Progress in an appeal against the Department of Work and Pensions

Age discrimination case

A side-effect of pensions freezing is that older expatriate pensioners, who reached entitlement age when the basic pension was lower, receive less than younger pensioners, even when they have made the same number of contributions. BAPA is currently mounting a challenge to the DWP on this point. Two BAPA members, one who is 66, and one who is 77, wrote letters of complaint to the DWP pointing out the inequitable and discriminatory way that the present system operates.

The Department rejected their complaints out of hand, saying, basically, that they were applying the law correctly. Once such a rejection had been declared it became possible to appeal their decision. This was done on the grounds of Human Rights legislation and discrimination. The department told us that a tribunal would hear the appeal on 31st May 2002 in Oxford.

Running scared

About one week before the hearing the Department said that they had "just realised" that the appeal was lodged on Human Rights grounds. They said that the person they had chosen to hear the appeal was not experienced in Human Rights issues and that they would have to find someone else ! They said that, therefore, they would have to postpone the hearing. They would set a new date as soon as had found a suitable chairman for the Tribunal.

At present the Secretary of BAPA, Jack Stoner, is on holiday in England. He had agreed to represent us at the Tribunal. However he is due to come back to Australia on the 19th June. As yet no new date has been set !

Some examples of Age Discrimination

BAPA Member	Age	Year qualified	Frozen basic pension
N.F.	66	2001	Ł72.50
B.P.	71	1996	Ł58.70
B.H.	76	1990	Ł46.90
J.S.	81	1985	Ł35.80
J.G.S.	89	1978	Ł19.50
W.H.	94	1972	Ł 6.75

Cherie Booth, high profile QC and wife of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is on record as underlining the importance of clinging to the "principles that underpin human rights"

As ever - Our claim is PARITY not CHARITY

The Appeal Decision

Decision of the Tribunal

Appeal is Disallowed

The decision of the Secretary of State issued on 10/12/2001 is Confirmed

The appellant did not attend the hearing, although a representative did attend on his behalf.
The appellant’s arguments are fully set out in his letter of appeal. In particular they allege that the Government’s refusal to uprate automatically the state retirement pensions of those residing in a number of countries is a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 14 of the ECHR. His representative repeated these arguments more comprehensively on Mr Waterhouse’s behalf.
Since this appeal was lodged the Administrative Court has considered the same issue in the judicial review application of Carson v. Secretary of State [2002] EWHC 978. Each of the points raised in this appeal are dealt with by the judge in Carson and each failed.
Whilst I accept that Carson was a judicial review application and this appeal is an entitlement appeal under the social security legislation the similarity of the issues and the clarity of their resolution satisfies me that I must follow and apply Carson. I am therefore dismissing the appeal.
In the event of my being asked this decision is to be taken as a full statement of facts and reasons.

This decision is being further appealed. In 2 above the appellant's argument was mis-stated. It was related to discrimination by age.

Back to Home Page