Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Permission given for first judicial review
Is there any movement from Govt / DWP re the loss of EDP and LCfW component (when carer’s premium is also in payment) when naturally migrated?
I note the written answer above states they are ‘considering’ retrospective compensation for those who have lost
I’m now aware of a case which is the worst I’ve been aware of yet. A disabled Jobseeker with DP and SDP who moves to UC through a worsening of health loses £95 per week. This is twice as much as the appellants who won in the high court.
DWP saying they can’t do anything to help because no regs yet.
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.’
CPAG have applied, on behalf of two claimant households, for permission to bring a judicial review regarding the lack of transitional protection, or possibility of return to legacy benefits in cases where DWP stops a legacy benefit, pushing claimant to claim UC, and the decision to stop the legacy benefit (for example negative WCA on ESA) is subsequently shown to have been wrong.
See the testcase page here: http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/universal-credit-disability-and-transitional-protection
Martin.
Written answer yesterday clarifies that paying a reduced amount for disabled children gets them ready for when they have to claim benefits in their own right!! -
In formulating Universal Credit policy for support for families with disabled children the Government’s aim was to simplify previous provision and align the lower disabled child addition with that for adults. This was in order to ensure that, for this group, the extra amounts that are payable for disability were aligned when the young person claims benefit in their own right.
... clarifies that paying a reduced amount for disabled children gets them ready for when they have to claim benefits in their own right!! -
Ah, so not paying benefits is simply accustoming people to the level they’ll receive after starving to death?
That excuse doesn’t stand up now that the LCW element has been abolished for new claimants (which is what these children will be when they grow up).
CPAG have applied, on behalf of two claimant households, for permission to bring a judicial review regarding the lack of transitional protection, or possibility of return to legacy benefits in cases where DWP stops a legacy benefit, pushing claimant to claim UC, and the decision to stop the legacy benefit (for example negative WCA on ESA) is subsequently shown to have been wrong.
See the testcase page here: http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/universal-credit-disability-and-transitional-protection
Martin.
This JR challenge by CPAG is being heard today and tomorrow in the High Court -
I can’t find any news on the High Court decision- anyone heard anything?
I think it will be a few weeks at the least before a decision. On this one - http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/universal-credit-assessment-period-inflexibility - the hearing was end November and judgment given on 11 January and I think that was pretty quick…
Tom Royston has tweeted that -
‘UC transitional protection judgment today: TD & PR v SSWP [2019] EWHC 462 - gov defeat claim that unlawfully discriminatory not to give TP following incorrect SSWP decision terminating old benefit. PTA refused by HC; claimants intend to apply to CA for PTA ‘
CPAG statement:
Child Poverty Action Group is seeking leave to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal on behalf of two disabled households who were left worse off after they were forced to move to universal credit because their existing benefits were wrongly stopped by the DWP. The move follows a High Court decision today which rejected a claim of unlawful discrimination brought by the two households and refused permission to appeal.
More: http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/disabled-households-worse-universal-credit-aim-court-appeal
Judgment now added to BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/462.html
.. plus here’s our summary from Friday: High Court rules that failure to provide transitional protection for claimants who transferred to universal credit following incorrect legacy benefit decision was not unlawful
I’m really struggling to see how these claimants weren’t treated more irrationally and unfairly than those in the SDP case.
I haven’t read the judgments in detail but the one things that stands out is that the UC White Paper said “There will be no cash losers at the point of change, ensuring that no will see their benefits reduced when Universal Credit is introduced.”
The judgment quotes this in paragraph 11 and underlines it with “emphasis added” placed after the quotation. Clearly this has influenced the decision and it is technically correct that for the people involved they didn’t lose out “at the point of change”.
I’m really struggling to see how these claimants weren’t treated more irrationally and unfairly than those in the SDP case.
Couldn’t agree more.