Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Permission given for first judicial review
DWP has agreed a compensation settlement (including amounts for full actual benefit losses rather than a flat weekly rate of £80…). Tessa Gregory from Leigh Day comments -
‘We hope that the Secretary of State will now without delay compensate others in the same position and reconsider her decision to pursue an appeal against the original finding of discrimination.
Our clients also call upon the Secretary of State to urgently reconsider the draft transitional protection regulations she has laid down before the Social Security Advisory Committee which as drafted only compensate those in our clients’ position to a flat rate of £80 a month.
This plainly does not reflect the actual loss suffered by our clients and thousands like them and compounds the unlawful treatment to which they have been subjected.’
Yesterday at CPAG’s excellent (un)managed migration seminar, we learned from Zoe Leventhal at Matrix Chambers that the second TP case - TP, AR, & SXC - was heard in the High Court last week on 12/19 March - this challenges the amount of compensation provided for in the draft regs and the fact that for claimants like these ones - who were in support group with sdp and edp - the proposed protection once the regs are passed is only £80 per month and not the actual loss which is nearer £180 per month. Judgment hopefully within the next couple of months…
Looks like there is going to be a third case for TP and AR as they challenge the new managed migration regs -
Government faces third legal challenge to Universal Credit migration arrangements
DWP has agreed a compensation settlement (including amounts for full actual benefit losses rather than a flat weekly rate of £80…). Tessa Gregory from Leigh Day comments -
‘We hope that the Secretary of State will now without delay compensate others in the same position and reconsider her decision to pursue an appeal against the original finding of discrimination.
Our clients also call upon the Secretary of State to urgently reconsider the draft transitional protection regulations she has laid down before the Social Security Advisory Committee which as drafted only compensate those in our clients’ position to a flat rate of £80 a month.
This plainly does not reflect the actual loss suffered by our clients and thousands like them and compounds the unlawful treatment to which they have been subjected.’
Yesterday at CPAG’s excellent (un)managed migration seminar, we learned from Zoe Leventhal at Matrix Chambers that the second TP case - TP, AR, & SXC - was heard in the High Court last week on 12/19 March - this challenges the amount of compensation provided for in the draft regs and the fact that for claimants like these ones - who were in support group with sdp and edp - the proposed protection once the regs are passed is only £80 per month and not the actual loss which is nearer £180 per month. Judgment hopefully within the next couple of months…
anyone know what happens re a challenge on draft regs once they are passed?
anyone know what happens re a challenge on draft regs once they are passed?
Nothing automatic happens. Perhaps the Court could make some sort of injunction preventing parts of the Regulations being enforced pending resolution of the case if there were some good reason to but for the most part they are completely effective unless and until they are quashed.
Remember the post-MH PIP Regulations which were rushed through and which were enforced for a while before being quashed and how the DWP then had to spend millions awkwardly patching over its mistakes? Something like that.
anyone know what happens re a challenge on draft regs once they are passed?
Nothing automatic happens. Perhaps the Court could make some sort of injunction preventing parts of the Regulations being enforced pending resolution of the case if there were some good reason to but for the most part they are completely effective unless and until they are quashed.
Remember the post-MH PIP Regulations which were rushed through and which were enforced for a while before being quashed and how the DWP then had to spend millions awkwardly patching over its mistakes? Something like that.
i do remember that as i asked similar on here along the lines of “what do we all do until the regs are changed” question.
the more things change the more they stay the same.
From Tom Royston via Twitter:
UC transitional protection news: Court of Appeal grants permission to appeal in TD & PR, following SSWP win in High Court earlier this year. So now 2 cases on transitional protection in EWCA (gov is appealing case they lost last year). Hearings prob 2020
https://twitter.com/tdroyston/status/1174078633205534720
At Leigh Day seminar yesterday evening, we were told that the CoA hearing is listed for 3-5 December.
Judgment given today in R(TD, AD and Reynolds) v SSWP [2020] EWCA Civ 618
See also CPAG press release (judgment at bottom of page)
We are really pleased that the Court has found that those who have their legacy benefits wrongly stopped and are thus forced to claim UC are unlawfully discriminated against when they then receive less by way of UC.
Worth pointing out that the TD, AD litigants were a family with a disabled child who got less on UC as the disabled child addition is lower on UC than equivalent disabled child additions for tax credits (for all but those where child get HRCC DLA) when income support was wrongly ended. All other cases related only to SDP stuff.
[ Edited: 12 May 2020 at 02:30 pm by Martin Williams ]