The High Court allowed a judicial review of DWP's policies in the case of Roberts v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2025), which enable it to deduct payments from a tenant's Universal Credit without first allowing the tenant to make submissions about such deductions. It held that such processes were unlawful.
Diversionary payments allow the DWP to pay a social landlord from a tenant's Universal Credit (UC). Recoupment payments enable the DWP to make deductions from a tenant's UC, when a tenant has a debt to repay. Both forms of payment are made without notifying the tenant until after the DWP agrees to make the payments. At this stage, the tenant is offered an opportunity to request reconsideration.
The Claimant in this case, Mr Nathan Roberts, was a recipient of UC, which included a monthly standard, disability and housing allowance. In March 2024, DWP uploaded entries to Mr Robert's Online Journal, which showed it had agreed to pay his rent / service charge arrears from his UC. In effect, the deduction would be made from his standard and disability allowance and paid to his landlord directly, for the arrears he owed. The DWP also notified Mr Robert that he could seek a review and mandatory reconsideration, which he was entitled to do under its process.
Mr Roberts contented that the deductions were unlawful as the DWP did not consult him before making the deductions, calling the decision "arbitrary and an abuse of process". He alleged that the DWP did not give him the opportunity to challenge the decision or review his landlord's application prior to its decision, and that he was in a dispute with his landlord about the condition of his property which had resulted in him withholding and owing (at least two months') rent arrears.
The High Court held, inter alia, that the minimum standards of procedural fairness required the DWP to inform tenants that a landlord had requested diversionary or recoupment payments and that they be given an opportunity to respond before such changes take effect. The Court noted that sudden deductions to a person's UC, which in cases such as these can be up to 20%, can significantly affect the recipient's finances and "there are real-world impacts and implications" especially where incorrect decisions are made.
The Court subsequently declared that:
The Defendant’s policy of directing her decision makers that it is unnecessary to give Universal Credit claimants an opportunity to make representations before making payments to landlords under reg.58 and/or Sch.6 Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 is unlawful, because it is procedurally unfair.
While the Court's decision is both logical and reasonable, it is also worth noting the Court's view that a tenant can lawfully withhold rent, contrasting the long-held status quo that such deductions are not permissible by tenants and, where made, can jeopardise their tenancies.
