* * *

Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk

Tens of thousands of jobseekers have had their benefits stripped unlawfully and are likely to be entitled to a rebate following a high court ruling on Monday, lawyers have said.

In a judicial review, claims by two jobseekers that the government's back-to-work schemes amounted to "forced labour" were rejected. They also failed to persuade a judge that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had failed to publish enough official information about the schemes for them to be lawful.

However, in a 50-page ruling, Mr Justice Foskett said that a letter sent out by the DWP to a 41-year-old benefit claimant did not conform to its own rules on providing clear information, making his six-month benefit sanction for failing to work unpaid for 26 weeks unlawful.

Lawyers acting for Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed lorry driver who was forced to live on handouts from family and friends after the DWP stripped him of all benefits, say the ruling will affect tens of thousands of jobseekers who have been sanctioned after being sent the same or similar letters and many should therefore be entitled to a rebate.

Following the ruling, the DWP confirmed that it had changed its sanction letters but denied any fault, and said it would be appealing against the judgment and contest any rebate claims.

The DWP said: "We don't think there's anything wrong with our letters, and believe they are both clear and concise.

"We will appeal this decision. However, given the judgment we have revised the wording of our standard letters."

In the written judgment, Foskett ruled that the DWP's standard letter sent out to Wilson was not sufficiently clear and precise to comply with the governments own regulations concerning benefit sanctions.

"It should not be necessary," he said, "[for those on the receiving end of a letter to] "ferret around for what for most people would be inaccessible regulations to find out his or her position."

Declaring Wilson's eventual six-month benefit sanction following his refusal to participate in what he called "forced labour" unlawful, Foskett said: "There could be no question of sanctions being validly imposed if no proper notice of the sanction consequences was given."

The DWP told the Guardian that the same or similar letters have been sent to tens of thousands of benefit claimants but could not yet give exact numbers on how many people they judged to be affected by the ruling.

Foskett also rejected a claim by Cait Reilly, a 23-year-old geology graduate, that a scheme requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store breached Article IV of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits forced labour and slavery.

Foskett said that "characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to 'slavery' or 'forced labour' seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking".

Wilson and Reilly, who first contacted the Guardian with her concerns about government schemes last year, had also argued that the government had failed to publish any official information about the schemes so their clients were unable to understand what their real responsibilities were and what they were compelled to do without falling foul of the rules.

During the case the DWP admitted that mistakes had been made in notifying Reilly about the requirements of the Sector Based Work Academy Scheme she was sent on, which meant she had to work unpaid for six weeks included stacking and cleaning shelves in Poundland.

Rejecting the main forced labour allegations, the judge said both the schemes under challenge "are a very long way removed from the kind of colonial exploitation of labour that led to the formulation of Article 4.

"The [human rights] convention is, of course, a living instrument, capable of development to meet modern conditions, and views may reasonably differ about the merits of a scheme that requires individuals to 'work for their benefits' as a means of assisting them back into the workplace."

The judge added: "Whether the problems in Miss Reilly's case and Mr Wilson's case were 'merely teething problems' remains to be seen."

The DWP said: "We are delighted, although not surprised, that the judge agrees our schemes are not forced labour.

"Comparing our initiatives to slave labour is not only ridiculous but insulting to people around the world facing real oppression."

She added that the scheme was making a real difference to people's lives. "Those who oppose this process are actually opposed to hard work and they are harming the life chances of unemployed young people who are trying to get on."

however, the judge also quashed any impression that either of the claimants were "benefit scroungers".

"In relation to Miss Reilly and to Mr Wilson it is important that it is appreciated that each has been actively looking for work: they have not taken their objections to the overall scheme as a means of avoiding employment and seeking simply to rely on benefits," he said.

Public Interest Lawyers, representing Wilson and Reilly, said they would also appeal against the ruling to a higher court.

Wilson said: "I am pleased that the DWP's decision to strip me of my benefits for six months had been found to be unlawful.

"It has been very difficult for me to live without my jobseekers allowance since May. I hope that I and all the thousands of others who have had their benefits unlawfully removed will now be quickly reimbursed."

PIL solicitor Tessa Gregory said the issuing of unlawful warning letters meant that "tens of thousands of people stripped of their benefits must now be entitled to reimbursement by the DWP".

PIL added: "Today's decision should mean that many of those subjected to benefit sanctions will be entitled to reimbursement by the Department of Work and Pensions.

"It is truly extraordinary that the government has found itself in this position by failing to provide basic information to those affected."

The National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers called on the government to launch an urgent review. It said: "It's a disgrace that people have had benefits stopped because of misleading information routinely issued by the DWP. The DWP must now urgently review all such cases. Sanctions plunge people into severe hardship and advisers see the harm that sanctions cause to claimants and their families." - Guardian