High Court judges have ruled that Somerset Council’s council tax support scheme unlawfully discriminated against disabled people moving to universal credit.
Council tax support cuts hit disabled claimants
In the case of R (Mitchell) v Somerset Council, a disabled man faced a steep drop in financial support when he switched from employment and support allowance to universal credit. The court found the council’s rules breached equality laws.
The claimant had paid no council tax for over five years. Under the 2025/26 scheme, anyone receiving income-related ESA had their whole income disregarded, which meant full support. For universal credit recipients, only the housing costs element was ignored, so the additional element for limited capability for work and work-related activity counted as income.
When the claimant moved to universal credit under managed migration in July 2025, his income changed by only ten pence a week. Despite this, the system placed him in the 10% support band, resulting in a bill of £785.98 for the rest of the year.
Read Also: UK struggles to turn inquiry reports into real reforms
Rules treated benefits differently despite identical needs
Judge Barry Clarke, President of Employment Tribunals sitting as a High Court judge, concluded that the council’s treatment of the claimant violated Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court also found breaches of sections 15, 19 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, alongside a failure to meet the public sector equality duty.
The judge noted that a decision that treats people differently based on the name of the benefit they receive, rather than their actual need, may be difficult to justify. The judge noted that the claimant had no choice in moving to universal credit. Both he and an otherwise identical ESA recipient had the same needs and the same assessment.
The court looked at the purpose of the scheme, which is to relieve financial need. The judge held that receiving universal credit rather than a legacy benefit was an “other status” and that the two claimants were in an analogous position. Rules that distinguish identical need “by the name of a benefit” were not rationally connected to the aim of targeting help on those most in need.
Disregarding the LCWRA element would have been a lesser measure. The council had been warned about this option by its own consultant and Citizens Advice before the decision. The only cost estimate the council provided, which suggested it would cost about £4 million a year to ignore the LCWRA element, post-dated the decisions and was not explained.
Read Also: Sally Rooney books blocked in UK
The court applied previous case law to conclude that unsupported assertions of financial pressure could not justify the rules. The council’s exceptional hardship scheme could not fix a structural disadvantage that was identifiable in advance from the scheme itself.
Discrimination and procedural failures
Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010 did not provide a defence, as it only protects the application of a lawful scheme. The public sector equality duty was breached when the full council adopted the scheme in December 2024. The documents considered by members addressed only four proposed cuts, not the rules carried forward.
The decision of 10 September 2025 was quashed, with declarations to follow. The claimant is entitled in principle to damages for injury to feelings, to be agreed or assessed in the County Court. The rules remain in the council’s 2026/27 scheme, which is under review.
