A major legal battle has erupted over cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment, with a case now unfolding in Scotland’s highest court.
The challenge, brought forward by two pensioners, has sparked fresh scrutiny over the Government’s decision, with claims that the changes could be unlawful.
They allege both governments failed to adequately consult with pensioners before ending the £300 benefit for thousands across the country last year.
The Fannings, aged 73 and 72, claim the decision was “irrational” and breached their human rights. They are seeking to have the policy set aside and the payment restored for all pensioners through a judicial review.
The couple’s legal team argues that both governments failed to conduct proper equality impact assessments before implementing the cuts.
Joanna Cherry KC, representing the Fannings, told the court there was an “abject failure” by both governments to assess the risk of adverse impacts on vulnerable people.
She said the UK Government was bound by obligations under the 2010 Equalities Act, while the Scottish Government had similar requirements under regulations from 2012.
The Fannings also claim there was a “legitimate expectation” that consultation would take place before such significant changes affecting millions of pensioners.
Cherry told the court: “There were a very significant number of people impacted by this decision.”
Fanning, who suffers from health issues, told BBC Scotland News he was “frightened” to put the central heating on due to increased costs.
He said: “It would be nice to be able to get up in the morning and not worry about if I put the heating on it’s going to cost me X amount.”
The couple’s gas bill has doubled in the past two years, while their electricity bill has nearly doubled from £60 to £110 per month. Fanning said they only run their central heating for about an hour a day.
The decision to cut the payment could be “unlawful for reasons of irrationality and unreasonableness”
GETTY
She said: “We got a new cooker about five or six months ago and what I noticed was the oven runs away with an awful lot of electricity. So what we do now we tend not to use the cooker as much. Now we’re using the air fryer.”
Cherry told the court her clients are “elderly pensioners” with disabilities who “struggle to afford to heat their home in the winter”.
She argued the decision to cut the payment could be “unlawful for reasons of irrationality and unreasonableness”.
The court heard the UK Government knew the cuts would cause “significant excess winter deaths” and jeopardise the health of “vulnerable pensioners”.
Cherry added the decision was taken knowing it would result in 100,000 pensioners falling into relative poverty, and 50,000 into absolute poverty.
She told Lady Hood the policy decision and regulations are “tainted” by the failure to properly carry out an equality impact assessment.
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions defended their position, stating: “We are committed to supporting pensioners – with millions set to see their state pension rise by up to £1,900 this parliament through our commitment to the triple lock.”
The DWP highlighted that many pensioners will continue to benefit from the warm home discount and an extended household support fund.
A Scottish government spokeswoman said the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment would provide “universal support” to all pensioner households next winter. She added that winter heating payments worth £58.75 are now being issued to those on low incomes in Scotland.
The Government also increased funding for its national fuel poverty scheme by £20m
GETTY
The government also increased funding for its national fuel poverty scheme by £20m.
A judicial review is a court proceeding where a judge examines the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body. It challenges how a decision was made rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion.
The Fannings’ case centres on whether proper procedures were followed before cutting the winter fuel payment. If the court rules in their favour, it could potentially restore the benefit for millions of pensioners across the UK.
The hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh is expected to last two days. Fanning said he was going to court to “give a voice” to other pensioners affected by the cuts.
