DWP Court Challenge

gbhxu

This was the answer to a Freedom Of Information Act request that was made in April 2021 regarding the exclusion of Legacy Benefits to the £20 uplift.

When the Government introduced the initial £20 uplift, its priority was to implement 
changes that could be implemented quickly. The nature of the legacy benefits IT system 
meant that an uplift could not in any event be implemented into the system quickly at that 
time..

This was pure bovine excrement.

The uplift was announced on March 20th 2020 and the £20 could have easily been added to Legacy Benefits when they increased in April 2020.

i.e. a person 25 or over would have received a Personal Allowance of £94.35 not £74.35

We'll have to wait for the outcome of the court case now to be held on November 17 & 18th.

Muttleythefrog

Spoonie_Turtle said:

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

Even if true.... and without forensically checking and looking at things such as the FOI request response above and mixed messaging (which I could add in some of my own communications with Tory MPs regarding which definitely do not follow the 'initial intention' line).... you believe what this government says?... a government immersed in deception with a habitual liar as leader... which seems to always look after itself and its friends. It seems likely to me the uplift was about protecting their middle class voters from sufferance on Universal Credit they may be forced to claim by following government imposed draconian restrictions on work (widely supported)...something that left some in society begging for charity as they had no right to claim U/C of any level. Ultimately the DWP did raise that it was difficult to temporarily increase legacy benefits as they had U/C... why say that if the intention was to never help anyone on those benefits as they were targeting support only to new (U/C) claimants. As we saw through the pandemic... mixed messaging and backtracking seemed quite normalised.

For the record I also find it unlikely that it was too difficult to do... there must be so many mechanisms to do it.. or fiddle it... but then we are talking about the DWP I suppose... where using one's grey matter is probably a prelude to demotion. 

Agree with your post otherwise by the way.... and a real shame that it is again those more vulnerable in society having to fight for equality or fairness. Sadly the reality is those 'at the bottom' of society are not likely voters for the current party of government.. so like migrants who can't typically vote they've been treated with contempt or human rights violation by the government through the pandemic and before.

With any luck this case will be won... I won't hold my breath... wonder if I'll get a partial backdating.... to go with the 5 year backdating of underpayment of ESA due to 'error' that I recently alerted them to and received..lol. We'll see.

Spoonie_Turtle

Muttleythefrog said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

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

Even if true.... and without forensically checking and looking at things such as the FOI request response above and mixed messaging (which I could add in some of my own communications with Tory MPs regarding which definitely do not follow the 'initial intention' line).... you believe what this government says?... a government immersed in deception with a habitual liar as leader... which seems to always look after itself and its friends. It seems likely to me the uplift was about protecting their middle class voters from sufferance on Universal Credit they may be forced to claim by following government imposed draconian restrictions on work (widely supported)...something that left some in society begging for charity as they had no right to claim U/C of any level. Ultimately the DWP did raise that it was difficult to temporarily increase legacy benefits as they had U/C... why say that if the intention was to never help anyone on those benefits as they were targeting support only to new (U/C) claimants. As we saw through the pandemic... mixed messaging and backtracking seemed quite normalised.

Not always, and never blindly.  The original explanation made sense to me, the increase was also applied to Working Tax Credits which seems to be forgotten in the furore (thus targeting people on a moderately low income who had lost income from the pandemic, especially self-employed), and there was a HUGE outcry of unfairness from previously self-employed people about not being able to access the equivalent of SSP.  [As an aside, MANY of those are musicians and theatre staff and other people in the arts, who have been … how to put this politely?  Completely and utterly failed as of late, both with the pandemic and Brexit.  Not this government's favourite people, that's for sure.]

Yes of course it is almost certain that the popularity of it factored into their decision; the government is not known for doing things just to help people!  (Although realistically a lot of middle class people will have been earning too much even on furlough and/or have too much in savings to be eligible for UC even with the uplift - especially as many own their homes and thus would have a lower maximum award than those who rent.) 

I didn't follow the public discussion afterwards precisely *because* they tend to change their minds and messages on a whim, especially when something turns out to be unpopular, so can't comment further.

calcotti

There seems to be an unnecessary oppositional argument going on in this thread. The situation outlined by Ned that the increase was to raise benefits for the newly unemployed to the equivalent of SSP, which reflects the explanation put forward by government at various times, is entirely consistent with a political desire to protect middle class voters.

However this thread is way off base for a support forum.

Gig1968

The principle of the matter is very important here.
Universal Credit encompasses so many benefits now.
The £20 increase therefore applies to all of these during the pandemic.
Any comments made by anyone that it increases low income families during the hard times is true. But it also increased the other benefits that are included in Universal credit too.
These comments seem to be the only ones cherry picked by the government, 

Listening to an MP today nobody will suffer innthe decrease there are thousands of jobs in the country to be filled, how about all those that are not fit enough to work.

Nannytone

Those unfit for  work on UC have already received £1,600 more than those on ESA.
The issue isnt whether UC is enough to live on, rather that 2 groups of people in the same situation, have been treated differently

Gig1968

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. Your post I's exactly the point I was trying to make. I'm on old style income related ESA so (minus £20 per week) as opposed to this strange all incorporating Universal credit benefit which allegedly allows those who claim it to be worth an extra £20 a week extra, due to the pandemic. But others do not warrant it. No real reason I have heard has ever been a reasonable one for the difference

Nannytone

I can see the reason WHY it happened the way it did butthere was no valid reason for the situation to continue fot 18 months.

Hundreds of thousands of new claims were made at the same time, while DWP staff were trying to work from home.

Just the logistics of providing equipment to staff at home was a bightmare.
Adding checks to distinguish between UC  claimants would have been impossible

CosmoChic

If there's an argument for those on legacy ESA/JSA, why is there not an equal argument for those on nsESA/JSA? 

The reason I'm curious is I'm on nsESA and the weekly rate is the same as the legacy ESA rate isn't it? 

Why the difference?  <-- - Question aimed at anyone willing (daft enough!) to attempt to understand/explain the inner workings of the minds of government mandarins. 

Spoonie_Turtle

CosmoChic said:

If there's an argument for those on legacy ESA/JSA, why is there not an equal argument for those on nsESA/JSA? 

The reason I'm curious is I'm on nsESA and the weekly rate is the same as the legacy ESA rate isn't it? 

Why the difference?  <-- - Question aimed at anyone willing (daft enough!) to attempt to understand/explain the inner workings of the minds of government mandarins. 

Income-based is means-tested whereas New-Style is not.  UC is wholly means-tested so can only really be compared to the legacy income-based ESA/JSA.