PB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

In this case, the Upper Tribunal has given its decision which concerns the compatibility with Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 1 Protocol 1) of rules capping the eligible mortgage loan of those of state pension age at £100,000 for the purposes of calculating the amount of benefit payable by way of help with mortgage interest for those receiving state pension credit.

The appellant had been claiming help with mortgage interest continuously since about 1989.  Under the income support regime then prevailing, there was no upper limit on the amount of a mortgage loan in respect of which such help could be claimed.  Subsequently, from 1993 onwards, a cap was imposed, subject to transitional protection for those who had claimed income support continuously since an earlier date.  Upon transferring to the state pension regime after reaching pensionable age, the appellant became subject for the first time to the cap.  He sought to challenge that position as constituting age discrimination contrary to ECHR Article 14 read with Article 1 Protocol 1.  The Secretary of State resisted the claim both on jurisdictional grounds and on its merits, submitting detailed evidence as to the policy justification for the different treatment of those of pensionable age.

The Upper Tribunal accepted the Secretary of State’s case both on jurisdiction and on the merits of the human rights point. As to the latter, it was common ground that the approach to be taken was that set out by the Supreme Court in Humphreys v HMRC [2012] UKSC 18.  The decision to limit the benefits available was set against a background of limited resources; there was statistical evidence showing that significantly fewer pensioner claimants (compared with those of working age) still had mortgages exceeding the £100,000 cap; there was also evidence that those of pension age were less likely to be subject to repossession proceedings when arrears did arise; and there were other options available to those of pension age (such as the availability of equity release products) which were not available to those of working age.  Accordingly, the position was justified as striking a fair and proportionate balance between the interests of taxpayers generally on the one hand and those of homeowners claiming benefit on the other.

Emma Dixon (instructed by DWP solicitors) appeared for the Secretary of State.