SDP in the news ??

ilovechristmas1

hi,been away and catching up on news,Ive seen that the goverment have come to a decision on the SDP and people who were made to claim UC thus losing the SDP

what happens now??
do those on SDP now will the jobcentre be able put you on it UC? or
are we still excluded?
is there now a premium like SDP on UC

im finding it all a liitle confusing

many thanks

calcotti

ilovechristmas1 wrote: »

hi,been away and catching up on news,Ive seen that the goverment have come to a decision on the SDP and people who were made to claim UC thus losing the SDP

what happens now??
do those on SDP now will the jobcentre be able put you on it UC? or
are we still excluded?
is there now a premium like SDP on UC

im finding it all a liitle confusing

many thanks

As I understand it:

Managed migration from legacy benefits to UC started last Thursday but only on a trial basis in Harrogate.

People with SDP in legacy benefits are still excluded from claiming UC for the time being. This will change from 27 January 2021.

When people with SDP transfer to UC there will be a compensation top up to their UC (this doesn't necessarily match the amount of SDP previously paid).

People who have already transferred from legacy benefits to UC and were getting SDP will get a retrospection payment and the ongoing compensatory top up.

Note that new claimants who might have got SDP under old benefits do not get these compensatory additions to UC. It only helps those who were gettingSDP before so new claimants who would have got SDP before are still worse off under UC.

Much anger by MPs and the Lords that Parliament was not allowed to debate the regulations because the government laid them at the end of the parliamentary sitting - contrary to their previous promises.

alexandrajj

Can you please remind me what are the criteria for Getting SDP please?

ilovechristmas1

Calcotti,a font of knowledge as always

many,many thanks

poppy12345

alexandrajj wrote: »

Can you please remind me what are the criteria for Getting SDP please?

You must be claiming an Income Related benefit such as ESA/JSA or Income Support. Claiming a qualifying benefit such as Mid/high rate care DLA or daily living PIP, no one must be claiming carers allowance for looking after you and you must live alone or be classed as living alone.


Details in this link. https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/severe-disability-premium

Dandytf

calcotti wrote: »

As I understand it:

Managed migration from legacy benefits to UC started last Thursday but only on a trial basis in Harrogate.

People with SDP in legacy benefits are still excluded from claiming UC for the time being. This will change from 27 January 2021.

When people with SDP transfer to UC there will be a compensation top up to their UC (this doesn't necessarily match the amount of SDP previously paid).

People who have already transferred from legacy benefits to UC and were getting SDP will get a retrospection payment and the ongoing compensatory top up.

Note that new claimants who might have got SDP under old benefits do not get these compensatory additions to UC. It only helps those who were gettingSDP before so new claimants who would have got SDP before are still worse off under UC.

Much anger by MPs and the Lords that Parliament was not allowed to debate the regulations because the government laid them at the end of the parliamentary sitting - contrary to their previous promises.

And this Wont be held to a vote in Westminster!

calcotti

Dandytf wrote: »

And this Wont be held to a vote in Westminster!

My understanding is that draft regulations were produced in January which the government said would be brought back to parliament for debate and which would have required approval by parliament.

Government then had to incorporate some changes as a result of some court decisions and sat on the regulations.

Presented the regulations again at beginning of this week but amended so as to be regulations which do not need to be approved by parliament in advance and some aspects of the regulations were implemented yesterday.

This from the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny committee
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldsecleg/415/41505.htm

Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/1152)
30.The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) yesterday withdrew its draft affirmative regulations on the Managed Migration of Universal Credit claimants, on which policy this Committee has commented in some detail in the past.18 The withdrawal is, in part, in response to a High Court judgement which found unlawful the differential treatment of Severe Disability Premium claimants, depending on when they claimed Universal Credit.19 While acknowledging the need for DWP to respond to the court’s decision quickly, we are concerned that these replacement Regulations are subject to the negative procedure only, rather than the affirmative procedure which would have automatically required a debate. This has been achieved by removing one provision, which clarified appeal rights, from the previous version which clarified appeal rights: this appears to us to be a tactical ploy by the Department. Although the replacement Regulations are still restricted to a 10,000-claimant pilot phase, a number of concerns about the proposed mechanism have been raised. We are therefore both surprised and disappointed that, having allowed the version laid on 14 January 2019 to remain undebated for six months, the negative procedure is being used to bring these changes into immediate effect on the cusp of the parliamentary recess; this means the Regulations will have been in operation for nearly six weeks before Parliament has any opportunity to scrutinise them .

31.These are our preliminary views, and we will give our considered response in September.

Having said that the concerns about points of detail, broadly the regulations are as expected. The principle that future claimants may get less than past claimants in the same circumstances was tested in the courts and found to be lawful (I can't recall the case).