‘I’ve tried to do this for my kids’: families who took on unjust benefits decisions

When Trudi and Gavin Scott moved again to the UK from New Zealand with their severely disabled son, Theo, in December 2016, it was the beginning of a “horrendous” few years of monetary battle triggered by the household being refused disability living allowance.

At one level, when Gavin had to surrender work to take care of Theo whereas Trudi was recovering from a serious operation, they’d to scrape by on baby profit, tax credit score money and meals financial institution vouchers, inflicting them to fall behind with payments.

But in October 2020, in a case introduced by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) – one of many Guardian and Observer’s 2020 appeal charities – they and one other household efficiently challenged the lawfulness of the DLA eligibility guidelines.

“Four years of fighting just to get something for my son, who is a child and is disabled … I can’t tell you the stress and the strain,” mentioned Trudi Scott, 50. She and Gavin, who is a jail officer, dwell simply exterior Norwich.

“We’re British parents, which makes him British. We worked here for all the years before we left for New Zealand [in 2005], we’ve paid into the tax system, we’ve never claimed benefits except child benefit, and my husband has fought for his country [in the Falklands] and is a key worker,” she mentioned, including: “DLA is a passport for other help … If you haven’t got the DLA, it doesn’t entitle you to any of the other help you can get.”

Theo, who is now 12, has Down’s syndrome, a uncommon bladder dysfunction and different circumstances together with autism.

An upper tribunal decision discovered that the principles relating to how lengthy folks have to be within the UK earlier than being eligible to declare DLA had breached Theo’s human rights. As a consequence, the household is entitled to £22,910 (the DLA cash he misplaced out on, plus the disabled baby factor of kid tax credit and carer’s allowance), which they’d spend on modifications to the home to assist Theo. However, it’s removed from sure whether or not they’ll ever obtain this cash, as the federal government may but enchantment towards the choice.

“It’s [about] fighting the government, and who’s bigger than the government?” mentioned Trudi. “For us, it’s not about the money … we don’t want other families to suffer the way we did.”

The Scott’s case is simply one of the crucial latest in an extended line of profitable authorized actions the CPAG has mounted towards illegal or unjust social safety decisions.

In 2016 it won a “bedroom tax” case at the supreme court, which means families with disabled youngsters who wanted in a single day care would now not be penalised. More just lately, CPAG has achieved authorized victories on every thing from common credit score to the funds made to a household when the mom or father dies.

Kevin Simpson, 41, an engineer who lives in Chester, misplaced out on a “life-changing” bereavement benefits payout – a lump sum of £3,500, plus £350 a month for 18 months – purely as a result of he and his late companion, Debbie, who died of breast most cancers in 2018, weren’t married (they have been engaged however then “events took over”).

CPAG took up his case, and that of one other widower, arguing that limiting higher-rate bereavement support payment (BSP) to spouses was incompatible with human rights regulation and discriminated towards youngsters of single dad and mom. In February 2020 the high court ruled in their favour.

Asked about how they’d been managing financially over the previous few months, Simpson mentioned: “You do what you can do – you carry on. It’s all you can do … I’ve tried to do this for my kids, and for the next person this is going to happen to.”

It is estimated that every yr, about 2,000 families with youngsters lose out on funds value up to £9,800. It is feasible Simpson may but obtain the cash his household missed out on. After the decision, the federal government said it would bring forward a remedial order to prolong BSP to cohabitees with youngsters. But this has not occurred but, and it’s not recognized whether or not it will likely be utilized retrospectively in full.

CPAG additionally represented Sharon Pantellerisco, who in July 2020 won a high court victory towards the Department for Work and Pensions after she was benefit-capped and left up to £463 a month worse off due to the way in which common credit score calculated her month-to-month earnings (the federal government has since been given permission to enchantment the ruling).

Pantellerisco, a 41-year-old care employee and single mother-of-four from Southport, Merseyside, was penalised purely because her employer paid her every four weeks rather than monthly.

“It was so, so hard financially [and] it was affecting my children as well. I couldn’t even go out and buy them any clothes or shoes, I couldn’t take them out or treat them – the general stuff you do as a family,” she mentioned. She was compelled to rely on meals banks, whereas her youngsters’s faculty helped with uniforms.CPAG picks its authorized battles fastidiously, focusing on strategic public curiosity circumstances. Carla Clarke, its solicitor, mentioned that since autumn 2016 the charity had taken on 15 circumstances. Of these, it has gained 9 and misplaced three, with the remaining on enchantment.

Clarke mentioned: “You can get so far with policy work and campaigns work. This is about using the law to hold government bodies legally accountable for ensuring that the rights of children to a decent standard of living are recognised.”

• Please donate to the Guardian and Observer enchantment here. The enchantment closes at midnight on Sunday 10 January