Atherton, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

Public authorities must anticipate the communication needs of disabled service users. Compliance requires more than adopting a suitable policy. Systems and staff must operate so that reasonable adjustments are available in practice.

For the public sector equality duty, the court must assess whether the decision-maker conscientiously considered the statutory equality objectives and relevant disadvantages. It must not substitute its own view of the weight to be given to those matters or micromanage implementation.

A communication practice breaches the duty to make reasonable adjustments where it places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage and the defendant fails to take objectively reasonable steps to avoid it. An imperfect workaround may satisfy the duty where it addresses the disadvantage and more extensive technological change would be disproportionate.

The claimant, who was homeless and had chronic fatigue syndrome, received legacy social security benefits administered by the defendant. Postal communication was difficult because he lacked a fixed address and could not reliably travel to collect mail. He sought communication by email as a reasonable adjustment.

The defendant initially refused, relying on security concerns, but during the proceedings offered a workaround. Correspondence would be sent to an Alternative Formats team, converted into email, and forwarded to the claimant. The claimant challenged the arrangement under the public sector equality duty and the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Permission was granted on those two grounds. The central issues were whether the defendant’s adoption and implementation of the workaround complied with the equality duty and whether it constituted a reasonable adjustment.

1. Outcome. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The defendant’s earlier approach had breached its statutory duties, but the workaround offered by the time of judgment was capable of amounting to a reasonable adjustment and complied with the public sector equality duty.
2. The public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is proactive and anticipatory. The defendant had to anticipate that disabled benefit claimants might require alternative communication formats, design its systems accordingly, and train staff to offer adjustments in practice. At the date of the claim, the DWP had failed to ensure that frontline staff understood and implemented this obligation. A policy on paper was insufficient.
3. In assessing due regard, the court considered whether the defendant had identified the disadvantages, examined available alternatives, assessed the risks and costs, and approached the issue rigorously and with an open mind. The DWP had recognised the risk that the workaround might divert correspondence from other departments, considered a more extensive IT solution, monitored the problem, and introduced safeguards. The court could not substitute its own assessment of the relative weight of equality considerations and cost, or micromanage the chosen system.
4. The postal communication practice placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. His homelessness and disability made it difficult for him to collect mail, creating a risk that appointments would be missed and benefits stopped. Until April 2017 the DWP had taken no reasonable step to avoid that disadvantage.
5. The later workaround directly addressed the disadvantage by providing email communication. The claimant had not shown that the arrangement created a further substantial disadvantage. The risks concerning other government departments, homelessness records, email headings, staff identity and payment information were either mitigated or insufficiently evidenced. Given that the relevant benefits system was a legacy system due to be replaced by Universal Credit, an expensive overhaul was not a reasonable step to require.
6. The court emphasised that the decision did not establish general compliance by the DWP. Continuing concerns remained about proactive staff training and signposting. The claim nevertheless failed on the arrangements actually offered to the claimant.

The judgment records that permission to seek judicial review was initially refused on the papers, but limited permission was later granted on the public sector equality duty and reasonable-adjustment grounds. The High Court then determined those grounds at first instance.