The pensioners who are involved in a legal battle to get the government’s highly controversial Winter Fuel Payment decision to axe it for 11 million pensioners have given an update.
Peter and Florence Fanning, a pensioner couple from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, have taken the government to court in a determined effort to reverse the controversial scrapping of the winter fuel payment – a decision that has sparked widespread fury.
Renowned money-saving expert Martin Lewis suggests that should the Fannings win their legal battle, the contested policy could be postponed for a year, allowing recipients to benefit from the £200-300 payout in 2024.
Supported by Govan Law Centre, the Fannings have launched legal proceedings against the Scottish Government and the UK Work and Pensions Secretary. The axing of this vital benefit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves has left approximately 11 million people without support, limiting access solely to those on Pension Credit.
During an appearance on ‘Good Morning Britain’, the pair provided an update on their case. Host Ed Balls broached a critical question, “Of course you don’t want to have to do this through the courts, do you? You want the government to listen. If Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is listening to our programme right now, what would you say to her she should do now to sort this out? “
To which Peter, aged 73, emphatically responded, “I think there’s got to be a backtrack and totally think out the whole thing. Pensioners are people who plan ahead. I don’t know any pensioner that doesn’t plan ahead. You plan ahead for people’s birthdays for Christmas, for your winter fuel, for all those things. That’s what pensioners do because they they know they’re on a limited fund.”
“That choice has been taken away from those pensioners because everyone was expecting. Yeah, I’ve got 300 pounds. I don’t need to worry about my winter bill and all of a sudden that 300 pounds has disappeared out of everybody’s now that to to say that some people are deserving and other people are not without actually carrying out an assessment. To me, it’s ludicrous. It’s also an injustice, and that’s why I’m fighting it.”
Susanna stated: “Peter mentions that he has he’s had a heart attack. He’s got heart problems. Asthma suffers from anaemia. You suffer from diabetes. These are significant health problems that, of course, affect how you need to look after yourself. During the winter. You’re in a part of the country where the winters hit harder. If you’re unsuccessful and the governments go ahead with this winter fuel payment cut, what sort of changes will you have to make this winter?”
Florence said: “Well, I just find you’re either heating or eating. You can’t afford the bills. I mean, the cost of living rise in the shops, your groceries are expensive. Your electricity and gas are expensive. There’s a lot of people out there that are not going to find the money to pay these.”
Peter lamented the government’s approach, feeling penalised for his foresight in saving for retirement, as he no longer qualifies for the winter fuel payment. He shared his frustration: “When I was working, I was encouraged to join, um, a pension fund to save for my old age right retirement so that I would have a quality of life. It now seems that the government’s punishing me for having that pension and taking things off.”
He also revealed the impact on his daily life: “During the winter, Florence and myself would make soup maybe twice up to three times a week and the grandkids would come and visit us. We’re actually frightened to put the cooker on just now.”
The legal challenge is gaining momentum with a judicial review submitted to the Court of Session, awaiting a judge’s approval to proceed. The Govan Law Centre is pushing for an expedited process, including their application for legal aid, aiming for a resolution before the cold months hit.
The crux of the case hinges on whether the policy decision was unlawful, potentially leading to a reversal and reinstatement of the winter fuel payments. The claim centres on allegations of inadequate consultation with pensioners and the absence of an equality impact assessment regarding the policy changes.
Rachel Moon, a partner at Govan Law Centre and the instructing solicitor, stated: “Quite simply, (government) should have considered this rigorously. This policy and the decisions taken affect those with protected characteristics, including age and disability, and it affects 10 million people.”
A UK Government spokeswoman previously commented: “We are committed to supporting pensioners, with millions set to see their full new state pension rise by £1,700 this Parliament through our commitment to the triple lock.”
She added: “Given the dire state of the public finances we have inherited, it’s right we target support to those who need it most. Over a million pensioners will still receive the winter fuel payment, while many others will also benefit from the £150 warm home discount to help with their energy bills over winter.”
