A couple from Coatbridge, Scotland is poised to legally challenge a significant policy change that has impacted older people in across the UK. They’re taking the government and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court over the stripping of Winter Fuel Payments from millions of people.
DWP Winter Fuel Payments cut: a legal challenge
Florence and Peter Fanning are taking their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, where a hearing scheduled for Thursday 13 March will discuss their bid to overturn the controversial decision made by chancellor Rachel Reeves to revoke the universality of Winter Fuel Payments for older people.
The DWP Winter Fuel Payment has historically provided essential financial support for older people to help cover heating costs during the colder months. However, in April 2024, the UK government, under Reeves’ directive, ceased the payments for Scottish people, replacing them with the devolved Pension Age Winter Heating Payment.
The transition has led to confusion and, more concerningly, the financial strain for many in the colder months. According to the DWP, a staggering 9.2 million pensioners did not receive this crucial benefit this winter, highlighting a pressing issue affecting some of the most vulnerable in society, particularly those who do not qualify for means-tested benefits such as Pension Credit.
Speaking to the Daily Record, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who is representing the Fannings, emphasised that both the UK and Scottish governments, and the DWP, failed to comply with statutory obligations linked to the Equality Act 2010 before proceeding with such cuts.
She said:
The petitioners raised the petition within the policy decision to revoke the winter fuel payments, made on a Great Britain-wide basis, when the Chancellor announced the policy was to be cut.
A human rights issue?
The Fannings currently live on a household income of £2,365 per month, a situation far from comfortable for any one, particularly amid increasing energy costs.
At a previous hearing, Cherry attempted to frame the case as a human rights issue, citing rights under Articles 8 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was met with resistance from both governments, with Attorney General Andrew Webster KC arguing that the decision should not apply to the Fannings due to Scotland’s devolved powers.
According to Webster, “It’s for each devolved administration to develop its own policies,” suggesting a notable division in how DWP benefits are administered across the UK.
The Fannings – and likely millions of people across the UK – argue that these DWP cuts represent a wider failure to address the needs of older people, who rely on these payments to maintain warmth and adequate living conditions during winter.
Cherry highlighted during court discussions that the “financial position of the petitioners is they are both pensioners on small incomes,” further underscoring the disproportionate impact the government’s cuts have had on disadvantaged individuals.
In his statements, Mr Mure KC, representing the Scottish government, also downplayed the obligation to maintain specific levels for Winter Fuel Payments, claiming the state has limited resources.
He asserted that while the two governments should have properly accounted for the implications of these decisions:
there is not an obligation in law for a Winter Fuel Payment to exist on a particular level for a particular cohort.
DWP: cut after cut after cut
The courtroom has become a battleground not just for the Fannings, but for countless older people across Scotland grappling with the consequences of DWP cuts.
As the case unfolds, the implications reach far beyond the individual couple, revealing the larger systemic issues and changing policies that directly affect older people.
The upcoming court decision promises to be pivotal in determining how the government will address and potentially rectify the situation faced by pensioners deprived of financial assistance in the face of harsh winter conditions.
Featured image via the Canary
