Judges reject challenge brought by three mothers that policy
introduced by Iain Duncan Smith is 'cruel and arbitrary'
Lone mothers and their children have lost their legal challenge to the government's flagship benefit cap policy.
Two high court judges ruled on Tuesday that new capping regulations introduced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, are lawful.
The capping affects housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credit to families who do not work sufficient hours to qualify for working tax credit, and is set at £500 per week for couples or lone parents.
Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, say the "cruel and arbitrary" measure is reminiscent of the days of the workhouse, and the women fear it will leave them destitute.
Dismissing their claim for a judicial review, Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that many considered the cap to be "too parsimonious" but they ruled it was "ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts".
During the court hearing, lawyers for the Department for Work and Pensions argued the cap was "manifestly justifiable to make savings, and seek to reduce the fiscal deficit, by capping benefits at the level of average earnings".
A DWP spokesman said: "We are very pleased that the court has ruled that the benefit cap complies with the European convention on human rights.
Guardian
Lone mothers and their children have lost their legal challenge to the government's flagship benefit cap policy.
Two high court judges ruled on Tuesday that new capping regulations introduced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, are lawful.
The capping affects housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credit to families who do not work sufficient hours to qualify for working tax credit, and is set at £500 per week for couples or lone parents.
Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, say the "cruel and arbitrary" measure is reminiscent of the days of the workhouse, and the women fear it will leave them destitute.
Dismissing their claim for a judicial review, Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that many considered the cap to be "too parsimonious" but they ruled it was "ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts".
During the court hearing, lawyers for the Department for Work and Pensions argued the cap was "manifestly justifiable to make savings, and seek to reduce the fiscal deficit, by capping benefits at the level of average earnings".
A DWP spokesman said: "We are very pleased that the court has ruled that the benefit cap complies with the European convention on human rights.
Guardian
