Shakoor v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions - Judicial Review

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >>

  Shakoor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2026] EWHC 748 (Admin) (24 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/748.html
Cite as:
[2026] EWHC 748 (Admin) | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

| | | Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 748 (Admin) |
| | | AC-2025-LON-001285 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KINGS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

| | | Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
| | | 24 March 2026 |
B e f o r e :

ANDREW BURNS KC
(sitting as a DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)

| | THE KING
(on the application of
Ms Debbie Jane Shakoor) | Claimant |
| | - and - | |
| | THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK & PENSIONS | Defendant |
| | - and - | |
| | WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL | Interested Party |

**The Claimant in person
Mr Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson (instructed by Governmental Legal Department)
for the Defendant
No appearance from the Interested Party

Hearing date: 17 March 2026**

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

3. ANDREW BURNS KC sitting as a DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT:
4. The Claimant is a recipient of Universal Credit social security benefit. She complains that on 7 May 2024 the Defendant changed the payment arrangements for the housing element of her Universal Credit. The Defendant says that at the request of the Claimant's landlord, Wokingham Borough Council (the Interested Party) and exercising his statutory powers he took the decision that the housing element should be paid directly to Wokingham Council.
6. The Claimant says the Defendant did not issue "a challengeable decision" when imposing this alternative payment arrangement and did so on the basis of a history of rent arrears which the Claimant denied. The Defendant's failure to provide a formal, reasoned decision on 7 May 2024 for what she describes as its 'operational practice' is her key complaint. The only relief she seeks is a mandatory order compelling the Defendant to issue a reasoned decision. She does not seek a quashing order.
8. The Claimant claims judicial review of the 7 May 2024 decision on two grounds:
10. a. that the decision was procedurally irregular, in breach of the Tameside duty; and
11. b. that the decision was irrational as no adequate reasons were provided to explain it, it was a 'blanket policy' and it interfered with her right to privacy.
12. The Defendant accepts that the decision taken on 7 May 2024 was unlawful. It accepts that there was a failure to provide substantive reasons for the decision to implement an alternative payment arrangement and there was also a failure to seek representations from the Claimant prior to the decision being taken.
14. However the Defendant argues that the claim for judicial review should be dismissed as it is academic because the Defendant agreed to review the decision on 19 August 2024 and invited the Claimant to supply evidence. The decision was retaken on 20 August 2024 (reaching the same result) with full reasons given on 22 August 2024. The Defendant says that decision was made lawfully and so what happened in May is now academic.
16. The Claimant denies the claim is academic. She argues that the 20 August 2024 decision repeated and compounded the Defendant's failings and was an inadequate review. She says the message in her Universal Credit online journal was not a proper decision and the review was not her "statutory one-month entitlement to review by full merits reconsideration" under the applicable legislation. Finally, she says that she has provided information to the Defendant through the Universal Credit journal and by telephone calls to show that she disputed her debts and so had no history of rent arrears.
18. By order of 28 October 2025 this is a 'rolled-up' hearing for permission to apply for judicial review and the substantive hearing of the judicial review if permission is granted.
20. Alternative Payment Arrangements
21. This claim concerns alternative payment arrangements or 'APAs'. The Defendant publishes guidance on APAs, most recently updated on 3 December 2025 (after the events which are the subject of this claim).
23. The revised Guidance describes APAs:
25. "APAs are for claimants who cannot manage their single monthly payment and there is a risk of financial harm to the claimant or their family.
26. The move to a single monthly household payment is a significant change to the way most benefits are currently paid.
27. The following APAs are available to help claimants who need additional support:
28. > > paying rent directly to their landlord, known as a 'managed payment'
29. > > more frequent payments: twice a month ? or in exceptional circumstances 4 times a month ? instead of once a month
30. > > split payment of an award between partners in a couple"
31. This claim concerns a managed payment. That is a decision to pay the housing component of Universal Credit directly to the landlord rather than to the Universal Credit claimant. It is for benefit of claimants who cannot manage a monthly payment and are at risk of financial harm. APAs can be considered at any time and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. They can be triggered by information received from the landlord. The new Guidance says that "a claimant does not need to be in rent arrears to be considered for an APA" but "paying the Universal Credit housing costs to the landlord will be the first priority where it is part of the Universal Credit award, to safeguard the claimant's home. The managed payment of housing costs to the landlord would always be deducted and paid first as the priority APA."
33. The revised Guidance makes it clear that the Defendant has a discretion. It states: "We expect most Universal Credit claimants will receive the single monthly payment and take responsibility for paying their own household bills on time, including their rent. But we recognise that some claimants will need extra support in managing this payment. Therefore, in some cases a managed payment might be appropriate."
35. This revised Guidance appears to address the criticisms that made about the previous guidance and practice by Fordham J in R(Roberts) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] EWHC 51 (Admin); [2025] PTSR 1065. The circumstances of that case are similar to this claim and both parties have referred to the judgment.
37. In Roberts the claimant's social landlord applied to receive direct payments of rent out of the claimant's Universal Credit as an APA. The Secretary of State decide on the APA and notified the claimant, but offered a review and a mandatory reconsideration. The claimant sought judicial review on the grounds that he had not been consulted or given an opportunity to respond before the relevant decisions took effect. He said that the policy guidance to decision-makers was procedurally unfair. Fordham J held that procedural fairness required that a claimant be informed that a landlord was requesting an APA and given an opportunity to respond before any changes took effect.
39. 14. Fordham J held that it was significant that an APA was for the protection of the claimant and their family. He said at para 10: "These are not payments whose rationale lies in protecting the interests of landlords. This is not a handy rent-collection mechanism, or a handy arrears-collection mechanism, for landlords." A Managed Payment To a Landlord (referred to in Roberts as a "Diversionary-MPTL") can only be made where it is necessary for the claimant's protection. As Fordham J said at para 17: "The Diversionary-MPTL is a payment "on the claimant's behalf". ? There is a statutory precondition of apparent necessity for protecting a beneficiary. That statutory precondition reflects the fact that a Diversionary-MPTL must be found to be in the interests of the UC-claimant (or, where relevant, another beneficiary). Otherwise, by operation of the statutory scheme, the Diversionary-MPTL cannot be set up".
40. That 'statutory precondition' is apparent from the regulations under which an APA can be made. The regulations were made under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Managed payments are made under the provisions of regulation 58 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013. This provides:
42. Payment to another person on the claimant's behalf
43. 58.?(1) The Secretary of State may direct that universal credit be paid wholly or in part to another person on the claimant's behalf if this appears to the Secretary of State necessary to protect the interests of?
44. (a) the claimant;
45. (b) their partner;
46. (c) a child or qualifying young person for whom the claimant or their partner or both are responsible; or
47. (d) a severely disabled person, where the calculation of the award of universal credit includes, by virtue of regulation 29 of the Universal Credit Regulations, an amount in respect of the fact that the claimant has regular and substantial caring responsibilities for that severely disabled person.
48. (2) The Secretary of State may direct that personal independence payment be paid wholly to another person on the claimant's behalf if this appears to the Secretary of State necessary to protect the interests of the claimant.
49. ?
50. There is no right of appeal to such a decision but the Claimant has a statutory entitlement, within a statutory time-frame of one month, to seek a revision by way of full merits-reconsideration under the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013.
52. In addition the Defendant can revise a decision made under regulation 58 at any time. He can do so if the decision arose from 'official error' or was based on mistake of material fact and was too advantageous to a claimant (see reg. 9 of the Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013) and can supersede a decision if there is a relevant change of circumstances (reg. 23).
54. 18. It is clear that an APA is a departure from the norm. The Defendant may only make an APA if it appears "necessary to protect the interests of? the claimant". The word "may" in reg. 58 gives the Defendant a discretion which must be exercised rationally and lawfully in accordance with public law principles.
55. APA Tiers
56. The Defendant's revised Guidance indicates that a managed payment to a landlord can only be made when a Universal Credit claimant has current rent arrears or when "any of the other Tier 1 and Tier 2 APA factors apply".
58. 20. These same tiers were plainly in force in 2024 as they are referred to in Roberts. The 'Tier 1 factors' are where there is a "highly likely or probable need for APAs". These include where the claimant had declared a problem with drug, alcohol or other addiction problems, where the claimant has learning difficulties or disability, where a claimant has "severe debt problems ? evidenced by multiple debts or non-payment of multiple debts over a period of 2 months or more?", is in temporary accommodation, homeless, suffering domestic abuse or a mental health condition or currently has more than 2 months' arrears of rent.
59. In such circumstances an APA is 'highly likely or probable' but not automatic. The Defendant must still be satisfied that the APA is "necessary to protect the interests of the Claimant" (the words of reg. 58).
61. Tier 2 factors indicate "Less likely or possible need for alternative payment arrangements". These include "History of rent arrears - claimant is not in arrears but may have been within the last 12 months and was subject to, or threatened with, eviction or repossession". Other Tier 2 factors include previous homelessness, other disabilities or leaving prison or hospital. The Tier 2 guidance expressly reminds the Defendant that where there are historic arrears or homelessness he should "consider the fact that the claimant may now be financially capable and able to manage their own financial affairs effectively".
63. Criticisms of the Defendant's 2024 Approach to APAs
64. 23. Fordham J held that a managed payment to a landlord is "intended to help stop a rent arrears debt from getting worse, by paying the housing component direct to the landlord?. these can be beneficent actions. They can serve to protect against eviction and homelessness" (Roberts at para 9)." He criticised the Defendant's Guidance (as it was in 2024) because it purported comprehensively to state the relevant legal position but failed to do so (contrary to R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] 1 WLR 3931). At para 18-19 of Roberts Fordham J said:
65. "The SSWP has issued published guidance documents, and internal guidance documents which guidance?as Mr Anderson puts it?"structures how the power will be exercised". The following features of regulation 58(1) Diversionary-MPTLs have all been added through SSWP's published guidance Alternative Payments Arrangements (17 January 2024) and SSWP's internal guidance Money Guidance and Alternative Payment Arrangements (1) Diversionary-MPTLs are for UC-claimants who cannot manage their single monthly payments and for whom or whose family there is a risk of financial harm, acting in the UC-claimant's interests. (2) Diversionary-MPTLs are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and based on individual circumstances. (3) There are "Tier 1" criteria under which it is "probable" and "highly likely" that a Diversionary-MPTL will be made, including where the UC-claimant owes the landlord two months' rent. (4) The Diversionary-MPTL can be requested by a landlord, who may be a Social Landlord or a Private Landlord. Private and Social Landlords make requests using web-based portals. The same rent arrears-based request can ask for a regulation 58(1) Diversionary-MPTL, or for a Schedule 6 paragraph 7 Recoupment-TPD, or for both.
67. The "Without Further Investigation" guidance
68. In relation to Social Landlords requesting Diversionary-MPTLs, the SSWP's internal guidance Money Guidance and Alternative Payment Arrangements say this:
69. > "Social rented sector (SRS) landlords across England, Scotland and Wales with access to the Landlord Portal are considered to be trusted partners. Trusted Partners can request Managed Payment to Landlord APA for their tenants, whenever they identify a need and have it granted without further investigation."
70. The key to this guidance is in the phrase "can ? have it granted without further investigation". This policy guidance is telling decision-makers that a Social Landlord requesting a Diversionary-MPTL "can ? have it granted without further investigation". The Social Landlord only has to provide the information meeting the criteria. That would include the Social Landlord saying that two months' rent is owing. There is no "further investigation". No opportunity is afforded to the UC-claimant. SSWP's evidence includes the "click-screen" used by the DWP decision-maker."
72. The Interested Party ("the Council") was a Trusted Partner in 2024. Under the Defendant's Guidance the Council was able to request an APA for the Claimant whenever it identified a need and have it granted "without further investigation". The revision in December 2025 amends this automatic acceptance of a Trusted Partner's APA request. It gives a claimant 14 days to object and provide evidence. The revised Guidance expressly requires the Defendant to make its own decision on the request saying: "A Universal Credit agent will decide whether to apply the managed payment to landlord."
74. However Roberts held that in 2024 the Defendant unlawfully set up APAs on request from a Trusted Partner without investigation. The Claimant rightly points out that this approach is reflected in the evidence in her case ? both in the Universal Credit journal entries and in transcripts of telephone calls that she made to the Defendant. On 7 May 2024 the Defendant's staff member said: "It could just be something that landlord requests. If you prefer, any tenants [that] are on benefits could request that they're paid direct. Same with the local Councils. They can request it as well as a matter of policy." On 10 May 2024 another of the Defendant's staff said: "Perhaps they just put that request through for most of their tenants? So just, just to avoid, you know, having to go through two steps of going through the payment, perhaps for it to go directly instead? Because I can't see any correspondence of any arrears or anything of the sort, so perhaps it was just for them to cut out the middleman, if you know what I mean."
76. This suggests that the Defendant was applying to the Claimant the same unlawful approach which was found in Roberts. I note that in Roberts the Defendant said in November 2024 that he had introduced an interim practice of notifying claimants of their right to change the direct payment. The facts of this case as I find them below suggests that the Defendant's relevant decisions in May and August 2024 were made before this interim practice was introduced. They were made under the old guidance that was held in Roberts to be unlawful.
78. The Facts
79. There is broad agreement between the parties as to the essential facts of this claim. The Claimant has claimed Universal Credit or "UC" since September 2019 when she rented privately in Birmingham. She and her father moved to Reading, Berkshire in early 2020. She acted as her father's carer. He was the tenant of a two-bedroom Council property (following a decision by the Court of Protection about who should be on the tenancy).
81. UC is a means-tested welfare benefit payment, governed by the Welfare Reform Act 2012. The monthly sum can include a standard allowance, a housing component and other components and can be paid by direct bank transfer. The UC claimant has a secure online journal by which she and the Defendant communicate and to notify of any changes of circumstances. The Defendant can provide a link to claimants to upload documents to the journal.
83. In April 2022 the Council sought and the Defendant agreed an APA. The Council reported that the Claimant was in rent arrears of just over ?6,000 and that she was under threat of eviction. The Defendant agreed to make managed payments of the housing element of UC directly to the Council and to make third party deductions from UC to reduce the Claimant's rent arrears. The Claimant was notified of both payment arrangements, but she did not dispute them. She said she had other matters on her mind.
85. In 2023 the Claimant was faced with eviction on the death of her father as he was the tenant and she did not qualify to succeed him because she had not been living with him for 12 months (as he had been in a care home for part of the time).
87. On 23 January 2023 the Council obtained an order for possession of the property. The deputy district judge refused to set aside the order for possession and permission to appeal was refused on 19 September 2023. The Claimant brought judicial review proceedings but on 24 October 2024 Thornton J refused permission at a hearing.
89. In November 2023 the Claimant had been evicted and as she was homeless the Council gave her temporary accommodation on Curzon Street, Reading. This was paid by Housing Benefit rather than UC. On 1 February 2024 the Claimant reported in her journal that she had moved to Council temporary accommodation in Wokingham.
91. In March 2024 the Claimant reported to the Defendant that she had attended a Court hearing regarding her eviction and her claim for an injunction regarding the storage of her belongings. The Claimant had identified an error in the Court transcript which resulted in an unsuccessful complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. These proceedings resulted in a Court judgment against her for about ?7,000 but she told me that she believed that she had a counterclaim for her legal costs for about ?7,000. For that reason she disputed her judgment debt to the Council.
93. On 6 May 2024 the Claimant informed the Defendant that she had moved to a property on Tangley Drive in Wokingham, renting the one-bedroom bungalow from the Council for 132.78 per week. That is where she lives today.
95. The Defendant states that the Council requested an APA on the basis that the Claimant had severe or multiple debt problems and a history of rent arears. The request is not in evidence and is disputed by the Claimant who suspects that the Defendant acted of his own motion in applying the APA. In any event it is agreed that the Defendant, without consulting the Claimant, put the APA in place so that direct payments of the housing element of her UC Credit were paid directly to the Council.
97. The Claimant was informed of this change in her UC journal which said that "From 15 May 2024 we'll pay ?575.38 of your Universal Credit to your landlord once per month. If your rent is more than this, you'll need to pay the difference. If you do not agree with this you should add a journal message or call us for it to be reviewed." This reflects the 2024 practice (as found in Roberts) of applying the APA automatically on request from a Trusted Partner and simply offering a review if it was disputed.
99. The Claimant asked immediately for a review and asked for a challengeable decision saying the APA was unlawful. She said in the journal: "I am responding to a message left today in my journal informing me that Jobcentre plus intends to pay my rent directly to my local authority landlord. I do not have rent arrears. There are no legitimate grounds for this decision, and I seek a review/challengeable decision. I have phoned Universal Credit about this today, but still was told to repeat my request for review in my journal, so no point in my phoning as the journal message so advised."
101. She called the Defendant on 7 May 2024 denying that there were any rent arrears. On 10 May the Claimant telephoned the Defendant again pursuing a review and claiming that the money owed to the Council was a "civil debt" and was "subject to challenge in the court". She relied on her tenancy agreement as showing there were no rent arrears. The Defendant agreed for a case manager to call her but there was no call.
103. On 13 May the Claimant telephoned again saying "there is a dispute between me and Wokingham Council", "the civil damages that are still subject to court proceedings" and "they're certainly not something that could be taken out of my benefit."
105. The Claimant was late for her Job Centre appointment on 15 May 2024 and was marked as 'failed to attend'. She was therefore unable to show the Defendant's representative her new tenancy agreement.
107. On the same day the Defendant recorded in the journal that: "The alternative payment arrangement was decided using regulations 58 of The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013. Unfortunately, this does not carry the right of appeal." The Defendant decided there was no need to respond to her demands for a 'challengeable decision'.
109. On 20 May 2024 the Defendant stated in the journal: "Regulation 51 of The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 holds that the Secretary of State must provide a claimant with written notice of the decision and of the right to appeal against that decision and, where that notice does not include a statement of the reasons for that decision, the claimant may, within one month of the date of notification of that decision, request that the Secretary of State provide a written statement of reasons for that decision. Paragraph 1 of Regulation 51 states that this regulation only applies in the case of a claimant who has the right of appeal in accordance with the Social Security Act 1998. Unfortunately, only decisions made under sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 are subject to Regulation 51." The Defendant confirmed that there would be no further decision for those reasons.
111. The Claimant sent pre-action letter with enclosures on 24 July 2024 requesting a response by 8th August and issued her claim on 19 August. On the same day as her claim the Defendant asked in the journal: "Are you able to provide us with your rent statements so show that you are not in arrears and any further evidence you have to show that you are no longer having multiple debt issues, from May 2024, please?"
113. The Claimant criticises this offer of a review saying that it indicated a closed mind and not an independent review. She pointed out that the Defendant asked for further evidence that she was "no longer" having multiple debt issues and thus assumed that she had debt issues in the past. The Defendant submits that the Claimant was free to submit any evidence she wished in response ? both on the issue of arrears and debt, but also any evidence about whether an APA was appropriate. I agree with the Claimant that the review appeared to be focussed on whether the Claimant was in arrears, whether she was no longer having multiple debt issues from May 2024 and did not invite wider evidence on other factors relevant to whether the Defendant should impose an APA.
115. The Claimant indicated her upset with the Defendant's offer of a review saying on 19 August 2024 at 4.27pm:
117. "Firstly, it is not possible for me to have rent arrears on my home as I only became the tenant of the property on 6 May 2024 and all rent payments have been made direct to landlord.
118. Secondly, I seek to know from where or whom did the Secretary of State obtain her information that I have multiple debt issues or rent arrears, and if so what her perception is as to cause of same? And what would be the relevance?
119. Thirdly, it appears that a review is being undertaken; notwithstanding, I am entitled to receive a formal decision with reasons in respect of the 'operational decision' which was taken by the Secretary of State on 7 May 2024. I have today filed with the Court my claim for a judicial review seeking a mandatory order for the issue of a formal decision."
121. The next morning at 8.14am, the Defendant's Case Manager issued a response to the review saying: "The APA was set up under history of rent arrears and severe/multiple debt problems, as you are not willing to provide evidence that this is not the case, the APA will continue." This is the decision upon which the Defendant relies to say that the Claimant's claim becomes academic.
123. The Defendant gave its reasons in his response to the pre-action letter on 22 August 2024:
125. "During our investigation we established you reported a moved to your current address on 6 May 2024 and the rent is ?575.38 a month. The property is social rented accommodation, and your landlord is Wokingham Borough Council. The following day, your landlord verified your housing costs and requested your housing element (HE) be issued to them directly by way of a Managed Payment to Landlord (MPL) on the grounds you have severe debt and a history of rent arrears.
126. Trusted partners will review the need for an APA throughout a claimant's tenancy and inform us if they feel the APA is no longer required. Our reviews are conducted on a case by case basis to ensure a claimant's best interests are still served.
127. On 7 May 2024 we agreed to implement MPL of the HE of your UC award and notified you of this in your journal. We explained, from 15 May 2024 we will pay ?575.38 of your UC each month, directly to your landlord. We advised, if you do not agree with this you should add a journal message or call us for it to be reviewed.
128. Regulation 58 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013. Schedule 3 of this regulation states there is no right to appeal of this decision. However, a claimant can ask for the decision to be reviewed.
129. When you challenged our decision, we should have conducted a review of the APA, but we did not. Your APA was originally put in place on the grounds you had rent arrears and a history of multiple debt issues. To review a decision, we normally ask the claimant to provide evidence which demonstrates these grounds no longer exist."
131. The APA remains in place with the Claimant confirming a rent increase in April 2025 to ?136.37 per week so that the housing component of UC increased to ?590.94 per month. That is still paid directly to the Council. In May 2025 the Council extended her tenancy by 4 years and indicated that she will have a secure tenancy at the end of that period. Although she has not asked for any further review of the APA, the Claimant remains concerned and upset at the lack of autonomy suggested by the APA. She points out that she does not lack capacity or the ability to manage her own affairs, which I fully accept. It is clear to me that she feels strongly about her dispute with the Council over the judgment debt and other matters she says are still subject to other litigation.
133. The Grounds for Judicial Review
134. The Claimant relied on two grounds. The first is procedural irregularity. The Defendant admits the failure to provide reasons on 7 May 2024 and the failure to give the Claimant the opportunity to make meaningful representations.
136. The Claimant principally relies on Roberts which draws upon well-known public law requirements for a lawful decision particularly those in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] AC 700, Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. I agree that the 7 May 2024 decision was not lawful on that basis.
138. It is not strictly necessary to consider whether the 7 May 2024 decision was also unlawful on grounds of irrationality. The Claimant is correct that no reasons were given for that decision as the Defendant declined to issue a formal, reasoned decision. The Claimant points out that a lack of reasons can be an indicator of an irrational or perverse decision. It is also clear from Roberts and the evidence in this claim that the Defendant applied an almost automatic decision-making process when a Trusted Partner (such as the Council) requested an APA. It imposed the APA on 7 May 2024 without further investigation. The Defendant therefore followed this unlawful blanket policy and failed to take into account the essential regulation 58 test of whether the APA was necessary to protect the interests of the Claimant. The Defendant failed to take into account a relevant consideration essential to the decision and therefore I accept that the 7 may 2024 decision was irrational.
140. I do not regard that the Claimant's arguments relating to an alleged breach of her right to privacy under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights add anything to the above analysis. The Bank Mellat procedural fairness balance has already been considered and it is not necessary to decide whether the privacy issues raised in her argument were a pleaded part of her claim in light of the Defendant's concession.
142. Is the claim academic?
143. The Defendant submits that the claim for judicial review is rendered academic by the review process and the Claimant's failure to engage with it. Guidance as to when a claim has become academic is to be found in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Salem [1999] 1 AC 450 where Lord Slynn said at 456-457:
145. "My Lords, I accept, as both counsel agree, that in a cause where there is an issue involving a public authority as to a question of public law, your Lordships have a discretion to hear the appeal, even if by the time the appeal reaches the House there is no longer a lis to be decided which will directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. The decisions in the Sun Life case and Ainsbury v. Millington? must be read accordingly as limited to disputes concerning private law rights between the parties to the case.
146. The discretion to hear disputes, even in the area of public law, must, however, be exercised with caution and appeals which are academic between the parties should not be heard unless there is a good reason in the public interest for doing so, as for example (but only by way of example) when a discrete point of statutory construction arises which does not involve detailed consideration of facts and where a large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the near future."
148. The Claimant says that the claim is not academic as the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the right questions were asked in the review process to enable the discretion to be properly exercised. She points out the findings of Roberts about the process that was in use by the Defendant at that time and in particular the fact that she shared information about her disputing the alleged debts to the Council (found by Fordham J at para 33 of Roberts to be applicable under the 'Disputed Debt Guidance').
150. The Defendant accepted that there is nothing in the 20 August 2024 message or the 22 August response to the pre-action protocol letter which expressly shows the Defendant addressing whether the APA was necessary to protect the interests of the Claimant. Indeed the 20 August 2024 decision mentions the Council requesting an APA "on the grounds you have severe debt and a history of rent arrears". It does not mention that it was to protect the Claimant.
152. The Defendant's submission that reviews of APA are conducted on a case-by-case basis to ensure a claimant's best interests are still served is undermined by the reasons given at the time. The references to rent arrears and a history of multiple debt issues indicate that the Tier 1 or Tier 2 thresholds may have been considered, but they do not suggest that the Defendant went on to exercise a discretion as to whether an APA was necessary to protect the Claimant. The decision does not suggest that the Defendant considered whether the debts were disputed.
154. The Defendant has not shown me any persuasive evidence from which I can properly infer that the Defendant considered the core regulation 58 test in August 2024, namely the necessity of protecting the Claimant. I accept that it referred to potential Tier 2 factors, but they suggest that an APA is 'less likely'. The Defendant may have considered there was a Tier 1 factor as the decision mentions "multiple debt problems" but not that the Claimant disputed those debts and not whether necessity was considered.
156. In my judgment the August 2024 decision is infected by the pre- Roberts approach of the Defendant that APAs should be granted to Trusted Partners such as the Council without further investigation into the necessity of protecting the Claimant. The Claimant has pointed to some evidence in the Defendant's logs to suggest that her messages about her dispute with the Council were not taken into account and were internally marked "No reply needed". The August 2024 review also appears to have been conducted within a limited remit ? assessing whether the Claimant had submitted further evidence that she was "no longer" having multiple debt issues. The review was too narrowly focussed on the arrears and multiple debt issues from May 2024 and did not invite consideration of wider evidence about whether the Defendant should impose an APA in its discretion and whether one was necessity to protect her.
158. In those circumstances the review does not render the unlawful decision of 7 May 2024 as academic as it has not replaced the unlawful decision with a lawful one.
160. Relief
161. In those circumstances, I declare that the Defendant's decision to impose an APA on the Claimant on 7 May 2024 was unlawful for the reasons I have given.
163. The Claimant seeks a mandatory order that the Defendant issue a "challengeable decision" with reasons for imposing an APA. The Claimant wants the reasons so she can consider her position and seek legal advice if necessary.
165. A mandatory order may be granted if in all the circumstances it appears to the court to be an appropriate form of relief. It seems to me that the reasons for imposing the APA on 7 May 2024 were the same reasons for keeping it in place undisturbed in August 2024. The Defendant gave its reasons for the APA being imposed and retained in its 22 August 2024 response to the pre-action protocol letter. The Claimant was able to see those reasons and has been able to challenge them in an articulate and compelling way. She has not chosen to ask the Defendant to review the continuation of the APA during 2025 or more recently. She indicated to me that she is more interested in what happened in 2024 than the continuing impact of the APA on her today.
167. The Claimant knows the Defendant's reasons for imposing and continuing the APA in 2024 and has been well able to challenge them. The Defendant would be in some practical difficulties giving fresh reasons in 2026 for a decision taken in May 2024, particularly as there has been a significant change of policy and approach since the Roberts case was decided. In those circumstances it would not be appropriate to order the Defendant to provide further reasons for the decision and I do not exercise my discretion to make a mandatory order. The Claimant has indicated that she does not seek any other form of relief, but I do make the appropriate declaration. In light of that declaration the Defendant may decide of his own motion (or in consultation with the Claimant) that a review of the continuation of the APA is required.
169. Conclusion
170. For these reasons I grant permission to the Claimant to bring her claim for judicial review, I uphold her substantive claim and grant the declaration that the decision complained about was unlawful, but declined to make a mandatory order.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/748.html