A legal battle is unfolding over the UK Government’s decision to limit the Winter Fuel Payment to means-tested recipients, a move that officials argue complies with the Equality Act.
Pensioners Peter and Florence Fanning have taken both the UK and Scottish governments to court, claiming the policy unfairly impacts older people.
According to GB News, the case has sparked debate over whether the decision was properly assessed and if it could push more pensioners into financial hardship.
Legal battle over Winter Fuel Payment
The Winter Fuel Payment, which previously provided up to £300 to help with energy costs for pensioners, was restricted to those receiving Pension Credit and other means-tested benefits. The policy shift, introduced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in July, was later adopted by the Scottish Government.
The Fannings, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, claim the government failed to consult pensioners adequately before making the decision. They also argue that neither government published an equality impact assessment, raising concerns about whether the change was properly evaluated.
The case is being heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, where the couple is seeking a ruling that the decision was unlawful. If successful, this could lead to the restoration of universal Winter Fuel Payments.
Petitioners argue decision was reckless and unlawful
Representing the Fannings, former MP Joanne Cherry KC told the court on Thursday that there had been an “abject failure” to carry out an equality impact assessment before the changes were made.
She argued that both the UK and Scottish governments did not properly assess how the decision would affect older people and that the lack of consultation with pensioners showed disregard for those directly impacted. She further claimed the move was “unlawful” because it failed to consider the welfare of vulnerable pensioners.
Cherry accused the UK Government of being “blinded” by financial pressures when cutting the Winter Fuel Payment, without considering the risks to older people. She claimed ministers knew the decision would cause “significant excess winter deaths” among the elderly, push 100,000 pensioners into relative poverty, and force 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty.
“The respondents did not approach the matter with due diligence, and did not give consideration to all competing interests,” she told the court.
UK government insists changes were lawful
Defending the government, Andrew Webster KC argued that the decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments complied with the Equality Act 2010. Webster admitted there was a “fiscal driver” behind the change, stating that Chancellor Rachel Reeves was addressing a £22 billion financial shortfall.
However, he maintained that the decision was made with careful assessment of pensioner poverty, citing engagement with Age UK and the Citizens Advice Bureau to review the impact. He also pointed out that government documents examined the effect on pensioners in poverty before the change was made.
Webster further questioned whether the Fannings had a legal standing in the case, arguing that as residents of Scotland, they were not directly affected by the UK Government’s decision.
He pointed out that the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP) in Scotland operates under different eligibility rules and emphasized that the Court of Session does not have jurisdiction over laws made in England and Wales.
