Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 153

Thread: Chancellor £1000 UC 12 month pledge.

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    680
    It works out at roughly £20 per week extra

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,440
    I think the reason for the increase is to help those losing jobs because of the virus, but ESA claimants aren't affected by that so that's why ESA isn't increasing.

  3. #13
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,943
    Quote Originally Posted by tom34 View Post
    It works out at roughly £20 per week extra
    Their press statement says exactly £20 a week extra, (£1,040 a year), see my first post above.
    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. #14
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,943
    Quote Originally Posted by noisynoodle View Post
    I think the reason for the increase is to help those losing jobs because of the virus, but ESA claimants aren't affected by that so that's why ESA isn't increasing.
    Indeed that was probably the intention - but they have been too hasty, not thought it through, and cocked it up as usual.

    The way that they have announced it then those on UC-LCW/LCWRA, who are not working so not losing jobs, will also get the increase.
    Which is unfair and discriminatory to those on ESA who aren't getting any increase.
    (Those on UC who are working but aren't losing their jobs will also get the increase).

    There is no difference between UC-LCW/LCWRA and ESA WRAG/Support Group, it's even exactly the same WCA and conditionality.

    To arbitarily give one one set of claimants an increase in rates whilst denying the other, identical, set of claimants is discrimination.

    It's similar to the SDP fiasco, there the difference between someone who naturally migrated not getting a TP when someone who later managed migrated would get a TP was ruled to be an arbitary/false distinction between two identical sets of claimants, and so it was ruled discriminatory and natrual migration for those with SDP had to be ended.
    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.

  5. #15
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,943
    I've also thought more about what I said above.

    As well as IE ESA, IR JSA, and IS then shouldn't everyone on Housing Benefit and Child Tax Credits be given this increase as well?

    That is - All the current legacy benefits that are going to be Managed Migrated into UC in future, should get the same increase as UC is getting now.

    Of course if you get more than one legacy IR benefits then you should only get the increase with one of them.
    Which could get complicated depending on just how they did it.

    I do note that the HB/UC LHA rate has been increased for private rentals, but that only helps if you are a private renter and your rent is above the curent LHA rate.
    eg. My HB is just below LHA so that's all that is paid, and the increase in LHA will make no difference to me.

    Which is another interesting point.
    Private renters on UC whose rent is above the current LHA rent are getting double help, the UC increase and the LHA increase.


    All in all as I said in the last post - They have rushed this without thinking it through properly, and so cocked up; again.

    Makes you wonder how much else of what that they are rushing through is cocked up?
    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. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    356
    they don't really have much choice but to rush in when they have people screaming at them from all directions to do something 'NOW'

    at least not having a job means we cant lose it

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    425
    To me it seems clear why its happening.

    We now have people who had looked upon benefits as something always able to be cut because they would never be affected.

    Suddenly lots of these people are finding themselves jobless, and the chancellor wants to keep up appearances that the benefit system is adequate, and that they care, hence this temporary policy.

    Since legacy benefits is for existing claimants only, it wouldnt make sense for them to also apply the change to that.

    Also note the boost to LHA also, so that it will now actually cover rent as well. Thats probably worth to most renters a lot more than £20 a week.

    I am assuming all WCA's for existing claimants are now not been done? since f2f in a virus outbreak for ill people seems stupid, so automatic deferrals again? nukecad your rent been below LHA rate's I expect is highly unusual in the private rental market now days.

    Basically what they dont want to happen is all these voters who dont know the realities of the benefit system , suddenly realising that basic UC and LHA does not cover living costs they expect it to cover, e.g. it would be a reasonable expectation to think LHA would cover rent, when for most people it doesnt. So I know exactly whats going on here, they need to keep that impression.
    Last edited by worried33; 22-03-20 at 19:43.

  8. #18
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,943
    WCA's are still being done but on paper and by telephone only, New Claims obviously have priority but that's always been the case.

    You are spot on that a lot of people are suddenly going to learn about the benefits system the hard way, UC in particular, but from a skewed perspective.

    My rent isn't particularly low for this area, it's basically for one room in a shared house.
    The rent was negotiated at the LHA rate in 2011 and the landlord has not increased it since.
    He's probably scared to because of the state of the property.

    The Chancellor announced an increase in LHA to 30% of the 'median' rent for an area.
    So unless you are in the bottom third of the private rental market (grotty flat or bedsit) then it still won't cover your rent.
    30% is where it was set in 2011, but since 2012 it's only increased in line with Consumer Price Index not actual rents for an area, so has fallen behind that 30%.
    (Befrore 2011 it used to be 50%).

    Whether it makes sense or not to also increase legacy benefits is besides the point, it's unlawful not to.
    What they have announced is discriminatory to those on legacy benefits.

    I'll give an example:
    A claimaint in the ESA WRAG group, who's claim was made before April 2017, will get £5,417.65 for the 12 months starting April 5th 2020. (52.143 weeks).

    The same claimant in UC-LCW group would have got £5,417.64 for the same 12 months, to a penny the same as the ESA claimant.
    But following the announcement the UC claimant will now get £6,417.64.

    In both cases they have had exactly the same WCA and have exactly the same benefit conditionality.
    The only difference between the 2 claimants is that one is claiming a legacy IR benefit whilst the other is claiming UC.
    It's simply an arbitary decision that has now caused them to be treated differently, there is no other difference.

    Such arbitary inequalities, with no real basis other than government policy, between UC and ESA have already been ruled discriminatory and unlawful by the courts - The SDP natural migration challenge which led to the SDP gateway stopping natural migration for those with SDP.
    Last edited by nukecad; 22-03-20 at 21:20.
    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    425
    bear in mind that 30% includes HA properties, which I think is stupid, so it was never 30% of the private market.

    I think i need to move to your area if you saying LHA is covering rents in that area.

    For reference my rent is cheaper than anything I have seen advertised in my area for the past 3-4 years at least. Never mind bottom 30%. I have not seen a single property advertised for private rental anywhere near close to the LHA rates, in fact bed sits are going for almost the same price as the one bed flat rate of LHA. My rent is actually also more than the 2 bed rate of LHA for my area, and as I said my rent is below the market rate for my area. I know this is common around the country as well. In fact the LHA rate for my area actually matches 100% with HA rent prices, as there was a HA property got put on a classified once, and the rent was exactly the same as LHA rates. Which private landlords set their rents to match housing association rents? none that I know off.

    Also on the discrimination thing, why hasnt any new claimant of WRAG managed to overturn the decision to remove the WRAG component for new claimants? as surely that would fall under the same umbrella.
    Last edited by worried33; 22-03-20 at 21:37.

  10. #20
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,943
    Quote Originally Posted by worried33 View Post
    Also on the discrimination thing, why hasnt any new claimant of WRAG managed to overturn the decision to remove the WRAG component for new claimants? as surely that would fall under the same umbrella.
    No, that wasn't discriminatory because it applied to both ESA and UC-LCW at the same time.

    If they had cut ESA WRAG without cutting UC-LCW at the same time, or vice-versa, then it would have been discriminatory.

    It's when they treat ESA and UC-Limited Capability differently that it becomes discrimination.

    Cuts are lawful, treating/paying otherwise identical groups differently is unlawful discrimination.

    Again that's one of the main points that came out in the SDP court cases, for those with SDP they were trying to treat natural migration differently than managed migration (no Transitional Protection for natural migration).
    There was no difference between the claimants however they were migrated other than timing and that it was natural migration policy not to pay TP, and so even though managed migration hadn't started the policy was deemed discriminatory and natural migration for those with SDP had to be stopped by law.

    It wasn't the loss of SDP when naturally migrated that was the legal problem, the legal problem was the different treatment of identical groups, - if the DWP/government had said no TP for managed migration either then both groups would be treated the same so it would not have been discrimininatory but simply a benefit cut.
    Last edited by nukecad; 22-03-20 at 22:22.
    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.

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
  •