Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Managed migration: Draft regs out for consultation

 < 1 2 3 > 

SueR (CHDCA)
forum member

Craven, Harrogate and district Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 4

Joined: 4 July 2016

Hi
I think what they have actually done is work out what those in the LCWRA group (being the more expensive group to compensate and also being the group it is easiest to confuse the argument about with talk of the EDP) need as a top up so they don’t receive less than those in LCW group.

Those in the LCW group will receive £126 a month (LCW) plus a TE of £280 if they have lost the SDP on moving to UC. That will give them a total amount (additional to their standard living costs and housing costs) of £406 a month.

Those in the LCWRA group who have lost the SDP on moving to UC will receive £328 a month (LCWRA) plus a TE of £80 – a total of £408 a month.
I do hope that as many as possible will respond to SSAC about this. It is a relatively small extra cost to cover claimants like ours who have already lost the SDP because we have been in a ‘full service’ ‘test and learn’ area for 2 years.

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 812

Joined: 21 March 2016

SSAC minutes of June meeting - in which it decided that the draft regulations should be subject to the formal reference procedure. Includes DWP responses on the migration timetable, why it decided to require claims, transitional protection issues and more….

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1708

Joined: 12 October 2012

9 out of 10 people are recent internet users????

Where did he get that from????


His answer to this:
[E]xternal partners and outside bodies would probably look to the Department for some flexibility around the rules before agreeing to assist in the way the Department would like. If it was felt that the Department were creating ‘no-go areas’ where there was a determination not to row back, it might lead to a break-down in any negotiations. The relationship between the Department and external partners varied around the country, but there were parts where it was quite poor and the Department was considered to be ‘not listening’. If outside organisations were to be given the opportunity to contribute to the process and know that their intelligence would be heard, considered and, if necessary, acted upon by the Department, it would go some way to putting the relationship on a far better footing.

Is

Thank you. It was certainly true that colleagues in operations were keen to build good and lasting relationship with relevant third party bodies.

That is not an answer to an allegation of not listening. Perhaps he wasn’t listening.

Sarah-B
forum member

Caseworker - Laura Pidcock MP

Send message

Total Posts: 70

Joined: 4 July 2018

I wanted to reply to the consultation, but I haven’t had time to do it direct, so I have replied to the NAWRA survey sent out by Daphne.

Loads of problems with the TP including the proposal to limit it to an amount lower than the amount lost by some people because of loss of DP, EDP and SDP.

It seems from the Leigh Day report of the compensation hearing for the SDP case that DWP were not keen to disclose that they had settled on compensating the two claimants TP and AR for their full losses but came under pressure from Mr Justice Collins to do so with the statement ‘you are the government and we should know what you are doing’

I wonder if they thought that the other thousands of people who have lost might hear about it and then write in asking to be compensated in full?

The groups of people who have lost out are not limited to the SDP cases are they so hopefully other people will have sent in lots of other examples of how UC fails to provide social security.

Although the consultation is just about TP and not about the UC policy itself which deliberately makes some people worse off than they would have been on legacy benefits, I wonder if Autumn will be a good time to raise awareness again of the design of UC and the improvements we need for disabled people if it is to work?

 

Jeremy Barker
forum member

Citizens Advice North Lincolnshire

Send message

Total Posts: 102

Joined: 7 September 2010

Sarah-B - 03 August 2018 04:55 PM

Although the consultation is just about TP and not about the UC policy itself which deliberately makes some people worse off than they would have been on legacy benefits, I wonder if Autumn will be a good time to raise awareness again of the design of UC and the improvements we need for disabled people if it is to work?

In the TP and AR v SSWP case the court ruled that the policy decision not to have an equivalent to SDP in UC was lawful because it was objectively justified. All that was unlawful was to fail to protect those already in receipt of SDP who have to claim UC. Consequently they have to legislate to remove that illegality and that’s what the consultation is about. The real issue about that is the degree to which they will be protected.

The lack of an equivalent to SDP for those not already claiming ESA/JSA/IS who claim UC is one of many dubious UC design decisions that needs to be challenged again and again and again.

Dani Ahrens
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project

Send message

Total Posts: 16

Joined: 7 September 2017

We have submitted a response to the consultation - it’s attached, in case people are interested to see it.

All the best,

Dani

File Attachments

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1708

Joined: 12 October 2012

Ours is attached.

File Attachments

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 812

Joined: 21 March 2016

From SSAC Chair, Sir Ian Diamond -

Really impressed with the depth and breadth of the responses to the @SSAC consultation on UC migration. SSAC will be able to provide great advice.

https://twitter.com/IanDiamond11/status/1032370015482175488

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

From Scottish Government Social Security Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Letter_Shirley-Anne_Somerville_to_SSAC_UC_Regulations_Consultation.pdf