legacy benefits court case

[Mychocolateteapotsmelted]

Its for the 20 pounds uplift that universal credit claimants got and people on legacy benefits didn't get..the case started yesterday and ends today.

“The case wasn't heard yesterday?
CB legacy benefits are not included, if you were on a low income you could have claimed UC and therefore could have had the uplift. Those on income based with disability premiums could not migrate to UC therefore had no way of getting the uplift. Thats why it was discriminatory, as disabled people were not able to get it due to government policy at the time.”

I may have misunderstood what I read; online it says the case was concluded on the 29th but my sources are probably not reliable fodder

Although people on CB ESA could move over to UC , they would lose the right to transitional protection and would be worse off . Technically although the option was there, we would still lose out. It just seems very unfair to exclude ESA CB and I can’t see anywhere it says this.

I am not disagreeing with you, you sound like you have a lot more insight than I do. I just don’t understand the thinking behind it because as an ESA claimant you would be mad to move to UC, lose your transitional protection and then wait 5 weeks for UC to process your claim.

The issue of transitional protection and not wanting to be moved over to UC has been mentioned at some point in the case, I’m sure. (Again, don’t quote me on this ).

I have found a reliable source outlining that it is only income related ESA which qualifies. I best reel in my virtual spending of a windfall I will never receive

Good luck to all those hoping for it . It’s only fair you should be included .

The protection doesn’t last forever either. We don’t get a single penny more until our levels are same as someone not on the old rates. So if your rent and council tax goes up no increase. Not sure how many years it will take before it matches the current level. It seems big difference at moment but will erode quickly over time as we grow poorer and poorer and everything goes up. Oh joy!

@TimesAHero

“The case wasn't heard yesterday? CB legacy benefits are not included, if you were on a low income you could have claimed UC and therefore could have had the uplift. Those on income based with disability premiums could not migrate to UC therefore had no way of getting the uplift. Thats why it was discriminatory, as disabled people were not able to get it due to government policy at the time.”

I may have misunderstood what I read; online it says the case was concluded on the 29th but my sources are probably not reliable fodder

Although people on CB ESA could move over to UC , they would lose the right to transitional protection and would be worse off . Technically although the option was there, we would still lose out. It just seems very unfair to exclude ESA CB and I can’t see anywhere it says this.

I am not disagreeing with you, you sound like you have a lot more insight than I do. I just don’t understand the thinking behind it because as an ESA claimant you would be mad to move to UC, lose your transitional protection and then wait 5 weeks for UC to process your claim.

The issue of transitional protection and not wanting to be moved over to UC has been mentioned at some point in the case, I’m sure. (Again, don’t quote me on this ).

You can't move to UC if you are on CB ESA, but you can claim UC at the same time if your income is low enough. So you could have claimed UC and not been worse off, and got the uplift. Thats why it isn't included in the claim, as there was no discrimination. However you could not move from IB ESA if you had disability premiums to UC, that was blocked completely before the first lockdown, so even if you wanted to you couldn't. As a result, it was impossible to do anything that would result in you getting the uplift. That only applied to disabled claimants, and why the case is about discrimination.

People get confused with something being discrimination and something being unfair. I completely agree it's unfair that you didn't get it, but the main thing is, something being unfair isn't against the law, whereas discrimination is.

@Colin7691 “People get confused with something being discrimination and something being unfair. I completely agree it's unfair that you didn't get it, but the main thing is, something being unfair isn't against the law, whereas discrimination is”

I agree with you; yes it’s unfair for people on CB ESA , but I agree it’s very different to being discriminated against.

You’ve explained the concept of the case a lot better than my online reading, thank you

I can't see it being decided before Christmas

Did we get an outcome for this case

Not yet @Jeszi35 - it's likely to take another four or five weeks AFAIK.

Still no outcome

@Dontbeamugallyourlifesucker

Still no outcome

As I and others have said there will not be for weeks, 2-4 weeks was the best case scenario for the judgement, January would not be surprising. In the unlikely situation that the case succeeds, either in full or in part, then payments would be late Q1 at the earliest.

The claimants have lost the case

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-dwp-benefit-claimants-lose-26266677

Was thinking about this the other day. So the £20 was for new people suddenly lost jobs and can’t expect people to suddenly cope with pittance level? Then why did everyone get it not just those from start of covid and furlough? I don’t understand why no reason to appeal given their own reason wasn’t true as giving to everyone on UC even if been on it years.

Did they just happen to release this today when the storm be all over the news?

Got to pay for Prince Andrew somehow......

From the judgement:
"The increase to the standard allowance was a way of providing additional support to those who did lose jobs or income because of the pandemic and became reliant on Universal Credit for the first time.
This group would face particular disruption.
The increase was intended to cushion the sudden impact of loss of employment or reduced employment.
I accept this was legitimate objective.
He added: “New benefits claimants would need to adjust to a loss in income. They would be affected differently to persons already claiming benefits."

In other words, the poor and vulnerable are used to being poor and vulnerable so can suck it up but we can't have good, honest, hard working people realising quite how awful the welfare system is (as they might start calling for a fairer, more compassionate society!)

As a disabled person I long ago lost belief that the UK gives a shit about the poor, sick and vulnerable.

Spot on it’s not like suddenly being Disabled ain’t major life adjustment and then we throw poverty in the mix. Surely it was Easy add £20 for claimants past X date why did it go to everyone when it was only for “Hard working new claiments”?

I actually read a comment from a poster on mumsnet at the beginning of the pandemic stating that those who lost their jobs due to covid 'weren't the usual benefit claimants', ie, were a better class who deserved the help.

This judgement sums up that attitude. Back to the Victorian concept of the deserving and undeserving poor only in some ways this is worse as at least the Victorians saw the sick and disabled as somewhat deserving and realised that ill health could befall anyone.

But why would we expect a high court judge to have any understanding of the hardships and inequality that the sick and disabled who are forced to claim benefits face?

I hope they appeal but the whole system is fucked.

@Akire

Spot on it’s not like suddenly being Disabled ain’t major life adjustment and then we throw poverty in the mix. Surely it was Easy add £20 for claimants past X date why did it go to everyone when it was only for “Hard working new claiments”?

I don't know @Akire but my guess is that it would be more expense to sort out and really, those of us on legacy benefits are pretty invisible and often quite marginalised. Take away from those with the least voice is always easier.

Mr Justice Swift admitted legacy benefits were "low", and "it is obvious that any person required to rely only on that level of income will suffer hardship".

So basically, "it was shit for you before the pandemic, so who cares if it is still shit for you now".

I though the £20 uplift was targetted at those already claiming UC who weren't eligible for furlough due to zero hour contracts, but who were losing income as their work dried up up. It was a scheme to effectively extend the furlough scheme. (I accept that it still left large gaps depending on when businesses started etc.)

Either way @Travellor, are they more deserving of not living in poverty and hardship than those who, also through no fault of their own, are disabled, sick?

Because if you argue yes then you are making it clear that the sick and disabled are worth less.

The sick and disabled have lost homes, work, their lives due to circumstances beyond their control, why are they less deserving than those who faced the same due to covid?

@CorrBlimeyGG
Ha! I meant to include that bit in my quote! Yes, sums it up.

Yes it was but if you were already on UC for any other reason so parent young kids, disabled, carer or unemployed you also received increase.

Legacy claimants couldn’t move onto UC and would been worse off in many cases anyway but got nothing.

To be honest, I don't think it will do us much good trying to make sense of it. It comes down to money and how much they think they can get away with not paying out.

UC is a means tested benefit and the amount you receive will vary dependant on income in the assessment period. Disability benefits such as DLA and PIP aren't means tested.