Mitchell v Somerset Council: council tax reduction scheme discriminated against disabled UC claimants

Somerset Council's council tax reduction scheme unlawfully discriminated against a disabled man whose support fell from 100% to 10% when he was moved from employment and support allowance to universal credit, the High Court has held.

In R (Mitchell) v Somerset Council [2026] EWHC 2930 (Admin), Judge Barry Clarke, President of Employment Tribunals sitting as a High Court judge, found breaches of Article 14 of the ECHR, sections 15, 19 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty. He also held, in the alternative, that the relevant rules were irrational.

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 and received full support. For universal credit recipients, only the housing costs element was disregarded, so the additional element for limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) counted as income. When the claimant was moved to UC under managed migration in July 2025, his income changed by ten pence a week but he was placed in the 10% band and billed £785.98 for the rest of the year.

On the comparison with an otherwise identical ESA recipient, the judge held that receipt of UC rather than a legacy benefit was an "other status", noting the claimant had no choice about migration. The two were in an analogous position, having the same needs, income and capability assessment. Comparability was judged by the scheme's purpose of relieving financial need.

Despite allowing a wide margin, the judge found no objective justification. 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. A disregard of the LCWRA element was an obvious lesser measure, flagged to officers by the council's consultant and Citizens Advice before the decision. The only cost estimate, about £4 million a year, post-dated the decisions and was unexplained. Following R (Winder) v Sandwell MBC [2014] EWHC 2617 (Admin), unsupported assertions of financial pressure could not justify the rules.

The council's exceptional hardship scheme could not cure a structural disadvantage identifiable in advance from the scheme itself, applying R (Carmichael) v SSWP [2016] UKSC 58 and distinguishing R (Logan) v Havering LBC [2015] EWHC 3193 (Admin), where disabled and non-disabled claimants were treated alike. The £30 disability disregard, as written, reached no one on UC.

On the comparison with a non-disabled UC recipient, who would receive full support, the decision amounted to discrimination arising from disability under section 15, indirect discrimination under section 19 and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Schedule 22 provided no defence, as it protects only the application of a lawful scheme, following R (Willott) v Eastbourne BC [2024] EWHC 113 (Admin).

The public sector equality duty was breached when the full council adopted the scheme in December 2024. The papers addressed only the four proposed cuts, not the rules carried forward. The one document identifying the migration problem, a Citizens Advice response, was introduced in the officer report as addressing a superseded paper. Members' "eyes were closed" to the effect of the scheme on disabled people.

Distinguishing R (Delve) v SSWP [2020] EWCA Civ 1199, the judge held the claim in time, as the one-year scheme was never certain to apply to the claimant.

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.

Tom Royston, Jack Castle and Alexa Thompson (instructed by Leigh Day) appeared for the claimant. Nigel Giffin KC (instructed by Somerset Council Legal Services) appeared for the defendant.