£20 extra on JSA is this right a court case last week for people on legacy benefits

KxMx

Nothing yet, no. 

Ian41306

No date given for the judges hand down as yet 

djslapper

Millions of benefits claimants could be in line for a windfall depending on the results of a court case involving the Department for Work and Pensions.

It may mean that 2.4m people could get paid back £1560.

The argument is that the bonus given to Universl Credit during the coronavirus pandemic was 'unfair' to those on other DWP benefits.

People on Universal Credit saw their standard allowance go up around £20 a week, some £86 a month, for a period of 18 months before the 'uplift' scheme ended,

People on some other state benefits feel entitled to the same top-up, saying that excluding them was unlawful discrimination.

That's 5 hours ago - (9/2/22)

calcotti

djslapper said: That's 5 hours ago - (9/2/22)

What is?  

JonVarnas

djslapper said:

Millions of benefits claimants could be in line for a windfall depending on the results of a court case involving the Department for Work and Pensions.

It may mean that 2.4m people could get paid back £1560.

The argument is that the bonus given to Universl Credit during the coronavirus pandemic was 'unfair' to those on other DWP benefits.

People on Universal Credit saw their standard allowance go up around £20 a week, some £86 a month, for a period of 18 months before the 'uplift' scheme ended,

People on some other state benefits feel entitled to the same top-up, saying that excluding them was unlawful discrimination.

That's 5 hours ago - (9/2/22)

I wouldn't get too excited about getting a windfall. I remember a few years back that the government had been found to have broken the rules regarding benefit sanctions. The government's response? Retrospectively changed the law so they didn't have to pay anything out.

gbhxu

djslapper said:

Millions of benefits claimants could be in line for a windfall depending on the results of a court case involving the Department for Work and Pensions.

It may mean that 2.4m people could get paid back £1560.

The argument is that the bonus given to Universl Credit during the coronavirus pandemic was 'unfair' to those on other DWP benefits.

People on Universal Credit saw their standard allowance go up around £20 a week, some £86 a month, for a period of 18 months before the 'uplift' scheme ended,

People on some other state benefits feel entitled to the same top-up, saying that excluding them was unlawful discrimination.

That's 5 hours ago - (9/2/22)

Must admit that reports like this are p*****g me off .

This seems to be the weekly norm for any websites owned by Reach

Updates are most likely to come direct from the QC who represented the legacy claimants

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/legacy-benefits-case-r-t-wayland-barrow-and-keatings-v-department-work-and-pensions

calcotti

gbhxu said:..Must admit that reports like this are p*****g me off .

I didn't realise poster was quoting from another site. Their post adds nothing to what has already been said in this thread.

calcotti

The case that legacy benefits were unfairly treated has been lost.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/351.html
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/high-court-dismisses-judicial-review-challenge-to-decision-not-to-extend-covid-19-related-universal-credit-uplift-to-legacy-benefits

Muttleythefrog

calcotti said:

The case that legacy benefits were unfairly treated has been lost.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/351.html

Interesting that the court accepted hook line and sinker the claimed motivation for the increase - something which I would absolutely contest and which seems to fall out with the very political nature of the Covid response we saw from the government. Also interesting that it seemed accepted there would be technical difficulty distinguishing new claimants that were to be targeted support (assuming the motivation was authentic!) and new claimants that would not.... especially when in the background there was justification for no increase of legacy benefits due to technical difficulty. 

I guess that could be it... probably the lesson to learn is one government have been very effective at teaching... look after number 1 even if it means dicing with rules and regulations or dare I say it dishonesty. I switched to U/C when I realised the government were ignoring MPs on this issue and I understood that I could (the irony is my personal calculation on U/C being beneficial was based on a false assumption I had been correctly getting the right amount of ESA for years..lol).

NedS

Muttleythefrog said:

calcotti said:

The case that legacy benefits were unfairly treated has been lost.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/351.html

Interesting that the court accepted hook line and sinker the claimed motivation for the increase - something which I would absolutely contest and which seems to fall out with the very political nature of the Covid response we saw from the government. Also interesting that it seemed accepted there would be technical difficulty distinguishing new claimants that were to be targeted support (assuming the motivation was authentic!) and new claimants that would not.... especially when in the background there was justification for no increase of legacy benefits due to technical difficulty. 

I guess that could be it... probably the lesson to learn is one government have been very effective at teaching... look after number 1 even if it means dicing with rules and regulations or dare I say it dishonesty. I switched to U/C when I realised the government were ignoring MPs on this issue and I understood that I could (the irony is my personal calculation on U/C being beneficial was based on a false assumption I had been correctly getting the right amount of ESA for years..lol).

Also interesting that the judge noted that even had the claimants won, the fact they failed to bring the case in a timely fashion would have significantly impacted what, if any, relief should be granted. So the claimants could have ended up winning in principle but received nothing anyway as they failed to bring their case promptly, and within 3 months.