the First Protocol. An application for PIP did not constitute a possession before entitlement had been determined under the statutory criteria. The authorities concerned confirmed entitlements or disputes about entitlement. The provision was therefore not engaged. Alternatively, the assessment process pursued the public interest in targeting the benefit fairly and efficiently.
6. Section 93 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 used broad language and could permit amendments to transitional provisions, including timing provisions. The Secretary of State was not obliged to consider that power as a mandatory material consideration, and the issue did not require determination because remedial measures were addressing the backlog.
7. The claim succeeded only on ground one. The appropriate relief was a declaration that the delay in each claimant’s case was unlawful. The wider declaration and monetary relief were refused; grounds two and three failed.