Two Scottish pensioners have been granted the green light to challenge the UK and Scottish governments’ decision to slash the winter fuel payment

The Court of Session’s ruling paves the way for a procedural hearing in December, with a full “substantive” hearing slated for January.

Assisted by the Govan Law Centre, the Fannings from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, are taking on the Scottish Government and the UK Work and Pensions Secretary after the policy change was announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves post-Labour’s electoral vic tory.

This led the Scottish Government to mirror the move, despite plans to manage a similar benefit through Social Security Scotland, which has now been delayed.

The legal action seeks a declaration of unlawfulness, potentially overturning the policy and reinstating the payment universally. Lady Hood in Edinburgh, granting permission to proceed on Thursday, indicated that the case shows “a real prospect of success” under relevant legislation.

This winter, only individuals receiving pension credit or certain other benefits will be eligible for the winter fuel payments, which can amount to as much as £300. Meanwhile, approximately 10 million others are poised to lose this allowance.

The Government has defended its decision as a necessary step to address a “£22 billion black hole” in public finances left by the previous Tory administration. Money-saving expert Martin Lewis has suggested that a successful legal challenge could postpone the move, potentially allowing for the payments to be made in 2024.

A representative from Govan Law Centre expressed their clients’ satisfaction with the court’s approval for a judicial review: “Our clients are delighted that the court has granted permission for their judicial review challenge to proceed to a full hearing in early January.

“We await a decision on civil legal aid from the Scottish Legal Aid Board early next week in relation to the proceedings.”

They added, “If civil legal aid is granted we will then submit an urgent application for sanction for the employment of both junior and senior counsel and will announce our final legal team in early course.”

The case hinges on allegations that both governments neglected to properly consult with pension-aged individuals regarding the changes and failed to publish an equality impact assessment. However, a freedom of information request uncovered that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had conducted a condensed version of such an assessment, with the UK Government maintaining that a comprehensive study was unnecessary.

The legal battle initiated by the Fannings in September has gained momentum with backing from the late Alex Salmond, former First Minister and leader of the Alba Party, who passed away on October 12. Kenny MacAskill, acting leader of the Alba Party, praised the move, stating: “Alba Party very much welcomes this decision. Alex Salmond was a champion of this campaign and had been fully supportive of the Fannings in their case vs the Scottish and UK governments.”

MacAskill critiqued the Scottish Government’s approach, adding: “The Scottish Government should have been standing up for Scotland’s pensioners against Westminster cuts, instead they will now be standing shoulder to shoulder with the UK Labour Government in court against the pensioners of Scotland.”

At a press conference announcing the challenge, Mr Fanning remarked: “We intend to sue both the London and Scottish governments, since both are guilty through action and inaction of damaging the welfare of pensioners.”

Expressing resolve despite potential difficulties, he said: “We are hoping to be successful, given the manifest injustice involved, however my work as a trade unionist and shop steward has taught me that some battles are worth fighting regardless of the outcome – I believe this is one such battle.”

A procedural hearing is set for December 4, while a significant one-day hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 15.

Both the UK and Scottish governments are yet to respond to requests for comments.