A couple from Scotland are due to begin their legal challenge today against the UK and Scottish Governments over the decision to cut winter fuel payments for pensioners. Peter and Flo Fanning argue that both Governments failed to consult properly with pensioners and did not release an equality impact assessment. They claim the £300 benefit cut was “irrational” and violated their human rights.
The couple from Coatbridge – seeking a judicial review in the Court of Session in Edinburgh – want the policy overturned and the payment restored. Mr Fanning, 73, said the challenge is about “giving a voice” to pensioners facing financial hardship, with rising energy costs making life increasingly difficult.
Last year, around 10 million pensioners in England and Wales lost their winter fuel allowance (Image: Getty)
Last year, around 10 million pensioners in England and Wales lost their winter fuel allowance, with only those on Pension Credit retaining it.
In Scotland, the payment was devolved in April 2024 but was cut in August due to budget constraints, and a new means-tested replacement, the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP), has been delayed until winter 2025.
The Fannings argue that the decision to cut the winter fuel payments was rolled out “without much warning”, emphasising the impact on pensioners who “tend to plan” for the year ahead, the BBC reports.
They are calling on the Court of Session to set aside the policy and reinstate the benefit for all pensioners.
A judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
The reviews don’t challenge the rights and wrongs of a conclusion. Instead, they challenge how the decision has been reached. In this case, the couple argue that both the UK and Scottish Governments did not adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes.
Lawyers for the couple also say the decision to cap eligibility for the allowance breaches articles two and eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judicial review is being live-streamed today and tomorrow.
The pensioners are being represented by former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC and Govan Law Centre. Ms Cherry told the court on Thursday her clients are “elderly pensioners” and that both have disabilities.
She said: “Like most pensioners, they live on a fixed income, and they struggle to afford to heat their homes in the winter.They are exactly the sort of people who the winter fuel payment was designed to help.”
Ms Cherry told the court that due to last year’s change, her clients had “lost their entitlement to the benefit which would have been paid in Scotland this year”.
She said the decision may be “unlawful for reasons of irrationality and unreasonableness”, because, she said, the UK Government knew it would cause “significant excess winter deaths” and jeopardise the health of “vulnerable pensioners”.
She added that the decision was also made with the knowledge that it would result in 100,000 pensioners falling into relative poverty and 50,000 into absolute poverty.
Both the UK and Scottish governments are being represented in court, with Ms Cherry highlighting the distinct roles each played in removing the universal element of the winter fuel payment in Scotland.
She explained that the Scottish Government was placed in a “dilemma” by the UK Government’s decision to reduce the payment, as it led to an 80% cut in the funding Scotland received for a universal winter fuel payment.
Ms Cherry added that the UK Government’s decision therefore had a “direct effect” on the Scottish Government, stating that “but for” this decision, the Scottish Government would have continued to offer a universal benefit this year.
However, she went on, this did not “absolve” the Scottish Government of its obligations, explaining: “Financial constraints are no excuse for failing to properly comply with the public sector equality duty.”
The hearing, which is expected to last two days, continues.
