Disabled Somerset resident granted permission to challenge council tax reduction scheme in High Court

The court decided that all the grounds of challenge put forward in Andy’s case are ‘arguable’ and should therefore be considered at a hearing.  

The claim challenges the way Somerset Council assesses entitlement to council tax reduction for people who receive Universal Credit. Andy argues the scheme unlawfully penalises disabled people and others with additional needs based on the kind of benefits they receive. 

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, Andy is disabled and unable to work because of multiple physical and mental health conditions. He relies on means-tested benefits which he is entitled to in recognition of his disability.  

Until recently, Andy, who lives in Taunton, did not have to pay council tax under Somerset Council’s reduction scheme in recognition of his disability. However, after being migrated from ‘legacy’ benefits to Universal Credit, the council reassessed Andy’s entitlement and drastically reduced the relief he receives towards council tax.  

Andy is now being asked to pay 90 per cent of the council tax bill for his property. So while Andy used to not have to pay any council tax, he now receives a reduction of only around £2 per week, meaning his council tax bill is now more than £1,100 per year – despite there being no change in his level of income or his needs. 

Andy’s claim argues that this stems from discriminatory structural flaws in the design of the council’s scheme, rather than anything specific to his circumstances. Whilst legacy benefits are disregarded entirely when calculating council tax reduction under Somerset’s scheme, all Universal Credit income, except the housing element, are taken into account. This means that other elements of Universal Credit, including the disability element, are now treated as ‘income’ and Andy no longer qualifies to have his council tax bills reduced, even though he is receiving the same amount of benefits for the same reason.   

On 9 January 2026, the High Court granted permission for Andy’s judicial review to proceed on all grounds, including arguments that the scheme is:

1. Discriminatory: It is argued the scheme unlawfully discriminates against disabled people because it treats disability-related elements of Universal Credit as if they were ‘spare income’. This means people whose benefits are increased to reflect disability-related needs are assessed as less in need of support and are required to pay more council tax than non-disabled people with comparable financial circumstances. It also treats people with identical needs and incomes differently based on whether they are receiving ‘legacy’ benefits or Universal Credit.  
2. In breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty: It is argued Somerset Council failed to properly consider the impact of its scheme on disabled people and other protected groups when designing and operating the scheme, and when making the decision in Andy’s case.
3. Irrational: It is argued that it is arbitrary and therefore irrational to disregard all the income of someone on legacy means tested benefit, yet to take into account the equivalent disability-related elements of Universal Credit. In the context of a system which requires consideration of financial needs, it is irrational for a person’s entitlement to change radically when their financial needs have not changed.  

The case also highlights concerns about the council’s reliance on its discretionary hardship payments scheme to plug gaps created by the rules in its main council tax reduction scheme, arguing this creates uncertainty, barriers and additional distress for people who are already vulnerable.  

Andy’s challenge follows a recent High Court victory in a similar case brought by Leigh Day against Trafford Council, in which the court ruled its tax reduction scheme was unlawful.  

Like the Trafford case, Andy’s case raises important questions about how local authorities across England and Wales design council tax reduction schemes and the consideration given to vulnerable and disabled people with limited income.  

The case will now proceed to a full hearing in the High Court, where the lawfulness of Somerset Council’s scheme will be considered. 

Andy is represented by human rights solicitor Carolin Ott and Aurelia Buelens from law firm Leigh Day. Counsel is Tom Royston and Alexa Thompson from Garden Court North Chambers. 

Andy said: 

“When I was moved from Employment and Support Allowance onto Universal Credit, I was told my income would be protected and that I would not be worse off. So when I received a large council tax bill from Somerset Council it was a shock. I thought it must be a mistake as nothing about my health or circumstances had changed.

"It cannot be right that the DWP reassures claimants that their income is protected when they migrate to Universal Credit, when they must have known that council tax bills might substantially increase and therefore significantly reduce income available to meet essential needs. This situation has caused me real anxiety and distress and I feel misled. I have since learnt there are a lot of other people in Somerset and across the country in a similar position so I hope this case will lead to greater awareness and fairer treatment for everyone.”  

Carolin Ott said: 

“This case raises serious concerns about the way Somerset Council’s scheme operates in practice. Our client’s circumstances and level of need have not changed, yet he has gone from paying no council tax to facing charges of more than £1,000 a year, simply because he was migrated to Universal Credit. 

“The court has rightly recognised that our client’s claim is arguable on all grounds, and we now look forward to the substantive hearing where the lawfulness of the scheme will be fully tested. The case has potential wider implications for many other residents in similar situations whose migration to Universal Credit has impacted their eligibility for council tax reductions.” 

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), who have been campaigning on the issue of hidden costs associated with migration to Universal Credit, said: 

“DPAC remain very concerned that disabled people who were told they would have the same income after forced migration to Universal Credit are suddenly finding themselves liable for sometimes huge increases in council tax and social care charges pushing them further and further into poverty.”