A DWP computer system that automatically allows landlords to grab money from the benefits of their tenants has been ruled “unlawful”.
The court ruling follows a challenge by a tenant who was outraged to find the Department for Work and Pensions () had docked £500 from his Universal Credit payment at the request of his landlord.
The money involved was at the centre of an unresolved dispute around repairs on a property.
It subsequently emerged that a so-called “click-screen” program used by the means tenants can lose up to a fifth of their monthly universal credit standard allowance – and have their rent paid directly to the landlord – without being consulted by either the landlord or officials.
The legal ruling raises serious questions about the government’s plans to increasingly rely on computer systems and AI to operate the benefits system, taking human beings out of the process.
The court ruling follows a challenge by a tenant (Image: Getty)
The decision by the courts means that the must now introduce tenant safeguards into a process that approves tens of thousands of benefit deduction and rent diversion requests by landlords each year.
The process was declared unfair and unlawful by a judge earlier this month in a hearing brought by Nathan Roberts, a law graduate and former police control room worker who argued it was “clearly arbitrary and an abuse of process”.
Mr Roberts, who had been in dispute with his landlord, Guinness Partnership Trust, over its alleged failure to carry out repairs, argued that it was unlawful for to pay the £460 rent element of his benefits and a £44 deduction for alleged rent arrears direct to Guinness without consulting him.
The judge, Mr Justice Fordham, said it was unfair that tenants on universal credit who could be adversely affected by rent arrears deduction and rent diversion requests had no opportunity to make representations before the deductions were approved.
He concluded there was a “real possibility” that “decision-makers” were being directed by the computer to approve deduction requests regardless of whether delaying or blocking the request was in the tenants’ best interests.
The judge said the failure to consult claimants meant, decision-makers were only getting “one side of the story”.
As a result, tenants would effectively be prevented from using the withholding of rent payments as leverage to get action on repairs.
He added that there were “real-world impacts” on tenants, who, even if they successfully challenged the decision through lengthy internal appeal processes, would not be able to reverse the deductions for months, during which they would be on reduced benefit.
An appeal by Mr Roberts’s to that he did not owe his landlord money was considered for three months by officials. The then rejected the appeal, only to reverse that decision a few days later when they learned he was taking legal action against it.
A spokesperson told : “We are now carefully considering this judgment. Millions of people rely on our welfare system every year and it is vital that it can be accessed by all who need it.”
Mr Roberts’ lawyers said the case revealed that although the had no explicit policy to exclude claimants when making a decision about landlord’s deduction requests, the computer program directed them to automatically approve the request.
Emma Varley of Bindmans solicitors, said: “Even if the decision-maker could in theory unplug the computer, make contact with the claimant and reach their own decision, that’s very unlikely.
“The computer program is, in effect, a policy which directs decision-makers that it’s unnecessary to give universal credit claimants the opportunity to make representations before making payments to their landlords.”