BBCA couple have lost a bid to sue the UK and Scottish governments over the decision to cut winter fuel payments.
Pensioners Peter and Flo Fanning, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in March, alleging that both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes.
The Court of Session ruled to refuse the petition on Friday.
The couple’s lawyers have said they have no doubt the Fanning’s litigation had been influential in securing U-turns by both governments.
A spokesperson from the Govan Law Centre told BBC Scotland News: “While our clients have lost their case at first instance, we have no doubt that this litigation has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK government earlier this week.
“We hope that the Scottish government will now follow suit and restore the winter fuel payment in full for people such as our clients.”
Earlier this week, the UK government abandoned plans to withdraw the payments from all but the poorest pensioners after the scheme drew widespread criticism.
The Scottish government had already launched its own winter fuel benefit in response to the original cuts which included extra support for those less well-off, but also a universal payment which is unaffected by income.
The Govan Law Centre added the legal challenge “was always one of process” and the fact the UK government has already reconsidered the cuts “vindicates” their clients.
It said that an appeal would have “reasonable prospects of success” but added it is unlikely that legal aid would be provided for this.
What’s happening with winter fuel payments?
About 10 million pensioners in England and Wales lost their allowance under new measures announced by chancellor Rachel Reeves in July last year.
Those on pension credit or certain other means-tested benefits retained the annual payments, worth between £100 and £300.
In Scotland, the payment was devolved to Holyrood in April 2024, but the Scottish government followed the actions of their counterparts in Westminster in terminating it in August 2024, arguing £160m had been taken from its budget.
A new alternative, called the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP), was due to be introduced the following month, but that has since been pushed back to winter 2025.
It will also be means-tested, despite ministers claiming it would not be.
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville recently said the universal approach of the devolved Scottish scheme was important – but that wealthier pensioners would be made aware that they could opt out.
The current plan is for all pensioner households to receive at least £100 regardless of income, while those on pension credit will receive up to £305 depending on age.
Meanwhile, the devolved government in Northern Ireland also followed suit, but affected pensioners were given a one-off £100 payment from Stormont in November.
What was the legal case?
Mr and Mrs Fanning, lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating costs.
They argued that consultation with pensioners should have taken place and an equality impact assessment should have been carried out before the cuts were made.
They also claimed the decision to end the £300 benefit for thousands of pensioners across the country last year was “irrational” and breached their human rights.
Mr Fanning, 73 previously told BBC Scotland News both governments were “guilty through action and inaction, of damaging the welfare of pensioners.”
Lady Hood found that neither of the governments had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and neither was under a duty to consult.
In her judgment, Lady Hood stated: “This case is not a verdict, nor even an expression of opinion, on the merits or demerits of government policy as debated in the public arena.”
Lady Hood added that the purpose of the case was to test a much “narrower question”, namely whether the policy decisions made by the governments were unlawful, and if so liable to be struck down by the courts.
