Category: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Personal Independence Payments, State Benefits Sanctions, and Ableism

Disability is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses a wide range of conditions, from physical impairments to mental health challenges. According to the Equality Act 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This broad definition captures the reality that disability is not a static condition and affects individuals differently.

However, there is a persistent misconception that if a person can manage certain basic tasks—such as washing, dressing, or socializing—then they are “less disabled” or even not disabled at all. This notion is not only misguided but can also perpetuate discrimination against disabled individuals.

Common Misconceptions and Everyday Functionality

Let’s examine some of the activities often used to judge whether a person is disabled:

1. Washing, Bathing, and Using the Toilet: Just because someone with a disability can wash, bathe, or use the toilet independently doesn’t mean they don’t face significant challenges in other areas of life. For example, they might need specialized equipment or assistive devices to carry out these tasks. Additionally, the energy expended on such tasks can be much greater for a disabled person, leaving them fatigued or in pain afterward.
2. Dressing and Undressing: Being able to dress or undress independently does not negate the existence of a disability. Many people with physical impairments or conditions like rheumatoid arthritis can perform these tasks, but they might do so with difficulty, pain, or using adaptive clothing.
3. Reading and Communicating: The ability to read or communicate may be impacted by disabilities, but having strategies or tools to manage these functions doesn’t diminish a person’s disabled status. For instance, individuals with dyslexia or visual impairments may use audio books or screen readers to help them read, while those with speech impairments may rely on assistive communication devices.
4. Managing Medicines or Treatments: Managing medication is an essential part of living with many chronic illnesses and disabilities. While some individuals can manage their medication independently, this doesn’t mean their disability is any less severe. For instance, the process might require them to structure their entire day around medication schedules, which could affect their ability to engage in other activities.
5. Making Decisions about Money: People with disabilities might manage their finances effectively, but this can still be more challenging due to factors like cognitive impairments or mental health conditions. The ability to make financial decisions doesn’t diminish the reality of their condition or the broader limitations imposed by their disability.
6. Socializing and Being Around Other People: Social interaction can be extremely difficult for some individuals with disabilities, particularly those with mental health disorders, autism, or anxiety-related conditions. While they may appear social in certain situations, they might struggle significantly in others or require recovery time afterward. Disabilities such as OCD or sensory disorders can affect how and when they engage with others, even if they are seen socializing in certain contexts.

The Flexibility of Disability

Disability is not an all-or-nothing condition. It is a spectrum, and people who live with disabilities often manage their lives around their conditions. They may have good days where they can perform tasks independently, and they may have bad days when even the simplest tasks seem insurmountable. The ability to perform a specific task on occasion does not make someone any less disabled. Many disabled individuals adopt strategies, use assistive technology, and build routines to help them navigate their daily lives more efficiently. This does not negate their disability; rather, it shows their adaptability and resilience in the face of adversity.

Is It Discrimination?

The assumption that being able to complete certain tasks makes someone “not disabled” can indeed be a form of discrimination. This perspective dismisses the lived experiences of individuals who face significant challenges, even if they can perform basic activities independently. It can also lead to the denial of necessary support, accommodations, and benefits, based on an overly simplistic view of what disability entails.

By focusing only on what a person can do, rather than understanding the broader impact of their condition, society often overlooks the full scope of their disability. This kind of narrow thinking can perpetuate ableism—the discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities—by suggesting that only those who are completely dependent are “truly” disabled.

People with disabilities do manage their lives around their disabilities, but that does not make them any less entitled to recognition and support. Their ability to perform specific tasks in no way negates the broader limitations and struggles they experience as part of their condition. For example, just because someone with a mental health condition can socialize on occasion does not mean they are not disabled, and just because someone with a physical impairment can dress themselves using adaptive tools does not mean they are free from the restrictions imposed by their condition.

Is It Against the Law to Cause Financial Hardship by Altering or Stopping State Benefit Payments?

State benefits, such as those provided by the UK government, exist to support individuals facing financial difficulties, disabilities, unemployment, or other life circumstances that make it challenging for them to meet their basic needs. These payments are often a lifeline for vulnerable individuals, ensuring they can cover essential living costs like housing, food, and healthcare. But what happens when those benefits are altered or stopped altogether? Can this be considered a violation of the law, particularly if it causes financial hardship?

Legal Framework Governing State Benefits

In the UK, state benefits are administered primarily by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The distribution of these benefits is governed by several pieces of legislation, such as the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which set out the rules for eligibility, assessment, and payment of benefits.

Changes to a claimant’s benefits, including reductions or the halting of payments, must follow legal procedures. These can occur for various reasons, including:

• Changes in the claimant’s circumstances (e.g., an increase in income or improvement in health)
• Failure to meet the required criteria for a particular benefit
• Sanctions imposed due to non-compliance with benefit conditions

While the government is allowed to make changes to an individual’s benefits, these changes must be carried out in accordance with the law and follow established protocols. However, when these changes cause undue financial hardship, questions arise about whether they could be unlawful.

Can Benefit Cuts or Stoppages Lead to Financial Hardship?

When someone relies on state benefits to meet basic living expenses, any reduction or cessation of payments can have significant, sometimes devastating, consequences. For individuals with little or no other income, stopping benefits can lead to:

• Rent arrears and eviction
• Inability to afford food or utilities
• Debt accumulation
• Mental and physical health deterioration due to stress and lack of resources

The question is whether causing this type of financial hardship through benefit changes could be considered illegal.

Is It Against the Law?

While the government has the right to administer and adjust state benefits, it must do so in a way that is lawful, fair, and transparent. There are several ways in which causing financial hardship by altering or stopping benefit payments could cross the line into unlawful territory:

1. Failure to Follow Due Process: The DWP must follow legal processes when changing or stopping benefits. This includes:
   • Providing written notification of any changes
   • Explaining the reasons for the changes
   • Giving claimants an opportunity to challenge the decision through appeals or mandatory reconsiderations If these steps are not followed, the decision could be deemed unlawful. For instance, unexplained deductions or sudden stoppages without written notification can violate the claimant’s right to due process.
2. Breaches of Human Rights: Under the Human Rights Act 1998, individuals are entitled to certain basic rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living. If altering or stopping benefits leads to severe financial hardship, it could be argued that the government is breaching its duty to protect these rights. For example, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) could be invoked if the stoppage of benefits causes severe destitution or health issues. There have been instances where claimants have taken their cases to court, arguing that changes to benefits have breached their human rights, particularly where the consequences are extreme. For example, the controversial benefit sanctions regime has been legally challenged on the grounds that it imposes undue hardship and disproportionately punishes individuals for minor infractions.
3. Indirect Discrimination: In some cases, changing or stopping benefits can lead to claims of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. For example, if a disabled person is disproportionately affected by benefit changes because their condition makes it harder for them to meet new criteria, they may argue that the changes amount to unlawful discrimination. The law requires reasonable adjustments to be made to accommodate disabled individuals, and failure to do so could be legally challenged.
4. Judicial Reviews: Individuals have the right to seek judicial review if they believe that a government decision, including one about benefits, was made unlawfully. A judicial review could determine whether the decision-making process was legal, fair, and reasonable. If the court finds that the process was flawed, it can order the DWP to reinstate benefits or revise its procedures.

Notable Legal Cases

There have been several high-profile cases where changes to benefit payments have been successfully challenged:

• R (Connor) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2015): In this case, the High Court ruled that the “bedroom tax” unfairly discriminated against disabled individuals and was therefore unlawful. The decision led to changes in the law, providing exemptions for certain disabled people.
• R (on the application of Carmichael and Rourke) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2016): The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of the benefit cap on carers violated their human rights, as it left them unable to meet essential living costs.

These cases demonstrate that causing financial hardship through benefit reductions can, in some circumstances, be deemed unlawful, especially if the government’s actions are deemed unfair or discriminatory.

Conclusion: Is It Unlawful to Cause Financial Hardship?

In summary, while the government has the authority to change or stop benefits, it must do so within the bounds of the law. If benefit cuts or stoppages cause financial hardship due to a failure to follow due process, breaches of human rights, or discrimination, they could indeed be challenged as unlawful. For benefit claimants, the key is to be aware of their rights and the legal avenues available to them if they believe they have been treated unfairly. Legal challenges, including appeals, judicial reviews, and human rights claims, have been successful in holding the government accountable for decisions that cause undue financial hardship. Therefore, while it is not automatically against the law to change or stop benefit payments, doing so in a way that causes avoidable hardship without following proper legal protocols could be considered a violation of the law.

The definition of disability should never be reduced to a checklist of tasks. The ability to wash, dress, manage finances, or socialize does not negate the presence of a disability. A person’s disability is defined by the challenges they face in navigating the world, not by their occasional ability to perform basic tasks. Discrimination arises when assumptions are made based on incomplete or simplistic understandings of disability. Therefore, recognizing that disability is a spectrum, and respecting the unique experiences of disabled individuals, is key to avoiding ableist attitudes and ensuring equitable treatment for all.

Further Reading:

• DWP finds disability benefit system is damaging to claimants’ health (msn.com)
• R (on the application of Daly and others) (formerly known as MA and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) (supremecourt.uk)
• High Court rules mandatory reconsideration requirement for ESA claimants unlawful | Disability Rights UK
• Equality Act 2010 | EHRC (equalityhumanrights.com)
• Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Department for Work and Pensions – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
• Welfare Reform Act 2012 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment | EHRC (equalityhumanrights.com)
• https://publiclawproject.org.uk/content/uploads/2022/10/Benefit-Sanctions-Research-Report-v0.7.1.pdf