Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Claimants already getting SDP

‹ First  < 13 14 15

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1120

Joined: 27 February 2019

The fact that the physical ESA claim predated the HB claim is not necessarily fatal. It depends on when HB entitlement began, which could have been before the ESA claim was made. (And as Peter Barker (HB Anorak) often points out, HB is a weekly benefit, so even if HB entitlement appears to begin part way through a week, entitlement actually began at the start of the week.)

If HB entitlement did begin prior to (or on the same day as) the ESA claim, then your gateway argument regarding the UC claim, if correct, would mean that the ESA claim was also valid.

But as discussed earlier in this thread, DWP seem to be of the opinion that where entitlement to an SDP was only established later, the gateway provisions did not have retrospective effect.

S Holman
forum member

Welfare Rights, Redcar & Cleveland Council

Send message

Total Posts: 4

Joined: 14 December 2018

Hello
I am working with a couple who have naturally migrated to UC after moving from owner/occupier property to a rented property and having to claim UC to have housing costs included. Both clients receive PIP DL.
They were previously receiving legacy benefits - ESA contribution based/LCWRA and Carers Allowance. They received ESA income related which included 1 x SDP and 1 x carer premium.
I expected that they would receive £120 transitional element with their UC but they have been refused this on the basis that their current entitlement on UC is not less than their previous entitlement on legacy benefits. This is only the case due to housing costs now being included in their UC entitlement when previously they owned their property.
Is this correct as it seems very unfair when their actual weekly income excluding the housing costs is significantly less on UC than when they were receiving legacy benefits?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2520

Joined: 14 July 2014

Whether your client’s entitlement under UC is higher or lower than their legacy benefit entitlement is completely irrelevant to the SDP compensation - all that the DWP need to consider is whether the conditions from sch 2 UC (TP) Regs are satisfied.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1230/schedule/2

What I do wonder is if that actually has anything to do with this case at all. The SDP compo is subject to erosion when other elements of UC increase. The introduction of a new element of UC will cause the compensation to be reduced relative to the increase. I wonder if what has actually happened is that the introduction of the HCE has been treated as a new element causing the award to erode in this way.

If so, it does seem like a mistake, because the compo should only be awarded by reference to increases in UC after the end of the first AP - whereas surely in this case, the HCE was included in the first AP.

There do increasingly seem to be issues with the SDP compo being incorrectly or confusingly reduced or removed and the explanation that this is because your UC has exceeded your previous entitlement is misleading and confusing.

[ Edited: 21 Oct 2021 at 11:45 am by Elliot Kent ]
Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 884

Joined: 24 November 2017

Elliot Kent - 21 October 2021 11:30 AM

..the explanation that this is because your UC has exceeded your previous entitlement is misleading and confusing.

Misleading and confusing seems a polite way of putting it. Just seems incorrect.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2723

Joined: 7 January 2016

We’ve got a case whereby someone was receiving ESA but award terminated in July 2019. They went through a couple of appeals and eventually were placed back in support group.

Meanwhile, also in July 2019, they claimed UC. The ESA award has been paid up to the date of the UC award including SDP arrears.

However, DWP are refusing to move them from LCW to LCWRA and are also not paying any SDP transitional element.

As Sch.2 of the UC (Transitional Provision) Regs was amended with effect from 24 July 2019, I’ve asked the adviser to clarify precisely when the UC claim was made as I think this in turn dictates whether or not they should be getting the SDP transitional payment.

Otherwise I’m fairly sure that reg.19 of the same regs means that the LCWRA element should be included from day 1 of the UC award and arrears paid. Does that all sound right and I’m assuming there’s no mileage in looking at the fact that the SDP gateway in place back then would have had any impact in the here and now?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1120

Joined: 27 February 2019

Even though the SDP transitional payments were only legislated for in July 2019, it still applied to UC claims made prior to that date, so they should still be entitled to them.

Re. carrying over the LCWRA, see also Art. 24 of the No. 9 Commencement Order.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2723

Joined: 7 January 2016

Charles - 22 October 2021 02:15 PM

Even though the SDP transitional payments were only legislated for in July 2019, it still applied to UC claims made prior to that date, so they should still be entitled to them.

Re. carrying over the LCWRA, see also Art. 24 of the No. 9 Commencement Order.

Oh really, that’s interesting, didn’t realise that about the transitional payments.  Would that mean though that the transitional payments should only begin from 24 July 2021 or could they go back further?

Thanks for the pointer on the CO.9, think that’s confirmed that for sure.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1120

Joined: 27 February 2019

They should go all the way back to the start of the UC claim.