Salvato (claimant/respondent) –v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (defendant/appellant)
Tuesday 27th July – Thursday 29th July 2021
This matter challenges the Order of Chamberlain J (22/1/21) that declared that the application to the Respondent of regulation 33(1)(za) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 was incompatible with her rights under Article 14, read with Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and b. Regulation 33(1)(za) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is irrational.
Universal Credit was introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to replace a range of existing benefits. One of its main aims was to incentivise and encourage recipients to work. An award of UC has a number of elements. Section 12 of the 2012 Act provides that the calculation of an award of UC is to include amounts in respect of such particular needs and circumstances of a claimant as may be prescribed. The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 prescribe the needs and circumstances. One of these is childcare costs. The element of the UC payment referable to childcare costs is known as the childcare costs element or CCE. This case is about the mechanism for assessing and paying the CCE.