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

The claimant, a homeless person with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, challenged the Department for Work and Pensions' refusal to communicate by email on the grounds that that conduct breached the public sector equality duty (s149 Equality Act 2010) and the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disability (s20 and Schedule 2, Equality Act 2010). The DWP had initially refused email for reasons of data security, but later offered a pragmatic "workaround" whereby system-generated postal correspondence would be redirected to an Alternative Formats team which would convert and email it to the claimant, subject to consent and safeguards.

The court found that historically the DWP had failed to meet its obligations — frontline staff had not consistently applied the policy and the claimant had suffered resultant disadvantage — but that the DWP had engaged with disability organisations, established a taskforce, and implemented the workaround while recognising its limitations and monitoring its operation. The judge concluded that, as applied to the claimant, the workaround addressed the substantial disadvantage arising from reliance on post and that a wholesale and costly IT overhaul of legacy systems was not a reasonable alternative in the circumstances (particularly given the roll-out of Universal Credit). The claim for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

The claimant, who suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and is homeless, alleged that the DWP's insistence on postal communication (and its refusal to send confidential decision letters by email) breached (i) the public sector equality duty under s149 Equality Act 2010 and (ii) the duty to make reasonable adjustments under s20 and Schedule 2 Equality Act 2010. He sought declaratory relief that the DWP's refusal was unlawful and a direction for appropriate communication by email.

The factual background set out that the claimant had longstanding benefits on legacy schemes, had on occasions missed assessments because he could not reliably receive or collect post, and had tribunal decisions recognising communication difficulties. The DWP relied on data security policies and legacy IT constraints; it had, however, a policy permitting email as a reasonable adjustment and had been engaging with the RNIB and other organisations to improve alternative format provision.

The central issues framed by the court were:

• whether the DWP had complied with the public sector equality duty (s149 Equality Act 2010) in respect of advance and practical provision of alternative formats; and
• whether the DWP had discharged the duty to make reasonable adjustments (s20 and Schedule 2 Equality Act 2010) as applied to the claimant, in particular whether the proposed "workaround" was a reasonable step.

The court analysed statutory principles and authority on the PSED and reasonable adjustments, examined extensive witness evidence (including claimant testimony, other claimants' experiences, and NGO submissions), and considered the DWP's technical evidence about legacy IT and the costs of a full systems change. The judge accepted that the DWP had been in breach of its duties at the time the claim was issued because frontline awareness and practice lagged behind policy. The DWP subsequently implemented a revised arrangement: system mail routed to a central Alternative Formats team which converts and emails correspondence to the claimant; the claimant's CIS address is set to the AF team with consent and a procedure for returning non-DWP mail to senders.

The judge concluded that the workaround, though imperfect and carrying identifiable risks, had been devised with awareness of those risks, was accompanied by mitigations, and was a proportionate and reasonable step in the context of legacy IT constraints and the impending migration to Universal Credit. The court therefore dismissed the claim, whilst emphasising ongoing concerns about consistent frontline application of policy and the need for proactive anticipatory compliance with equality duties.

The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The court held that although the DWP had previously failed to comply with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (both the public sector equality duty and the duty to make reasonable adjustments) by failing to ensure consistent frontline provision of email/alternative formats, the workaround now offered to the claimant (central Alternative Formats team converting post to email, with consent and safeguards) constitutes a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances and the DWP had had due regard to equality obligations in formulating and implementing that approach. The court accepted that a full IT overhaul would be disproportionate and unreasonable given legacy systems and the roll-out of Universal Credit.