Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Permission given for first judicial review
From the Guardian:
A terminally ill man has won the right to launch a landmark legal challenge to the government over its introduction of universal credit after the controversial new benefits system left him significantly worse off.
... TP became terminally ill in 2016 and received the severe disability premium (SDP) and enhanced disability premium (EDP), which were set up to meet the needs of severely disabled people living alone without carers ...
Following his diagnosis, TP’s doctors recommended that he move to London to receive treatment. His return to the capital, a universal credit full-service area, led to a reduction in his benefits which, say his lawyers, has resulted in their client being £178 a month worse off. They contend that the government’s decision to introduce the single benefit, while removing his disability benefits, has left TP in financial difficulties, which have had a major impact on him at a time of extreme ill health and stress.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/04/universal-credit-faces-judicial-review
From Leigh Day -
Law firm Leigh Day has been given permission to take the first judicial review in the High Court over the controversial decision by the Government to implement Universal Credit, a single benefit which replaces a range of existing means-tested welfare benefits.
Following a successful application for permission, the judge ordered the full judicial review to be expedited and to take place at the High Court between May and July at a date yet to be confirmed.
It is being taken on behalf of a 52-year-old terminally ill man, who is suffering from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and Castleman’s Disease, over the decision by the Government to remove disability benefits from people with severe disabilities leaving them in financial difficulties.
https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2018/February-2018/Landmark-legal-challenge-to-Universal-Credit
Note the artful use of words from DWP -’ Transitional protection is also available for those people who move on to UC from other benefits, provided their circumstances stay the same.’
Were I not the trusting, mild-mannered chap that i happen to be, i would call that economical with the truth, weaselly or just downright dishonest.
In the context of a JR that is precisely about the absence of transitional protection in such cases, I think “downright dishonest” covers it.
I need to follow this.
No idea how DWP can cite transitional protection with a straight face when there basically isnt any here.
Full of Guardian mistakes—for a start the whole capital isn’t a full service area and just moving to a FS area doesn’t mean you have to claim UC.
Moving rented home would trigger a UC claim but your ESA award should transition into UC disability elements. Possibly he lost SDP and EDP?
Or they may have insisted on re-assessing him (like they do) and then refused it.
Sally63 this is about loss of SDP on change of rented address.
The case is about lack of transitional protection. The combined value of the ESA support component, SDP and EDP for a single person is about £114.40 a week. The weekly amount of the UC LCWRA element is £73.36, so a loss of just over £40 a week. Bigger loss if the claimant is not in the ESA support group/UC LCWRA group. In reality there is no change of circumstance - moving to be nearer treatment isn’t really a change as far as living costs or ability to take part in job market activity are concerned. What his lawyers are arguing is that not to provide for transitional protection in this situation is unlawful, which is why the DWP’s comment about transitional protection is particularly dishonest.
And as for this: “We are committed to supporting people into work while making sure the right care is in place for those that cannot. Unlike the previous system, universal credit is more targeted and support is focused on those who need it most.” Meaningless, platitudinous waffle.
And as for this: “We are committed to supporting people into work while making sure the right care is in place for those that cannot. Unlike the previous system, universal credit is more targeted and support is focused on those who need it most.” Meaningless, platitudinous waffle.
Person spec for DWP Press Officer position:
* Absence of single shred of common humanity or decency
* Ability to spout meaningless words repeatedly
* Willingness to treat benefit claimants as if they’re sub-human species
It is extremely misleading for DWP to cite the availability of Transitional Protection when there is no transitional protection whatsoever during this phase of ‘migration’ onto UC.
It is also misleading for them to state that support is targetted at those most in need, as this man, who is by definition ‘severely disabled’ by virtue of receiving the appropriate disability benefits would come within that category of those most in need, the most severely disabled people who are unable to work.
If I am not mistaken the case is also about the discriminatory nature of Universal Credit which has deliberately targetted cuts at disabled people.
it seems that Minister for Disabled People Sarah Newton also believes there is transitional protection - responding to an oral question yesterday she said ....
Unlike the previous system, universal credit is more targeted, and support is focused on those who need it most. Transitional protection is available for people who move into universal credit from other benefits, provided their circumstances stay the same.
As does the Shadow Minister for Disabled People, Marsha de Cordova, judging by her question…
Ms Newton also said -
Disabled people are some of the biggest beneficiaries of universal credit, with around 1 million disabled households having on average around £110 a month more on universal credit than they would have had on the legacy benefits.
I guess she’s referring to those in the support group who wouldn’t qualify for a sdp under the current system - but perhaps a tad disingenuous to only focus on that group…
[ Edited: 6 Feb 2018 at 02:56 pm by Daphne ]As does the Shadow Minister for Disabled People, Marsha de Cordova, judging by her question…
Haven’t they got to take the Sec State at his/her/it’s word? So if David Gauke said “there’s transitional protection” they’ve got to accept it. I know they can’t call him a liar in the chamber.
We can outside though which is cathartic if nothing else.
The word “liar” would be judged to be un-parliamentary language. But there is nothing to stop them saying that it is just not true that there is Transitional Protection available and they bloody well should do
MP’s should take a leaf out the former Tory MP Alan Clarke’s book and just say that the minister is being “economical with the actualitie”
And as for this: “We are committed to supporting people into work while making sure the right care is in place for those that cannot. Unlike the previous system, universal credit is more targeted and support is focused on those who need it most.” Meaningless, platitudinous waffle.
Person spec for DWP Press Officer position:
* Absence of single shred of common humanity or decency
* Ability to spout meaningless words repeatedly
* Willingness to treat benefit claimants as if they’re sub-human species
I forsee Jacob Rees-Mogg being in charge of DWP sooner rather than later!
“I forsee Jacob Rees-Mogg being in charge of DWP sooner rather than later!”
Nah. Rumour is chancellor.
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!