My DWP Timeline

Ryan

v 

Cambridge JCP and Cambridge City Council

Last update: 25 Oct 2025 1659 (regular updates on CCC and DWP claim)

Statement of Facts and Grounds

Statement of Facts

Introductory

I am Ryan, I lived in Cambridge. I am disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Which means that Services should make reasonable adjustments for me to access there services.

However the DWP and Cambridge City Council "CCC" think that is there job to ignore this. This lead to me going to the High Court to enforce these rights. And making claims against the Cambridge Jobcentre plus employees for ignoring me, and mocking me in my journal. Then the DWP Solicitors lying in the High Court case to protect them. This meant telling the court that my claim was about email, not the Equality Act. This also meant telling the court that I had "disabilities" not a vulnerable witness who loses capacity when stressed. They made applications to county court claiming that it is impossible to sue a DWP employee becaus of "vicarious liability" and the "crown proceedings act".

These are various obvious lies to allow on person to not provide me with reasonable adjustments in universal credit, who I now have managed to get enough evidence to report to the police.

Throughout this time 2019 to 2025, CCC is not better. They succeeded in ignoring their duties under the quality act as well. I had to wait 5 years to put in a disability bathroom. They ignored their duties to house me, requiring GT Stewart to intervene. But this did not stop CCC, continuing to abuse me by ignoring complaints, and putting my in a home full of asbestos and not telling me it was there. There is a long list which I will continue to update.

The claims of unlawful eviction against CCC

On or around the 17 Sep 2025 "CCC" unlawful possession proceedings because of rent arrears. The rent arrears were based on UC failing to make reasonable adjustments to the Universal Credit process from April 2025 to present day. Instead of accepting that I was disabled DR came round to imagine that I was well. This will link to that discrimination claim.

On or around the 5 Sept and from 8 April 2025 to present day the DWP unlawfully refused to make  reasonable adjustments to their Universal Credit Process. 

CB, On or around the 5 Sept and from 8 April 2025 to present day the DWP unlawfully refused to make  reasonable adjustments. This was a criminal act because she was in a public office, acting as such by answering emails and servicing the universal credit journal for the administration of benefits for th government. In doing this she knew that she had a duty to uphold the Equality Act, and the Civil Service Code of conduct; reasonable adjustments and to not misrepresent. Also, serious in her knowledge is that she knew about the effect of misrepresenting court proceedings and her duties under the Equality act in my claim, that she was told on th 4 sept that the decision affected a possession claim being made by CCC.

Her actions are not justified as she reversed the meaning of the equality act and repeatedly refused to follow publically available DWP policy on applying the Equality act to customers, including applying complex needs, consent, and third part biometric ID. When confronted with those policies and practices on the 4 Sept she misrepresented them on th 5 Sept. 

She was aware or did not actually know what was said by the Justice in the proceedings. But in explaining why she was not providing reasonable adjustments, first she did not answer the question put to her about commitments, reversed the Equality Act duty, made a general statement about reasonable adjustments claiming that the High Court judge supported this. When on the facts regardless of knowledge a High Court judge would not reverse the meaning of reasonable adjustments. They would not say that a person needs to make adjustments before the DWP makes adjustments. This backwards thinking about the Equality Act proves that she did not know what the judge said or had a reckless disregard for what the judge actually said. 

Who helped CB do this in the DWP?

CB was assied in prolonging the reasonable adjustments by three solicitors at the DWP. They worked in the General Legal Department. 

The tricks that the three GLD lawyers can be summarised as: lie about the evidence, lie about the law.

CD 

Ms S

Ms S is a head of a department or something. But also has the same Mo. Lie about the claim and lie about the evidence. My High Court claim had several grounds from Unreadable ness, to human rights claims including the Equality Act. Ms S told the court that it was about "email".

Ms S submissions to the court 9 June 2025, were similar to CB's refusal in my Journal.

"To progress your Third Party Verification request DWP requires you to complete , sign and return the forms via the return envelope supplied. Whilst email maybe your preferred option this will not be accepted as confirmation of your consent or verify your identity.... alternative options offered of either a face to face appointment, a phone appointment with Biographical questions or a home visit we would be happy to arrange this."

Email, actually came true. As email is what both PIP and UC used to resolve my issues. But this did not stop Ms S claiming victory. Asking the High Court to close the case. But she failed to mention how PIP and UC had done it. Done what? How?

First Ms Claimed that government did not have the power to use email. She also claimed that I was asking for email. Then on the 25 June 2025? link to email

"On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 12:28, CCC <CCC@cambridge.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Ryan

I can confirm that I have just received an email from UC asking me to verify your Identification by confirming your tenancy details below. I have just responded and agreed with their statement [:] 

"Hi Sarah,

All I need to confirm is the landlord has been reported as Cambridge City Council (City Homes) – do you represent them? If so are you able to confirm the statements below for me please? If you can get back to me urgently I would really appreciate it."

This makes the Ms look like they are lying to the High Court. She misresented my claim as email. Then suddenly I was ID's by email.

Ms H

Ms H was instrumental in protecting CB and others from making reasonable adjustments. For context I was asking from 8 April to 20 June 2025 for reasonable adjustment to the ID process. But it was not until on the 20 June 2025 I stopped asking and made a claim against CB, and others that I was "urgently" ID's by CB and CCC. Prior to that CB repeatedly said it was not possible.

Ms H then inserted the government into my private claim. She made several material lies. The lies about law were, that you can only sue the government and not government employees, she said. She said, that this is because of "vicarious liability" and "the crown proceedings act". This is probably not true. Those laws do not force you to sue the government or an employer, they enable you to sue. pending link to the claim made by Ms H.

She also lied about the details in my claim. She said that it was a claim for "discrimination" against the government. When the cause of action wan not the government it "discrimination under the Equality Act". The importance of lying about this fact is that it makes it seem like I was trying to sue the government. But it was a bad lie because it can be proven by comparing the claim. 

Another material lie, was adding the JCP to all paperwork except the daft order. Which would make it look like the government was not involved. A clerk would print of the draft and get a judge to sign it and it would look like the JCP team made the strike out application, not JCP the government.

Her goal was not to strike out the claim but to cause me more trouble making the claim and coasts it If loose. As most judges just go by what the government says, except a notable few.

I have the following disabilities:

History between DWP and Ryan

In 2019 I applied for PIP. Atos in Dec 2019 interviewed me for 1 hour. Then told the DWP I waked out after 5 mins. ATOS looked out my PIP claim so that it did not appear on the system for review, I was told by DWP customer services. DWP legal refused to provide any adjustment from Dec 2019 to July 2020.

I threatened to sue PIP in 2020. PIP discriminating against me by stating that I was not disabled enough to follow their policy. But without saying that. They were refusing to comply with their policy on non face to face interview for those on the spectrum and associated problems communicating. I hade the following issues, stutter, pre PTSD(acute stress reaction disorder), mixed anxiety and depre, dyslexia, undiagnosed ADHD, undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder. I was a mess.

As negotiations with MP Daniel Zeichner repeatedly failed; I spent hours per days writing a 50 page Letter before action on discrimination. I sent it on 20 July 2020, on the 22 July 2020 I was asked two remaining clarifying questions on my PIP claim. I was awarded PIP from 2019 to 2025.

In Dec 2025 I provided my PIP review by email. Then my Evidence March 2025. In May 2025 PIP sent me to PIP phone assessment. They then repeatedly ignored requests to explain. One citing that I walked out previously, another citing that I should call the PIP.

If you are keeping up the last two comments are highly insulting. I did not walk out. And I cannot call.

History between CCC and Ryan

In 2019, GT Stewart were required to explain to Cambridge City Council how to Housing Act 1996 worked. 26 March 2019 I was found to be in priority need and June 2019 a main housing duty. I moved into my Cambridge City 19 August 2019, and became a secure tenant a year later. The fact that a solicitor required kinda explains the character of the housing staff and the council. Not as bad as Waltham Forest but very close.

One example is that my disability bathroom took 5 years to install. CCC is known for deleting complaints. But CCC's scores highly with the Ombudsman and Social Regulator. These are the complaint numbers for my shower on moving in 19 August 2019 to Sept 2024: 

• CCC540399813 
• CAM399855 Shower 2019 to March 2020 - cannot change shower without OT report
• CAM626654 OT Bath 2021, Installed the smallest bath, without the recommended shower.
• CAM113571 Bath 2023, (We have no other size baths, be patient)
• Asked Race discrimination Charity 2024. - Shower and larger bath installed winter 2024.
• 24 Oct 2025, the Bathroom is still incomplete; disrepair: bath lets in insects from outside. Bath tiles are covered in glue and pealing. 

Let's move on. In summary we have two organisations that both ignore complaints, and their duty under the equality act 2010. And both are willing to make you wait. The first is a breach of Natural Justice, the second is illegality, the last is a Human Rights issue.

That is there behaviour. Next is what happened for the DWP and CCC to start possession for my home. 

Facts

CCC's 4 Sept 2025 request for reasonable adjustments

On 4 Sept 2025 CCC contacted universal credit Cambridge. All UC processes are run by a local Jobcentre Plus. 

JCP employees are now all part of the DWP. All DWP officers are required to follow DWP policies, the Equality Act, Civil Services Code of Conduct. Which means the staff knew what that are doing when they are misrepresenting what a reasonable adjustment is.

This the same the council. This council must follow same public law duties. 

Here CCC's email to told JCP that they were considering possession proceedings. They also asked if JCP would make reasonable adjustments to my commitments. They Cited ADM. A policy that staff must follow. CCC mentioned possession which is serious. The first stage of eviction. 

This is a short excerpt from the email of the 4 Sept to the JCP Cambridge REDACTED: 

"As his commitments have not been agreed  his payments have been on hold which means his rent account is now in arrears and the Income Team are looking to serve a Notice Of Seeking Possession.I believe it is entirely possible that the claimant commitment can be accepted in writing and this is confirmed within paragraph J1007 of the ADM which you can find here:

"J1007 The methods by which a claimant commitment can be accepted by a person is set out in regulations as 1. electronically or

2. by telephone or 3. in writing1 . The Secretary of State can specify which of these methods are to be used by a person to accept their claimant commitment. UC Regs, reg 15(4)”

Is it possible you can contact whoever is requesting the f2f or video consultation and advise them accordingly

Mr feels his requests for reasonable adjustments due to his health issues are being ignored."

CCC are correct. But not about the right stage. I needed adjustments to the GSE interview a step before the Claimant commitment.

CCC's email is perfect otherwise. The duty is there, the seriousness of the possession, and CB answers the Email. This is perfect for a claim of Misconduct in Public Office.

CB's 5 Sept 2025 response

What happens nexts needs some context. 

In CB's email response to a questions about Commitments, and reasonable adjustments, know a few things:

• First, reasonable adjustments requires CB to help me, access the DWP.
• Second, the Judge, she misquotes.
• Third, whatever she says next means CCC may make seek possession
• Fourth, reasonable adjustments must relived the problem.

CB writes:

"From: JCP Customer Service Leader CB@DWP.GOV.UK

Sent: 05 September 2025 13:13

To: SB@cambridge.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Ryan

Hi S,

Thank you for your email,

Whilst I appreciate you highlighting the ADM and requesting reasonable adjustments to undertake a commitment, a commitment cannot be considered until Mr RYAN undertakes the actions as explained in his Universal Credit account in relation to confirming the status of his self-employment.

This is because Mr RYAN was a UC Migration customer due to being in receipt of Tax Credits due to self-employment. DWP have offered Mr RYAN a face to face, video or phone call to undertake the Gainfully self-employed appointment, I have also offered an alternative office undertakes the appointment, which are suitable reasonable adjustments for the appointment type.

Please be aware it is not appropriate to undertake this appointment type in writing, as it an assessment of a customer self-employment status, as a result of an interactive interview between the claimant and the work coach. Mr RYAN chose to not attend the Gainfully self-employed appointment which was booked for him.

Mr RYAN has been advised how he can declare a change of circumstances if he is no longer undertaking self-employment or receiving an income from his self-employment which will be considered and may negate the need for the Gainfully self-employed interview..

A judge has agreed with DWP we have offered suitable reasonable adjustments to Mr RYAN which are not to his pleasing.

Whilst it is an open legal case, Cambridge Jobcentre will continue to follow guidance and the advice of our Legal Team and Policy Teams.

Thanks

CB"

After this strong rhetorical counter-argument, CCC are confused. As intended.

Instead, of asking for clarification. then started proceedings on the 11 Sept 2025, and 17 Sept 2025 with a time to start proceedings 3 Nov 2025. 

When I got hold of CB's email I thought that CB misrepresentation was the problem. I was wrong. Wrong to spent almost a month wasting energy on explaining to CCC that the statement was wrong. I even provided the court orders.

This all fell on deaf ears because CCC was being CCC. 

The same CCC that takes 5 years to install a bathroom. The same CCC that deletes complaints. The same CCC that you need a solicitor to explain how the law works. The problem was the was the officer who signed the possession order visited me at home and tried to deliver a notice, on the 11 Sept 2025. Like myself DR is clearly dyslexic. And economical with the truth. I am grateful that I started recording on my phone then opened my door. DR greeted me and introduced himself by his first name only. I replied. He then asked me about the circumstances of the rent arrears - as if he was listening. However at the end of our discussion he was about to hand me a prewritten letter - as if he was not listening.

But I listed as DR defended the DWP for their action in my claim in 2025. To support he gave his background - as a 2020 DWP universal credit worker. 

Standing on my doorstep was not a CCC official. It was the spokesperson for the DWP. Here is was he said:

[tk pending]

I received DR's statement, made on the day. 11 Sept 2025, in a GDPR reply. There is a big difference between what is on the recording. And what the council has in there records. 

DR, in his statement decided to manufacture a person. A person that was not disabled. This is so he did not have to follow the possession proceedings for social landlords, "the protocol". 

The protocol is a court rule that you must abide by before you start proceedings. Otherwise you can face court sanctions - fines - dismissing of the case and - extension of eviction notices. It is not optional. Especially for Disabidable, people, vulnerable people and those facing benefit arrears. This is mirrored in part in CCC tenancy policy. 

What DR was trying to below, was to avoid following both CCC policy and the Protocol by erasing my disability with a visit. He was going to rely on his observation, perhaps in court to say why he did not follow the protocol.

DR critical mistake is I am not physically disabled. My disabilities are cognitive, social and mental. So when he is trying to fake an assessment of my disability, he is assessing the wrong type of disability.

So, it doesn't even matter if I can stand.

"stood for around 10-15 minutes unadded"

This is disgusting. DL is misrepresenting me being well, not asking for medical evidence, in order to send a possession claim.

Even though I told him about my health and that I was recording and that I would sue him for discrimination he still did the following:

DL wrote in CCC records that I was not disabled. (I have not edited the spelling mistakes):

"Mr answered the door. I explained I was there to speak about the rent account. He spoke about his problems with UC. I asked if he had tried to speak to his MP and he said the MP has refused to help him. He said that he had made his request for reasable ajustments to UC and Sarah. It was up to them to sort out his benifits. He said he had emailed the hight court about his case and had sued inderviduels involved in his case. I brought the conversation back about the rent account and why I was there. I was following are procedures. At this point he began to get angry and was swearing when speaking to me. I asked his not to and he said he had been recording me. He showed me the phone hidden on a stall in the bathroom under some papers. He said that I could not serve him with a notice. I explained that is was not a notice but a warning letter and I could go thorugh it with him. He kept saying I could send it recourded delivery or her would not except it. He was becoming more agrasive so I left and said I would post it to him. He closed the door. As I walked away down the passage he opened the door. I could not see him but he began talking/shouting like I was still in front of him. I could not hear what he was saying.

Notes - Mr did open the door to me apone my second time of knocking. He was very confedent when he was speaking to me and stood for around 10-15 minutes unadded. He looked very well kept and the property was clean and tidy."

I wrote to a letter before action on the 23 Oct, delivered it on the 23 th with a deadline 24th Oct 3pm to retract the statement and the possession notice. With pending NOSP claim 3 Nov, and one month of ignoring the evidence sent of my real disability, has enough notice.

But I heard nothing from DR.

CCC cc me on email application to court to strike out claim against G 25 Oct 2025

On the 25 October 2025 CCC legal copied me in on an application to my claim against one of their employees, G.

That application was hoping to strike out the claim against their employee was unarguable. Meaning that it was bound to fail. But this obviously was known before the claim was made.

Let me explain.

According to law, you cannot be made to sue someone. LexisNexis/ Practical Law:

"As a general rule, claimants are entitled to pursue which defendants they wish, and cannot be required to join defendants that they do not wish to sue (Smith v Michelmores Trust Corporation Ltd, applying Dollfuss Mieg v Bank of England). But this is subject to special cases for which different provision has been made by law, including by the rules of procedure, for example under CPR 64 (Smith v Michelmores Trust Corporation Ltd)..."

According to law, the person on the claim form is the person entitled to respond. And maybe their solicitor.

But CCC is not a defendant. G was. So why did CCC make the application.

And CCC cannot be G and CCC's solicitor. Because CCC retains the services for itself, not G. So why did CCC file an AOS.

See above waiting for 5 years for a disability bathroom, is one explanation. Just because they feel like it.

Why did I sue G

I was homeless. A NOSP makes you homeless or threatened with homelessness. And CCC has a duty to assess you. DR if he followed the CCC's policy and the protocol I should have been referred: Care assessment, Homelessness assessment, and to a third party. So I did.

G was a person who responded to my request. They wanted to assess me by phone!

No matter how much I explained, complained, provided medical evidence, made reasonable requests and quoted the Statutory guidance he was write:

(I note that I called ... and you did not pick up) words to that effect.

He was making a note. To set up a dismissal of my homeless request.

I made a note back. 

I asked for the complaint number and the person who was going to contact me. I got no information. about this. So I began to feel intimidated. 

Here was someone, who wanted to assess me on the phone, and he could not even handle complaints, follow the housing guidance, acknowledge reasonable adjustments. He was doing whatever he wanted.

He called me on the date I said not to call. Then I sent the claim and particulars the next day...

In response he gave me the link to complain. 

Why did I report SN to the SRA

SN contacted me in relation to the claim against  CCC and G. He said that he was a litigation lawyer and a solicitor representing CCC and G.

He is a Lawyer and a Solicitor.

He represents both CCC and G.

There is a claim against CCC and G.

One of those sentences is correct. All three of them are a problem between SN and the Solicitors Regulation Authority "SRA".

Let me explain.

Only yourself and a Solicitor is allowed to conduct litigation. You in your case. SN, sending an email on behalf of CCC in the claim against myself and G, was litigation. But he was not a registered solicitor.

So  I reported SN to the SRA. I received a reply on the morning of the 24 Oct 2025.

Why should I make a second report to the SRA?

Instead of DR doing what I asked he did what he had done since 11 Sept 2025 to 24 Oct 2025, lie low and have CCC send unlawful applications.

I have likely paid my rent for the year, with the cost of the litigation. Imagine if CCC contacted the DWP and asked them to make reasonable adjustments for me in my UC claim. Maybe I could be safe and secure in my home, and CCC would have their rent. But...

In the afternoon of 24th Oct 2035 as 1630 I was copied in on an application to strike out the claim against G to a court. I was hoping that I would be able to respond by the 

1630 and it being a friday are notable for court applications. No help. Courts close at 4:30pm. Psychological pressure of worrying the weekend about the order. The order is not likely to be processed.

In the application to my claim with G, not CCC - the same error of trying to say that CCC was a defendant (abuse of process).

The same argument that you cannot sue an employee. Threats of costs etc. But no proof of service of the letter they claimed to have sent me by the SN. SN if you remember is being investigated by the SRA,

I replied to the court, and copied in the SRA. 

I then got an email from CCC legal wanting to negotiate. 

A recap.

My rent to pay for my rent arrears and more are two £3000 claims of discrimination by CCC employees. 

G refused to take a complaint, reasonable adjustments and follow the statutory code for homelessness.

DR came to my doorstep, defended the DWP, fabricated my wrong disability, ignored the CCC policy and ignored the possession protocol, in order to  made the possession notice

These claims are worth more that £6000.

CCC has not responded officially to my letter before action for Judicial review, but has twice contacted me about claims they are not defendants in.

These three issues and more are worth more than my home:

1. Defending discriminatory acts by its employees
2. Repeatedly ignoring the statutory homeless process in 2019 and 2025.
3. Failing to address significant disrepair in my flat, bathroom, and garden.
4. Ignoring and deleting formal complaints.
5. Using the legal system as a tool for harassment.
6. Breaching the rules of natural justice.

There is no way that a court would let you make a possession claim, as this behaviour is not legitimate.

I have all weekend to document the way you have treated me since 2019.

Yes I have emailed the CEO of Cambridge.

No, I have not received an official answer to my letter before action for Judicial Review. See this Statement of facts and grounds.

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL: INCOME MANAGEMENT AND RENT ARREARS POLICY

1.6 The City Council also has a tenancy sustainment team who offer specialist help and advice for tenants with mental health issues...

1.8 City Homes will also consider, when taking possession action, the Housing Act 1996, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and our duties under the Public Sector Equalities Duty within this Act, as well as any other relevant information or Acts, and will make assessments accordingly.

1.9 This policy relates to secure tenancies only, but will refer to other relevant policies in order to reflect a balanced and holistic approach to the collection and recovery of rent arrears across all tenure types. ...

4.0 PROCEDURE

4.1 City Homes have set comprehensive rent arrears recovery procedures and flowcharts to support the policy (Appendix 1), covering the process from early intervention to eviction. The procedures are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they remain current and relevant.

4.2 The procedures provide detailed guidance for staff when dealing with rent arrears cases and comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords (Appendix 2).

4.3 In line with our procedures all possession claims are entered onto the Possession Claims On Line (PCOL) website by staff after approval from the Income Manager.

4.4 Eviction requests are subject to rigorous checks, and a checklist completed, before approval is sought from the Strategic Director (Appendix 3).

Procedural Flow for Secure Tenancies

Week 1 (New Tenancies): Send New Tenant Letter (NEWT). If UC claimant, include info leaflet.

Week 3 (2 weeks in arrears): Send Invoice (LTR1). If UC claimant, send UC letter and leaflet.

Week 4 (3 weeks in arrears): Phone call, email, or text to chase debt. Contact support worker if applicable, or refer to rent advisor.

Week 6 (5 weeks in arrears): Raise and serve a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) with a 3-month rent statement.

Week 7 (6 weeks in arrears): Make a formal referral to a support agency (with prior tenant consent).

Week 8 (7 weeks in arrears): Arrange a home/office visit to set up a formal payment arrangement (ARR). Refer to rent advisor if appropriate.

Week 10 (9 weeks in arrears): Send a pre-court warning letter (CAPL).

Week 12 (11 weeks in arrears): Enter court application (CAP), after checking pre-action protocol has been adhered to. Authorised paperwork is entered on the Possession Claims On Line (PCOL) system.

DWP Policy

CB does not have an option to make reasonable adjustments, if I am disabled. But not once does she mention this. She could have just said that I am not disabled. And then she would not have to do anything.

"Delivering Equality for customers - Access to DWP services

About these instructions 

1. All DWP staff have a legal duty to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. We have a legal duty not to discriminate against customers who are protected by the Equality Act. 

Therefore, staff must make sure they understand their responsibilities so that they know how to cognise customers who may need additional support to access DWP services; how to put the necessary support in place for customers and how to ensure this is consistently applied.

2. “Customer” refers to any person or organisation that accesses our services.

(customer, client, claimant, citizen, employer, partner)

3. This guidance is to inform and raise awareness of:

• The Equality Act 2010;
• How the Equality Act affects DWP;
• The Equality Actions you must take when dealing with customers who require additional support;
• How to provide a reasonable adjustment
• Equality Act Accessibility checklist

4. Remember, you may have to do something different to enable a customer to

receive equal access to benefits and services."

Procedural History

DWP

Claim against CB and 3 UC employees and one DWP Data Protection office

CCC

2 Oct 2025 Letter before Under Judicial Review Pre Action Protocol against Cambridge City Council "CCC". The claim is that the unlawfully started possession proceedings. The deadline for response was the 3 Oct 2025.

DWP policy

Statement of Grounds

The Requirement to make reasonable adjustments

There is a three-stage approach to the duty to make reasonable adjustments, as set out by

the Court of Appeal in R (VC) v SSHD [2018] 1 WLR 4781 at [147]:

a. identify the provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) which is said to put the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage;

b. determine whether the PCP in fact puts disabled persons of any particular class at a substantial disadvantage; and

c. assess whether the Defendant took such steps as it was reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage.

Public Law

Human Rights Act

Benefits Law

Possession Law

Criminal Law

DWP

Ground

CCC

Ground

DWP Officer 

Ground

Public Officer

Acting as such

DWP Officer 

Ground

1. The Defendant is a Public Officer

As a civil servant and Customer Service Team Leader for the DWP, CB is responsible for administering public funds and exercising statutory functions. This role falls within the established definition of a public office. CB is bound by the duties of her office and the Civil Service Code.

All DWP staff have a legal duty to comply with the requirements of the  Equality Act 2010. We have a legal duty not to discriminate against  customers who are protected by the Equality Act. Therefore, staff must make sure they understand their responsibilities so that they know how to  recognise customers who may need additional support to access DWP  services; how to put the necessary support in place for customers and how  to ensure this is consistently applied. 

2. Acting in the Exercise of Public Functions

All acts complained of were performed by CB in her capacity as a DWP officer. This includes answering emails and journal queries, making decisions regarding reasonable adjustments, and managing processes for identity verification and advance payments. These actions were taken under the "colour" of her office.

3. The Misconduct (Unlawful Acts)

CB committed a series of unlawful acts that constitute an abuse of her power.

5th September 2025: Misrepresentation regarding the Equality Act 2010

In an email to Cambridge City Council (CCC), CB misrepresented that a judge had agreed with the DWP's offered reasonable adjustments for Ryan's claimant commitment.

This statement was false. No judge had made such a decision; the judicial order in question pertained to ID verification, not claimant commitments.

This misrepresentation constitutes a serious abuse of power. It misled a third party (the landlord), causing them to initiate possession proceedings, thereby placing Ryan at risk of homelessness. CB knew CCC was considering possession proceedings because CCC had informed her of this in an email on 4th September 2025.

10th June 2025: Refusal of Third-Party Identity Verification

CB made a false statement in Ryan's journal, asserting that DWP protocol required postal consent for third-party ID verification.

She knew this statement was untrue, as DWP guidance, which had been placed in the journal for her reference, permits consent via other channels.

Her subsequent action on 25th June 2025, where she performed the third-party ID verification via email without any postal process, further demonstrates that her initial statement was knowingly false.

Misrepresentation of Advance Payment Process

CB misrepresented the DWP's advance payment process by stating that Ryan could receive an advance once his ID was verified.

However, after ID was verified, she removed the advance payment feature from Ryan's online journal and instructed him to call the DWP, despite being aware of his stated inability to use the telephone due to his condition.

This act was contrary to DWP protocol and the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. It was an abuse of her administrative power, designed to obstruct Ryan from accessing funds.

On a date she failed to retract the statement made on the 5 Sept 2025

CB was provided with  a copy of her email dated 5 Sep 2025. The DWP solicitors H, CD and S did not respond. 

4. The Mental Element (Recklessness)

CB's actions demonstrate untargeted malice (recklessness).

Knowledge of Unlawfulness: CB was provided with the correct DWP guidance for both reasonable adjustments and third-party ID. Her decision to ignore this guidance and invent false procedures indicates she was aware her actions were unlawful.

Reckless Indifference to Harm: CB was explicitly warned by CCC on 4th September 2025 that possession proceedings were imminent. By subsequently providing false information to CCC on 5th September, she demonstrated a reckless indifference to the probability that her actions would cause Ryan serious harm—namely, the loss of his home.

5. Resultant Damage

As a direct result of CB's misconduct, Ryan's Universal Credit payments were wrongfully withheld from 4th April 2025 to the present date. This led directly to rent arrears and the service of a Notice of Seeking Possession on 17th September 2025, causing him financial loss and placing him at immediate risk of homelessness.