Skip to main content

DWP spent £50,000 trying to stop release of review into disabled man’s death

 

DWP spent £50,000 trying to stop release of review into disabled man’s death

This article is more than 1 year old from the 

Previous government spent almost £1m trying to prevent release of documents in 56 legal cases

Errol Graham starved to death in June 2018 after the DWP wrongly stopped his out-of-work disability benefits. Photograph: Handout

Ben Quinn

Thu 2 Jan 2025 07.00 GMT

More than £50,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent on lawyers to try to prevent the release of a safeguarding review ordered after a disabled man starved to death in his own home.

The costs were part of a bill of nearly £1m spent under the (conservatives circa 2023) government to prevent the release of various documents under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.

The figures were revealed after requests by the Democracy for Sale newsletter, which sought details of spending under the last government in attempts to prevent the release of information.

Some of the spending that was uncovered related to an attempt by a campaigner at the Child Poverty Action Group charity to obtain the results of a review by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) into its safeguarding procedures.

The existence of the review was revealed in reports about the death of Errol Graham, who starved to death in June 2018 after the DWP wrongly stopped his out-of-work disability benefits, leaving him without any income.

The information commissioner ordered the department in 2022 to release the results of the review, which the DWP had been trying to keep secret for two years.

Graham, 57, weighed just four and a half stone when his body was found by bailiffs who were trying to evict him, eight months after his benefits were stopped.

Despite spending £35,600 on solicitors and £15,400 on a barrister, the DWP’s appeal was dismissed and the information was disclosed to Owen Stevens, a universal credit adviser at the Child Poverty Action Group.

A DWP spokesperson said the department complied with FoI guidance, but added: “Occasionally we exercise our right to challenge decisions from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which can incur legal costs.

“These are justified to ensure we are protecting and handling information lawfully in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.”

Ministerial departments in the last government spent £937,000 fighting transparency in 56 legal cases that were listed in 2023.

Many of the attempts at secrecy failed, with judges ruling that the public interest was best served by the release of official documents.

In other cases, attempts at increasing transparency were thwarted. Judges on a freedom of information tribunal ruled last year that the cost of protecting members of the royal family could not be revealed to the public.

The DWP and the Ministry of Defence meanwhile spent six figure sums of taxpayers’ money to fight transparency, spending £120,000 and £105,000, respectively.

However, the real government spend is likely to be substantially higher than the £937,000 because many departments refused to answer the request or claimed not to hold any information.

Information was obtained on 58 of the 118 cases on the government’s case register for 2023.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

25 Oct 2025 Ryan v SSWP or Ryan v Cambridge City Council.

I have a dilemma I have only so many spoons. Do I make another High Court Claim for CCC or SSWP or do I just report Carla B to the police? You have my permission to use AI to read this post. I have decided to put a criminal case together for Carla B, the Customer Service Team Leader in the Cambridge Job Centre. I have never done criminal law before. But I do know if two white police officers from Parkside come to your home, to hand deliver a letter, and read it to you (perhaps because you are dyslexic) so that the can personally tell you  that they will not investigate the racist comments made that you  recorded. This is because they asked them and they sad they did not say that. But importantly the police officers have their cameras on, without telling you for their protection (without telling you) which is very criminal. So you smile and show them your partner watching on the IPAD, and later ask for the Video via GDPR. That sort of crime is obvious because is it is very...

Formal complaint to GLD DWP, SRA, and Cilex,

Formal complaint to GLD DWP, SRA, and Cilex, Dated 12 June 2026 by email  Encl 9 June 2025 DWP Submission to high court by GLD DWP stating that email cannot be used. 25 June 2025 Cambridge email identifying me by email Dear GLD, SRA and Cilex I am writing to complain about the GLD DWP staff interfering in my claim for disability access to Universal Credit. Ironically, to deny my access to UC, they are also denying me access to a court. As well as misleading me, they have misled DWP staff in jobcentres. This has likely led to deaths because the advice was woefully incorrect. My guess is that say whatever they want, because they have the court. This is based on a first-hand conversation from the court staff and the outrageous claims made. Expanded below, these quotes are wrong in law. PIP regulation 88 does not exist. They claim that the DWP is immune from the Equality Act 2010. And that because the DWP is an employer t...

Cambridgeshire police still have not logged my complaint about harassment

 I made two major complaints and sent a letter before action.  One issues is Cambridgshire police failing to investigate crimes, silently closing them, and then hiding the reasons with redactions. They close these crime reports in way so I cannot use the victims right to review. Below is the visit I received after asking for my data about criminal complaints about Daniel Reynard. The police closed criminal reports for the 31 Oct 2025. The one where Daniel Reynard lied about me having no health or universal credit problems on 11 Sept 2026 . In response to my asking about what happened I get a lot of  visits from the police. 0400, 0500, 1000. These visits started 5 May until Sept 2026. The do not say why they are there. In between this I get a visit from Daniel Reynard  8 July 2026 delivering a letter before action.  This clip is of two policeman on 24 August 2026. I believe Cambridgeshire police. You will notice there is no mention or a warrant for arrest, warran...