Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 153

Thread: Chancellor £1000 UC 12 month pledge.

  1. #141
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,061
    Grrrrrowl,

    Things have moved on now, and legal challenges are being prepared.

    If you are still looking at getting involved then Z2K and the Public Law Project are looking for ESA claimants to mount a legal challenge to the Government’s refusal to uplift of legacy benefits by the same £20 a week as has been given to Universal Credit claimants.

    If anyone is seriously considering getting involved with this then you can find a contact email address here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/16122/

    Note that there are time limits (26 May) to mount a challenge, so you'll need to move quickly.

    For those who simply want to make their voice heard about this inequality then there is a petition here (no time limits): https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...-people-behind
    Last edited by nukecad; 21-05-20 at 18:05.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  2. #142
    Thanks, I will look into it. 26th May seems very tight, essentially 1 day!

  3. #143
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,061
    Yes it's a bit short notice, but they only put out the call for suitable clients to professional advisors yesterday, so they must be confident they can do it in time.

    As long as they have a name (some names) to give as a 'client' then they can get the Judicial Review lodged in that name and sort out the details later.

    A bit like appealing to FTT, you can lodge an appeal with the basics and elaborate the details later.

    TBH they know the legal arguments needed, but they can't bring a case in their own name, they need a Legacy Benefit claimant to 'hang' the case on.
    In effect the case is brought in your name, but they are doing all the work for you.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  4. #144
    I understand, I've sent an email with my details and circumstances so hopefully someone gets back to me.

  5. #145
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,061
    I've just watched a video meeting from this morning in which Neil Couling openly admitted that the £20 a week increase for UC claimants but not for legacy claimants was done for 2 reasons, neither of them legal reasons.

    Firstly it was a policy decision to give extra money to new claimants claiming because of covid, (and he makes it clear that existing UC claimants would have been excluded if they could have done that easily).

    Secondly that it would simply have been too difficult for them to also apply the increase to legacy benefits. (Or to New Stlye ESA/JSA).

    In other words there was/is no legal basis for treating existing UC claimants differently from Legacy Benefits (or New Style Benefits) claimants. - It was done simply for policy reasons and to make things easier for themselves.

    It's interesting to hear it clearly said that if they could have easily left all existing claimants (UC and legacy) out of the increase then they would have done so.
    And that would have been entirely legal IF they had done that.
    But they didn't do that, simply to make things easier for themselves.

    But by including some existing claimants (only those on UC) they have created a situation of inbalance/discrimination in some getting the upgrade and others not. That has happened simply because it was easier for them, it has no legal justification at all.

    You can watch the video here, Neil Coulings (first) bit starts at about 15 mins in, the section about the UC increase starts at 18 mins.
    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org...net-in-action/
    Last edited by nukecad; 27-05-20 at 16:44.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  6. #146
    After listening to that it is the case that they wanted to give the uprating to 'post-covid' claimants but were unable to easily/quickly do so and so all those on UC pre-covid (existing) claimants were included and essential received a bonus.

    Could it not be argued that the uplift was not created specifically for UC claimants (as a whole) and the limitations of the system meant that all UC claimants had to receive it otherwise the intended target recipients did not..... and thus has no bearing on legacy benefit claimants?

    Or in simpler terms, the uprating is related to when you became a claimant rather than what you claim (which would be entirely UC claims apart from very specific scenarios where someone would have instead claimed new style ESA/JSA).
    Last edited by grrrrrowl; 28-05-20 at 04:54.

  7. #147
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,061
    Yes that's been obviously from the start that they wanted it for new claims only, and as said that would have been legal IF they had done that.

    However that didn't do that to make things easier for themselves, and what they did discriminated against those on legacy benefits with LCW/LCWRA as opposed to those on UC with LCW/LCWRA.

    Their intention would have been fine, what they actually did was different.

    The date that you claimed made no difference, in fact 2 people who claimed on exactly the same day, and have exactly the same Limited Capability award, may now be treated/paid differently for no reason other than it made it easier for the DWP/government.

    I gave an example back in post #40 of how 2 people on on UC one on ESA who were previously treated (paid) the same are now treated differently for no reason other than it's easier for the DWP/government.
    https://www.youreable.com/forums/sho...l=1#post170982

    That different treatment is the crux of the matter.

    The high court ruling in the SDP cases were about that exact same issue of suddenly treating one group on UC (those who had Naturally Migrated from ESA) differently to the other group still on ESA (and differently from how those will be treated when they are Managed Migrated) for no reason other than policy/convinence.
    Last edited by nukecad; 28-05-20 at 10:49.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    Their intention would have been fine, what they actually did was different.

    The date that you claimed made no difference, in fact 2 people who claimed on exactly the same day, and have exactly the same Limited Capability award, may now be treated/paid differently for no reason other than it made it easier for the DWP/government.

    I gave an example back in post #40 of how 2 people on on UC one on ESA who were previously treated (paid) the same are now treated differently for no reason other than it's easier for the DWP/government.
    https://www.youreable.com/forums/sho...l=1#post170982
    I'm a bit confused as to why their intention you regard as fine? That they only intended it for new UC claimants from the date they announced seems discriminatory in itself.

    In terms how it has been implemented, yes it can affect those on legacy benefits but as the intended purpose of the uplift was for claimants after a certain date, those already on any kind of benefits were never intended to have been given the uplift anyway.

    So from that point of view, anyone who was an existing legacy benefit claimant is kind of arguing that existing UC claimants should not have had the uplift rather than existing legacy benefit claimants should have also had it.

  9. #149
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,061
    Quote Originally Posted by grrrrrowl View Post
    I'm a bit confused as to why their intention you regard as fine? That they only intended it for new UC claimants from the date they announced seems discriminatory in itself.
    I meant it would have been fine legally, morally it would be pants of course.

    It's legally OK to treat all new claimants differently from a certain date. (think withdrawal of the WRAG component for claims made after April 2017).
    It's not legally OK to treat existing claimants with the same circumstances differently. (think losing SDP for no other reason than moving house or having a child).

    It's a bit more subtle because two sets of laws are involved.
    Although it may seem legal by benefit laws, those particular benefit laws can be in contravention of Human Rights laws which trump them.

    These issues only arise because they are taking so long to fully roll out UC and migrate everyone, so have two identical LCW/LCWRA groups of claimants on different benefits.
    Human Rights law says that while you have these two identical groups then you have to treat the two identical groups the same, regardless of which of the two benefits they are on.

    Remember that UC is a direct replacement for IR ESA so in Human Rights terms/law ESA LCW/LCWRA is the same as UC LCW/LCWRA, and it's just taking the DWP time to update the 'paperwork' for existing IR ESA claimants.
    (If they had fully rolled out UC by 2019 as intended then there would be no IR ESA claimants anymore, we would all have been managed migrated to UC by now and so would all have got the uplift).

    So from that point of view, anyone who was an existing legacy benefit claimant is kind of arguing that existing UC claimants should not have had the uplift rather than existing legacy benefit claimants should have also had it.
    And that's the nub of the discrimination.
    Either no existing IR benefit claimant should have got the uplift or all existing IR benefit claimant should have got the uplift.
    Either one would have been OK under Human Rights law, as long as both groups are treated the same then it's not discrimination, it's by doing it for some but not for others that it becomes discrimination and not OK legally.
    Once you treat one of the identical conditionallity groups differently to the other then that's discrimination.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  10. #150
    I'm wondering then if the challenge is upheld, is there a possibility (even likelihood?) that it creates the situation whereby the uplift is removed from those UC claimants (prior to 6th April) instead of applying the uplift to legacy benefit claimants?

    The discrimination (or really the limitations of the UC system) in this situation has resulted in something positive which otherwise wouldn't have occurred.
    Last edited by grrrrrowl; 29-05-20 at 00:59.

Similar Threads

  1. "Within 1 month of the date of this letter" - a calendar month or 4 weeks?
    By Eusabius in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-08-19, 16:38
  2. Liberator Accent 1000 for sale with The Grid2 installed
    By Alexsdad in forum News and general discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14-06-17, 18:52
  3. 1000 Mile World Record Attempt On A Mobility Scooter
    By TGA Mobility in forum Suppliers' news
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-03-15, 16:12
  4. Chancellor's speech
    By googlybear in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-12-12, 15:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •