Universal Credit Severe Disability Premium

fusioncore

It is my understanding that the DWP will now award people already on SDP (Severe Disability Premium) to be in receipt of the same amount of entitlement they were on when they are transferred to universal credit.

My issue is that for people who are:
A. Already on universal credit and have been for say a year that were previously on SDP
B. Declared disabled (LCWRA and PIP enhanced) after ESA is abolished in their area (UC is mandatory for new claims).

I am B. This means that even though I meet all the legal criteria for disability, I am penalised and will get less money than my equal counterparts simply because I was forced to apply for UC because ESA was no longer possible to claim in my area. At the time of claiming I had the enhanced rate of PIP, lived alone and did not have a carer which meant that I met the requirement for SDP.

Surely the government are not allowed to award more to those who had previously been on ESA and received SDP purely based on if they were lucky enough to have still been in an ESA live area or to those whom have been not yet transferred from legacy benefits. Surely this is legally discrimination as the qualifying critia is the same, yet one person receives more based on, from what I can see, pure chance. I just wanted to check that I am correct here and if anyone else has any more input - I am possibly (hopefully) wrong and everyone would get an equal amount of benefits ultimately.

poppy12345

fusioncore wrote: »

It is my understanding that the DWP will now award people already on SDP (Severe Disability Premium) to be in receipt of the same amount of entitlement they were on when they are transferred to universal credit.

My issue is that for people who are:
A. Already on universal credit and have been for say a year that were previously on SDP
B. Declared disabled (LCWRA and PIP enhanced) after ESA is abolished in their area (UC is mandatory for new claims).

I am B. This means that even though I meet all the legal criteria for disability, I am penalised and will get less money than my equal counterparts simply because I was forced to apply for UC because ESA was no longer possible to claim in my area. At the time of claiming I had the enhanced rate of PIP, lived alone and did not have a carer which meant that I met the requirement for SDP.

Surely the government are not allowed to award more to those who had previously been on ESA and received SDP purely based on if they were lucky enough to have still been in an ESA live area or to those whom have been not yet transferred from legacy benefits. Surely this is legally discrimination as the qualifying critia is the same, yet one person receives more based on, from what I can see, pure chance. I just wanted to check that I am correct here and if anyone else has any more input - I am possibly (hopefully) wrong and everyone would get an equal amount of benefits ultimately.

1/ Nope, those that were previously claiming SDP and had a change of circumstances that prompted a move to UC may eventually be paid backdated money. Nothing further has been announced since June.


2/ The premiums don't exist on UC and because your area was a full UC area you had to claim UC. You weren't previously claiming it so you haven't lost out on anything. Unfortunately those are the rules and there's nothing we can do.

pmlindyloo

fusioncore wrote: »

It is my understanding that the DWP will now award people already on SDP (Severe Disability Premium) to be in receipt of the same amount of entitlement they were on when they are transferred to universal credit.

My issue is that for people who are:
A. Already on universal credit and have been for say a year that were previously on SDP
B. Declared disabled (LCWRA and PIP enhanced) after ESA is abolished in their area (UC is mandatory for new claims).

I am B. This means that even though I meet all the legal criteria for disability, I am penalised and will get less money than my equal counterparts simply because I was forced to apply for UC because ESA was no longer possible to claim in my area. At the time of claiming I had the enhanced rate of PIP, lived alone and did not have a carer which meant that I met the requirement for SDP.

Surely the government are not allowed to award more to those who had previously been on ESA and received SDP purely based on if they were lucky enough to have still been in an ESA live area or to those whom have been not yet transferred from legacy benefits. Surely this is legally discrimination as the qualifying critia is the same, yet one person receives more based on, from what I can see, pure chance. I just wanted to check that I am correct here and if anyone else has any more input - I am possibly (hopefully) wrong and everyone would get an equal amount of benefits ultimately.

I understand your concern but yours would have been a new claim for UC and therefore you would have never been in receipt of the SDP.

The transitional protection provisions are there to prevent people from receiving less money than they would have done on a previous legacy benefit.

Even for those previously on SDP the transitional protection will not always make up the difference if the current draft regulations are legislated.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/moving-claimants-to-universal-credit-from-other-working-age-benefits

In order to do what you think is morally correct it would negate the fact that Universal Credit was set up not to include the SDP.

fusioncore

I see what you are saying but isn't this still geographically discriminatory? If you are not yet in a UC area it would mean that you could set up an ESA claim today, claim SDP yet someone in an UC area could not do that. Surely the government cannot legally allow one person more than the other purely based on where they live if their circumstances are exactly the same. My only knowledge of where this would allowed is if you are living in London vs not living in London.

I also appreciate you saying "those are the rules". Well yes they are currently, but since the introduction of UC there have been many legal challenges made and won. My question is, based in law, is there a legitimate legal challenge to be made here?

calcotti

Legal grounds for discrimination relate to particular groups of people, unfortunately I don't think geographical discrimination is recognised.

poppy12345

fusioncore wrote: »

My question is, based in law, is there a legitimate legal challenge to be made here?

There's nothing to challenge because UC was never set to include any disability premiums. As you didn't previously claim it, you haven't lost anything.

fusioncore

consulted a solicitor and it appears that there potentially is a legal challenge to be made. It basically goes as follows. A claimant can walk into the job centre in a non universal credit live area and claim ESA and as a result SDP. Yet a like for like claimant (in terms of circumstance) can walk into the job centre of a universal live area on the same day and be forced to go on a benefit that gave the claimant £2200 less a year. That in itself is a form of discrimination.

poppy12345

Good luck, you may need it because you can't possibly claim for something that doesn't exist.

fusioncore

But it does exist? Somebody from a can go and claim ESA and SDP today, yet people who are already on universal credit cannot? How is it fair and legal for the DWP to this? It already violates two of the three grounds of the High court June 2018 ruling. It is not about a loss or gain in income, you are quite right in saying I have not lost anything but that is not my case. It is about the fact that a person with the exact same circumstance is entitled to more. It is about what I get in comparison to others. Here are the grounds of the June 2018 case which I feel are relevant.

1.The 2013 regulations discriminate against the severely disabled living alone with no carer, as compared to other severely disabled people, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights

2.The implementation of Universal Credit and the absence of any ‘top up’ payments for this vulnerable group as compared to others constitutes discrimination contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights

fusioncore

poppy12345 wrote: »

Good luck, you may need it because you can't possibly claim for something that doesn't exist.

By that logic the June 2018 case couldn't have happened because "SDP doesn't exist in UC". I am not talking about a personal mandatory reconsideration or appeal, I'm talking about a larger scale legal challenge that probably effects hundreds of thousands of people.

poppy12345

The June 2018 case you're talking about the people that won were previously claiming ESA and SDP BUT a change of circumstances meant they had to move to UC, this meant they lost what they were previously claiming.


You weren't previously claiming ESA, so SDP doesn't apply to you because you're claiming UC and it no longer exists.



My last word on this.... Good luck, you'll probably need it.