High Court rules Somerset Council tax reduction scheme unlawful in significant victory for disabled resident 

The judgment is a significant victory for disabled people, like Andy, affected by changes to their council tax support after they were forced to claim Universal Credit.

It could have implications for similar council tax schemes operated by local authorities across England and Wales.  

Andy, who is disabled, brought the claim after Somerset Council dramatically reduced the level of council tax support he received when he was migrated from legacy benefits onto Universal Credit.  

Prior to the move to Universal Credit, Andy did not have to pay council tax under Somerset Council’s reduction scheme, but after being reassessed under the council’s current rules, he became liable for more than £1,100 a year in council tax despite there being no change in his circumstances, income or needs. 

This was because two elements of his Universal Credit, the limited capability for work related activity element and the transitional element, which he receives as a result of his disability, were suddenly counted as spare income for the purposes of calculating his ability to pay council tax.

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, Andy argued that Somerset Council’s scheme was irrational and unlawfully disadvantaged disabled people, including by treating them differently to disabled people claiming legacy benefits and non-disabled people claiming Universal Credit. He also argued that the council had failed to properly consider the impact of its scheme on disabled people in line with its duties under the Equality Act.

In a judgment handed down on 12 November 2026 the High Court found in Andy’s favour, accepting all of the arguments he put forward.

It held that the rules in Somerset Council’s 2025/26 council tax reduction scheme, by which the limited capacity for work related activity element and the transitional element of Universal Credit are counted towards the calculation of ‘income’ are unlawful.

In particular, the judge found that the rules are irrational and discriminatory, because they treat people who have identical needs differently simply based on the type of benefit they receive, without justification.

He also found that the Exceptional Hardship scheme which Somerset Council operates to assist individuals struggling to pay their council tax does not remove or substantially mitigate the severe impact of this difference in treatment on disabled people.

Additionally, the court concluded that the council failed to comply with its duty under section 149 of the Equality Act to have ‘due regard’ to the needs of disabled people.

The court ruled that the decision regarding Andy’s council tax liability Somerset Council made under the scheme must be quashed and his council tax liability for 2025/26 reassessed.

The claim followed a successful challenge brought by Leigh Day against Trafford Council’s council tax reduction scheme in 2025 and raises wider questions about how local authorities assess entitlement to support for disabled people and those receiving Universal Credit. The judgment is expected to be closely scrutinised by councils operating similar schemes. 

Andy is represented by human rights solicitors Carolin Ott and Aurelia Buelens from law firm Leigh Day. Counsel instructed are Tom Royston and Alexa Thompson from Garden Court North Chambers and Jack Castle from Henderson Chambers. 

Andy Mitchell said: 

“Today’s judgment is a huge relief. When I was moved onto Universal Credit, I was told that my income would be protected and that I would not be worse off financially. Yet I suddenly found myself facing a council tax bill of more than £1,000 a year despite nothing changing about my health, circumstances or needs. 

“I brought this case because I believed that could not be right, and I am delighted that the court has agreed. I know there are many other disabled benefit claimants who have experienced the same shock after moving onto Universal Credit and struggled to meet their council tax liability. I hope this judgment helps ensure that people are treated fairly and that no one is penalised simply because of the type of benefit they receive. This is money the council should never have demanded from thousands of disabled people across Somerset.” 

Carolin Ott, who represented Andy together with Aurelia Buelens, said: 

“This is an important judgment for disabled people and others who rely on council tax reduction schemes to make ends meet. The court has recognised that Somerset Council’s scheme operated unlawfully and that people should not lose vital support simply because they have been migrated from legacy benefits onto Universal Credit. It has also highlighted the importance of considering the impact of proposed rules on disabled people.

“The issues raised by Andy’s case are not unique to Somerset. Other local authorities operate schemes that take a similar approach and we expect this judgment to have significant implications beyond Somerset. 

“We are already hearing from people across the country who believe they have been adversely affected by similar council tax reduction rules. We would encourage anyone who thinks they may have been impacted to contact our team at UniversalCreditQueries@leighday.co.uk.”