Diane Webb, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A benefits authority may require unredacted bank statements when reviewing entitlement to means-tested Universal Credit, where the information is reasonably necessary to verify income, capital and possible undisclosed assets. That requirement remains subject to privacy, equality and data-protection rights, but those rights permit proportionate interference in pursuit of the legitimate aim of administering benefits accurately. Bright-line rules may produce very hard results in individual cases without becoming irrational or disproportionate. Suspension or termination for non-compliance may also be lawful, provided the authority follows its guidance, gives proper notice and considers whether suspension would cause undue hardship in the circumstances known when the decision is made.

The claimant, a recipient of Universal Credit, challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to require four months of unredacted bank statements during a review of her entitlement. She relied on privacy, data-protection and equality rights, including the effect that disclosure would have on her mental health. She also argued that the Department for Work and Pensions had failed to make reasonable adjustments and had not referred the matter to an advanced customer support senior lead.

The claim was issued after the claimant’s Universal Credit was suspended for refusing to provide unredacted statements. By the hearing, payment had been reinstated. Following a rolled-up hearing ordered by O’Farrell J, the central issues were whether the request was lawful and whether future suspension or termination for non-compliance could lawfully occur, including in light of hardship.

1. The claim was dismissed. Permission was granted following the rolled-up hearing, but the claimant failed to establish that the Department for Work and Pensions’ conduct was unlawful.
2. Regulation 38 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 enabled the Secretary of State to require information or evidence needed to determine whether an award should be revised or superseded. Unredacted bank statements were reasonably connected with that purpose because Universal Credit is means-tested by reference to income and capital. Outgoings could reveal transfers to savings, other assets or arrangements requiring further investigation.
3. The requirement was not rendered unlawful by Article 8, the Equality Act 2010 or Article 6 of the UK GDPR. The relevant rights were qualified, and insisting on complete statements was a reasonable and proportionate means of ensuring accurate and equal administration of a complex benefits scheme. The claimant’s proposed alternative evidence would not have enabled the Department to verify the absence of other assets.
4. The court applied the restraint identified in R (on the application of Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778. A benefits scheme may require bright-line rules which do not accommodate every individual circumstance. Hard or very hard consequences in an individual case do not, without more, establish irrationality or disproportionality.
5. The court was not satisfied that the Department had departed from its guidance by declining to refer the claimant to an advanced customer support senior lead. In any event, section 31(3C)–(3F) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 strongly militated against relief because referral was unlikely to have materially altered the outcome.
6. Hardship principally concerned the lawfulness of suspending payment rather than the lawfulness of requiring statements. Suspension, and potentially termination, could be lawful if the Department complied with its guidance, gave appropriate notice and considered undue hardship by reference to the circumstances and information known when the decision was made. The claim was dismissed.

The judgment records a rolled-up judicial review hearing following an order made by O’Farrell J on 13 March 2026. No appellate decision is stated.