Scottish Pensioners Lose Court Challenge Over Winter Fuel Payment Cuts

Peter and Florence Fanning, pensioners from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, lost their legal challenge against UK and Scottish Governments over cuts to the winter fuel payment (WFP) and its Scottish equivalent, the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP). The couple argued that neither government had complied with the Equality Act 2010 or consulted pensioners, and claimed the decisions were irrational and breached their human rights. However, the Court of Session in Edinburgh, presided over by Lady Hood, ruled that both governments had fulfilled their legal duties, that the decisions were neither irrational nor unlawful, and refused the petition. The cuts followed the Labour government’s decision in July 2024 to restrict the WFP to pensioners receiving means-tested benefits, which led Scottish ministers to mirror this policy due to funding adjustments. Despite the ruling, the UK government recently reversed its plan, restoring payments to most pensioners with incomes under £35,000, while the Scottish government continues its universal PAWHP scheme. The Fannings' case spotlighted concerns about the affordability of heating for pensioners with fixed incomes and disabilities, though the courts maintained the legal validity of the governments’ policy changes.