A High Court decision on 21 December 2017 in the matter of RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin) granted permission to seek a judicial review against the introduction of changes which affected higher (enhanced rate) disability benefit payments for claimants with mental health conditions. Paragraph 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which came into effect on 16 March 2017,  was challenged as being discriminatory. The amendment affected PIP for mobility activities so that PIP would only be paid for mobility activities if the disability was for reasons other than psychological distress. Prior to the amendments the criteria taken into account for determining whether PIP would be awarded for the mobility element was based on whether a claimant could not plan the route of a journey or follow the route of an unfamiliar or familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. Under the amended regulations if the reason for impaired mobility was for “psychological distress” and no other reason then a PIP claim for mobility activities would not be awarded. Tens of thousands of claimants were potentially affected.

This part of the amendment was challenged and after hearing legal arguments for claimants and for the Government the High Court decided that there was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and that Paragraph 2(4) of the 2017 regulations was discriminatory and could not be objectively justified.

The Government announced in January this year that it would not be appealing the judgment; a welcome decision for claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions is now undertaking the task of reviewing 1.6 million disability benefit claims “a complex exercise of considerable scale”.