DWP Court Challenge

Jay_1987

Should I be phoning DWP and asking to on to Universal credit then? I am currently on ESA Wrag.

Nannytone

Jay_1987 said:

Gig1968 said:

I believe the government are discriminating against people on legacy benefits but that's my opinion. We must also remember that all ESA claimants are being migrated to UC in the next few years, so that defeats the object about move yourself if you want the extra £20. All ESA people must have the same rights if they are being migrated by DWP.  Like I say the government placed me on ESA so if they want to move they should. But can you find a difference if people jumped ship, or should the government should have just done it anyway. One argument that doesn't stand up is that people on ESA didn't have any extra costs due to the pandemic, because iff they moved to UC and just transferred on income related ESA terms they would have got with got it and people would have said all people on universal credit need it because they  incurred extra costs because of the pandemic.

This was my understanding of it to be honest. People on income related ESA had the same extra costs throughout the pandemic as everyone else? Now I am definitely not holding my breath as the court case altogether does seem to have been kept on the down low, strangely. 

You are totally missing the point of the uplift.
It was for WORKING UC claimants to be brought into line with SSP whilst they were onable to work due to the pandemic.  It was NEVER meant to cover extra costs due to it.
The fact that it was too complicated to just pay to this group, was pure fortune for non working UC claimants.

It doesnt make it less unfair on legacy benefit claimants though.

If you are making a point as to why it is discrmination, you need to understand WHY the uplify was given and it NEVER  had anything to do wiyj rxtra costs

Robbie64

Jay_1987 said:

Should I be phoning DWP and asking to on to Universal credit then? I am currently on ESA Wrag.

The £20 uplift in UC has now ended so there is no longer an incentive to move to UC.

calcotti

Robbie64 said:

Jay_1987 said:

Should I be phoning DWP and asking to on to Universal credit then? I am currently on ESA Wrag.

The £20 uplift in UC has now ended so there is no longer an incentive to move to UC.

That particular incentive has gone but many claimants are better off on UC than ESA. The only way to know which is more advantageous is to do a benefits check (I suspect someone in ESA WRAG will not be better off but it does depend on circumstances).

Jay_1987

Nannytone said:

Jay_1987 said:

Gig1968 said:

I believe the government are discriminating against people on legacy benefits but that's my opinion. We must also remember that all ESA claimants are being migrated to UC in the next few years, so that defeats the object about move yourself if you want the extra £20. All ESA people must have the same rights if they are being migrated by DWP.  Like I say the government placed me on ESA so if they want to move they should. But can you find a difference if people jumped ship, or should the government should have just done it anyway. One argument that doesn't stand up is that people on ESA didn't have any extra costs due to the pandemic, because iff they moved to UC and just transferred on income related ESA terms they would have got with got it and people would have said all people on universal credit need it because they  incurred extra costs because of the pandemic.

This was my understanding of it to be honest. People on income related ESA had the same extra costs throughout the pandemic as everyone else? Now I am definitely not holding my breath as the court case altogether does seem to have been kept on the down low, strangely. 

You are totally missing the point of the uplift.
It was for WORKING UC claimants to be brought into line with SSP whilst they were onable to work due to the pandemic.  It was NEVER meant to cover extra costs due to it.
The fact that it was too complicated to just pay to this group, was pure fortune for non working UC claimants.

It doesnt make it less unfair on legacy benefit claimants though.

If you are making a point as to why it is discrmination, you need to understand WHY the uplify was given and it NEVER  had anything to do wiyj rxtra costs

Ah right thank you. That certainly makes more sense! I know very little about it all hence me asking for more information on it initially in my first post when I created the topic. This was the info I was looking for and yes it certainly does not make it any less unfair for people on legacy benefits.

NedS

Please accept my apologies if I offended you.

Jay_1987 said:

Nannytone said:

Jay_1987 said:

Gig1968 said:

I believe the government are discriminating against people on legacy benefits but that's my opinion. We must also remember that all ESA claimants are being migrated to UC in the next few years, so that defeats the object about move yourself if you want the extra £20. All ESA people must have the same rights if they are being migrated by DWP.  Like I say the government placed me on ESA so if they want to move they should. But can you find a difference if people jumped ship, or should the government should have just done it anyway. One argument that doesn't stand up is that people on ESA didn't have any extra costs due to the pandemic, because iff they moved to UC and just transferred on income related ESA terms they would have got with got it and people would have said all people on universal credit need it because they  incurred extra costs because of the pandemic.

This was my understanding of it to be honest. People on income related ESA had the same extra costs throughout the pandemic as everyone else? Now I am definitely not holding my breath as the court case altogether does seem to have been kept on the down low, strangely. 

You are totally missing the point of the uplift.
It was for WORKING UC claimants to be brought into line with SSP whilst they were onable to work due to the pandemic.  It was NEVER meant to cover extra costs due to it.
The fact that it was too complicated to just pay to this group, was pure fortune for non working UC claimants.

It doesnt make it less unfair on legacy benefit claimants though.

If you are making a point as to why it is discrmination, you need to understand WHY the uplify was given and it NEVER  had anything to do wiyj rxtra costs

Ah right thank you. That certainly makes more sense! I know very little about it all hence me asking for more information on it initially in my first post when I created the topic. This was the info I was looking for and yes it certainly does not make it any less unfair for people on legacy benefits.

This is what I thought I explained in my first reply at the start of the thread, so we got there in the end

Jay_1987

NedS said:

Please accept my apologies if I offended you.

Jay_1987 said:

Nannytone said:

Jay_1987 said:

Gig1968 said:

I believe the government are discriminating against people on legacy benefits but that's my opinion. We must also remember that all ESA claimants are being migrated to UC in the next few years, so that defeats the object about move yourself if you want the extra £20. All ESA people must have the same rights if they are being migrated by DWP.  Like I say the government placed me on ESA so if they want to move they should. But can you find a difference if people jumped ship, or should the government should have just done it anyway. One argument that doesn't stand up is that people on ESA didn't have any extra costs due to the pandemic, because iff they moved to UC and just transferred on income related ESA terms they would have got with got it and people would have said all people on universal credit need it because they  incurred extra costs because of the pandemic.

This was my understanding of it to be honest. People on income related ESA had the same extra costs throughout the pandemic as everyone else? Now I am definitely not holding my breath as the court case altogether does seem to have been kept on the down low, strangely. 

You are totally missing the point of the uplift.
It was for WORKING UC claimants to be brought into line with SSP whilst they were onable to work due to the pandemic.  It was NEVER meant to cover extra costs due to it.
The fact that it was too complicated to just pay to this group, was pure fortune for non working UC claimants.

It doesnt make it less unfair on legacy benefit claimants though.

If you are making a point as to why it is discrmination, you need to understand WHY the uplify was given and it NEVER  had anything to do wiyj rxtra costs

Ah right thank you. That certainly makes more sense! I know very little about it all hence me asking for more information on it initially in my first post when I created the topic. This was the info I was looking for and yes it certainly does not make it any less unfair for people on legacy benefits.

This is what I thought I explained in my first reply at the start of the thread, so we got there in the end

You explained one side of the story, yes. Other posters have now cleared up the rest and with having both sides of the story I am able to make an informed decision myself. So no you didn’t explain the whole situation in the first post, but yes with others help we certainly did get there in the end.

Muttleythefrog

Jay_1987 said:

Nannytone said:

Jay_1987 said:

Gig1968 said:

I believe the government are discriminating against people on legacy benefits but that's my opinion. We must also remember that all ESA claimants are being migrated to UC in the next few years, so that defeats the object about move yourself if you want the extra £20. All ESA people must have the same rights if they are being migrated by DWP.  Like I say the government placed me on ESA so if they want to move they should. But can you find a difference if people jumped ship, or should the government should have just done it anyway. One argument that doesn't stand up is that people on ESA didn't have any extra costs due to the pandemic, because iff they moved to UC and just transferred on income related ESA terms they would have got with got it and people would have said all people on universal credit need it because they  incurred extra costs because of the pandemic.

This was my understanding of it to be honest. People on income related ESA had the same extra costs throughout the pandemic as everyone else? Now I am definitely not holding my breath as the court case altogether does seem to have been kept on the down low, strangely. 

You are totally missing the point of the uplift.
It was for WORKING UC claimants to be brought into line with SSP whilst they were onable to work due to the pandemic.  It was NEVER meant to cover extra costs due to it.
The fact that it was too complicated to just pay to this group, was pure fortune for non working UC claimants.

It doesnt make it less unfair on legacy benefit claimants though.

If you are making a point as to why it is discrmination, you need to understand WHY the uplify was given and it NEVER  had anything to do wiyj rxtra costs

Ah right thank you. That certainly makes more sense! I know very little about it all hence me asking for more information on it initially in my first post when I created the topic. This was the info I was looking for and yes it certainly does not make it any less unfair for people on legacy benefits.

Just my input... which varies from the view of some posters here.... intent may not be relevant in legally deciding the case just as may be the actual costs associated with the pandemic. I am not convinced what people claim here was government intention (and the responses of the DWP seem to suggest to me it was not - like saying the software systems made things difficult to do is very different than saying we do not intend to do it) is either true or a legal argument that would succeed in defence of what is otherwise on the face of it the different treatment of people in same circumstances. It seems unfair to me (and many others including the significant number of MPs who have tackled the matter) and hence we have a situation where there'll be test cases making the legal argument of discrimination.... whether they succeed or not is a legal question beyond anyone here to definitely answer... and like any legal case it can go either way. Ultimately the government is far from unfamiliar with finding itself losing cases of discrimination.... often difficult to determine whether it is due to incompetence or hostility... we even had a PM querying in the pandemic why people with No recourse to public funds couldn't just get Universal Credit if they couldn't work due to 'Covid restrictions'.. em... possibly because Universal Credit is a public fund. 

I understand the DWP is also refusing to publish its own commissioned research into disabled people's experiences of the benefits system - not related but worth noting!

Spoonie_Turtle

Muttleythefrog said:

Jay_1987 said:

Nannytone said:

Jay_1987 said:

Gig1968 said:

I believe the government are discriminating against people on legacy benefits but that's my opinion. We must also remember that all ESA claimants are being migrated to UC in the next few years, so that defeats the object about move yourself if you want the extra £20. All ESA people must have the same rights if they are being migrated by DWP.  Like I say the government placed me on ESA so if they want to move they should. But can you find a difference if people jumped ship, or should the government should have just done it anyway. One argument that doesn't stand up is that people on ESA didn't have any extra costs due to the pandemic, because iff they moved to UC and just transferred on income related ESA terms they would have got with got it and people would have said all people on universal credit need it because they  incurred extra costs because of the pandemic.

This was my understanding of it to be honest. People on income related ESA had the same extra costs throughout the pandemic as everyone else? Now I am definitely not holding my breath as the court case altogether does seem to have been kept on the down low, strangely. 

You are totally missing the point of the uplift.
It was for WORKING UC claimants to be brought into line with SSP whilst they were onable to work due to the pandemic.  It was NEVER meant to cover extra costs due to it.
The fact that it was too complicated to just pay to this group, was pure fortune for non working UC claimants.

It doesnt make it less unfair on legacy benefit claimants though.

If you are making a point as to why it is discrmination, you need to understand WHY the uplify was given and it NEVER  had anything to do wiyj rxtra costs

Ah right thank you. That certainly makes more sense! I know very little about it all hence me asking for more information on it initially in my first post when I created the topic. This was the info I was looking for and yes it certainly does not make it any less unfair for people on legacy benefits.

Just my input... which varies from the view of some posters here.... intent may not be relevant in legally deciding the case just as may be the actual costs associated with the pandemic. I am not convinced what people claim here was government intention (and the responses of the DWP seem to suggest to me it was not - like saying the software systems made things difficult to do is very different than saying we do not intend to do it) is either true or a legal argument that would succeed in defence of what is otherwise on the face of it the different treatment of people in same circumstances.

The intention was clearly stated when the uplift was first introduced - and initially the point about software was that it was too complex to ONLY give it to the intended recipients who'd lost income, both newly or already on UC and not the unintended recipients already on UC.  (Incidentally, that I can believe, given how the system couldn't even handle all the new claims.)  Technical difficulty may well also have been used as a response to later arguments about why legacy benefits didn't also get the uplift, I don't know

However presumably the issue considered by the court case will be whether the reality is fair.  Intention will no doubt factor in to the DWP's argument, but whether it will carry any weight remains to be seen.  As many of us here know only too well, discrimination is still discrimination even if it's unintentional.

LippyDoodle

Jay_1987 said:

Should I be phoning DWP and asking to on to Universal credit then? I am currently on ESA Wrag.

Don't more over to UC with out advice from citizens advice because you could end up losing money and be worse off.