Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Managed migration pilot

 < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

Sarah-B
forum member

Caseworker - Laura Pidcock MP

Send message

Total Posts: 70

Joined: 4 July 2018

What are negative procedure regs Charles?

I was confused by the £405 because I was thinking about the people who lost £180pm and had been offered £80 ie TP and AR .

I also just want to vomit when she talks about the care that will be taken of those managed migrated when those naturally migrated have been utterly neglected, thrown under the bus, treat with cold indifference.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 779

Joined: 27 February 2019

The regulations are simply laid in parliament, and take effect with no approval by parliament needed. Parliament can theoretically annul them within a certain period, but that almost never happens.

Until now, the DWP had promised to use the affirmative procedure, as that provides greater scrutiny, but they’ve now reneged on that promise (because they knew they’d never get it through!).

The most recent set of draft regs laid in parliament can technically be made using the negative procedure, with the exception of one regulation (regarding the right of appeal in migration cases). Presumably, they will simply remove that single reg.

I’m also unsure about the £405, and which cases it will be for. We’ll just have to wait and see. It’ll probably be published tomorrow.

[ Edited: 22 Jul 2019 at 10:57 pm by Charles ]
shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3133

Joined: 14 April 2010

shawn mach - 22 July 2019 07:16 PM

Watch: Amber Rudd’s statement this evening on universal credit managed migration

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/fc97ee06-0017-4e20-8491-4c2e9aaf7398?in=18:41:55

Here’s the Hansard transcript of Amber Rudd’s statement:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-22/debates/8111667B-E194-41D6-9496-FE1E870225E6/UniversalCreditManagedMigration

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

I suppose it’s no surprise that they’ve adopted the negative procedure; there’s no Parliamentary time to debate them.

What a mess!

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 302

Joined: 17 June 2010

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1152/made

is it just me or can they still not add up?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 779

Joined: 27 February 2019

They’ve still left out the EDP that anyone in the support group in ESA would have been receiving.

It’s completely illogical: if you’re bringing in to account the difference in rates between the support group and the LCWRA element, how can you not consider the EDP which was given to anyone in the support group!?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 2805

Joined: 14 March 2014

They still can’t add up - £120 when the court gave £180 to TP and AR - so Amber Rudd quite loose when she said -

On how the amounts have been arrived at, that is broadly in line with what the tribunal has recommended,

Another court case??

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 779

Joined: 27 February 2019

Just been looking through the regs. They have also stopped those only getting SDP in HB from getting any payments.

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 302

Joined: 17 June 2010

Are the regulations already unlawful as the disparity in treatment held as unlawful by the high court still not resolved?

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1685

Joined: 12 October 2012

Charles - 23 July 2019 10:46 AM

Just been looking through the regs. They have also stopped those only getting SDP in HB from getting any payments.

The rewording of this bit - ?

-an award of universal credit has been made in respect of a claimant who, within the period of one month immediately preceding the first day on which the claimant became entitled to universal credit as a consequence of making a claim, was entitled to an award of income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income-related employment and support allowance that included a severe disability premium;

which was

a claimant, or joint claimants, became entitled to an award of universal credit as a
consequence of a claim made before 16th January 2019 and the Secretary of State
is satisfied that regulation 4A (restriction on claims for universal credit by persons
entitled to a severe disability premium) would have prevented the claim from
being made if it had been in force at that time;

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 779

Joined: 27 February 2019

Exactly. The reason they’ve changed the wording is because they want the compensatory payments to also be given when they remove the SDP gateway, and allow claims to UC from SDP recipients. Along the way, they’ve removed those entitled to SDP only through HB from getting anything.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2278

Joined: 7 January 2016

On a slight tangent, bit of a coincidence that these regulations were laid the day before the news cycle is ccompletely covered with Boris Johnson being elected PM .

The mixed-age couples changes were announced the day before a key Brexit vote as well.

Poor old DWP just can’t help making major social security announcements just when the whole country is looking at something else.

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 2805

Joined: 14 March 2014

Charles - 23 July 2019 11:22 AM

Exactly. The reason they’ve changed the wording is because they want the compensatory payments to also be given when they remove the SDP gateway, and allow claims to UC from SDP recipients. Along the way, they’ve removed those entitled to SDP only through HB from getting anything.

Apparently the reason for removing transitional payments for HB claimants with sdp is -

38. However, ‘HB only’ claimants will be excluded from SDP transitional payments as analysis has shown that HB only claimants do not normally experience losses when moving to UC.

39. The small number of HB only claimants who may lose out on moving to UC (usually due to their income or earnings), will be able to be considered for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) if they require support with their rental costs.

40. To support this, there are planned changes to the DHP Guidance (England and Wales), to include these claimants in the list of recommended priority groups.

From LA Welfare Direct Bulletin 7/2019 lite

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1685

Joined: 12 October 2012

One more thing to stretch the DHP budget!

Disgraceful.

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 2805

Joined: 14 March 2014

Neil Couling’s explanation to Work and Pensions Committee of the amounts of the transitional payments for SDP loss -

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/480a6f61-b932-4f26-bf5d-c893e566d5ea?in=11:03:44&out=11:04:40

I’m sure you all feel reassured now…