Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.
A married couple from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, Peter and Flo Fanning, recently attempted to take legal action against both the UK and Scottish governments regarding the decision to reduce winter fuel payments. They argued that there was inadequate consultation with pensioners and a lack of an equality impact assessment on the changes. However, their petition was rejected by the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Despite the loss in court, the Fanning’s lawyers believe that their litigation played a role in influencing both governments to make partial U-turns on the issue. A representative from the Govan Law Centre expressed confidence in the impact of the legal challenge, citing the subsequent policy changes as evidence of its influence.
Following criticism, the UK government reversed its plans to cut winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners. Similarly, the Scottish government had already introduced its own winter fuel benefit in response to the initial cuts, which included support for those in need. The focus of the legal challenge was on the process, and the subsequent reconsideration of cuts by the UK government was seen as a validation of the Fanning’s efforts, according to the Govan Law Centre.
In terms of the winter fuel payments, approximately 10 million pensioners in England and Wales lost their allowance under new measures announced in July of the previous year. The Scottish government devolved the payment to Holyrood, but later terminated it due to budget constraints. There were plans for a new means-tested alternative, the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP), to be introduced, with adjustments to the scheme pending further discussions. With the legal battle concluded, the focus now shifts to the implementation and impact of the revised policies by both governments
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.