The SDP-TE has (at last) been increased in line with the TP & AR ruling.

Newcad

Some will know that I have been a keen follower of this one

The High Court decision in the 4th case of TP & AR has at last been implemented and written into legislation.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1238/made

The result is that anyone who 'naturally' migrated (due to moving house, etc) to UC from a legacy benefit (eg ESA) and who has, or previously had (before erosion), a SDP Transitional Element included in their UC will now get an increase, an additional TA amount for the failure to fully compensate for the loss of EDP as well.

(Personally I have no doubt that this will be announced/counted as an 'Increase in Disability Benefits' despite it being something that they should have been paying all along and it's taken 4 High Court rulings, and a long delay, before finally grudgingly paying it).

Newcad

No backpayments

Those used to reading legislation will have noticed that there does not seem to be provision there for any backpayments.

My initial thinking about that was wrong, it's still in some quotes lower down.

Thanks @Yamor for putting me right.

Yamor

It's taken a long time!

Interesting to note that despite the legislation clearly providing even for existing UC claims, the Explanatory Memorandum (at para. 2.2) wrongly says that it only applies to new claims.

Newcad

I think it may just be misleading rather than wrong. But that EM is misleading in a few places. (Intended for the press?).

But it's only an explanatory blurb and not what the legislation itself says

Talking of smoke and mirrors the timing is as usual for something that is an embarassment to the government - try to hide it off the news pages in a much bigger event like the autumn statement.

In the end though it's good news and a financial help for those affected

HillStreetBlues

Newcad said:

No backpayments - But you don't lose out.

Those used to reading legislation will have noticed that there does not seem to be provision there for any backpayments.

But on thinking it through I realised that there does not need to be any backpayment made in this situation. - That's all because of the nature of Transitional Additions.

Transitional Additions start as a set amount and 'erode' as standard benefits rates go up (and with changes of circumstances) until after a number of years there is noting left of them.

So any TA will last for a number of years before it is eroded to zero.

Let's take as an example a TA that would last for 5 years:
It doesn't really matter if a particular TA started five years ago and lasted until today, or if it starts today and lasts for the next 5 years.
In either case you will get 5 years starting with the same TA amount, eroding away each year as other rates go up until it reaches zero.

In reality of course benefits rates change by different amounts (different percentages) each year so there will be an element of swings and roundabouts - if you had got this new addition earlier then would it have lasted a few more years? Will it last a bit less in the coming years? or will it be a bit more?
Nobody will know until the next several years have passed and it's been eroded to zero.. (If anyone does the comparision then).

In the end though- If you have/had a SDP-TE and so qualify for this extra addition then you will get roughly the same amount as a TA overall, you are just getting it at a different time (later in this case).

Some people would lose out.
People who have died in the last few years, not getting the premium they should have.
People who have stopped claiming UC or will stop claiming before the TP end.

Newcad

Agreed that there will be such edge cases. (See post below).

The further implications for edge cases will no doubt be considered in the coming week(s), but as noted the autumn statment will be making other things a higher priority to be looked at.

Yamor

Newcad said:

No backpayments - But you don't lose out.

Those used to reading legislation will have noticed that there does not seem to be provision there for any backpayments.

But on thinking it through I realised that there does not need to be any backpayment made in this situation. - That's all because of the nature of Transitional Additions.

Transitional Additions start as a set amount and 'erode' as standard benefits rates go up (and with changes of circumstances) until after a number of years there is noting left of them.

So any TA will last for a number of years before it is eroded to zero.

Let's take as an example a TA that would last for 5 years:
It doesn't really matter if a particular TA started five years ago and lasted until today, or if it starts today and lasts for the next 5 years.
In either case you will get 5 years starting with the same TA amount, eroding away each year as other rates go up until it reaches zero.

In reality of course benefits rates change by different amounts (different percentages) each year so there will be an element of swings and roundabouts - if you had got this new addition earlier then would it have lasted a few more years? Will it last a bit less in the coming years? or will it be a bit more?
Nobody will know until the next several years have passed and it's been eroded to zero.. (If anyone does the comparision then).

In the end though- If you have/had a SDP-TE and so qualify for this extra addition then you will get roughly the same amount as a TA overall, you are just getting it at a different time (later in this case).

This is incorrect.

You would have been right if these extra amounts were the only amounts being added to the UC award.

However, that is not the case. They are being added to the existing transitional SDP element.

As such, if the new amounts would have been added from the start, then for the entire period it takes/took for the original transitional SDP element to erode to nil, the claimant would have received the extra amounts in full, and only then would the new amounts have started eroding.

Newcad

As it's written some people will have both their existing SDP-TE, plus this new TA as well.

Some who's SDP-TE had already eroded to nil will have just this new TA.

Let's be clear here that the DWP have once again done the bare minimum that they believe they can get away with to comply with the court order - and this time they have probably just done enough that they will.

As things stand those who have/or had a SDP-TE, and who are still claiming UC, will get this new TA added, which will then be subject to erosion like any other TA.

Those who had a SDP-TE but who are now no longer claiming UC for whatever reason, (including being dead), are not going to get anything extra (or their estate won't) as a result of this legislation.

That's wrong, and we can all recognise that it's wrong, but Is that alone going to be worth another court challange?

That's going to depend on the numbers affected by it, ie. how many who had a SDP-TE are no longer claiming UC?**, and if they feel it worth mounting another challenge or if others do on their behalf.

So it remains to be seen whether a 5th High Court challenge will now be mounted, personally I have my doubts that it will.

**( I don't expect that it will be many but I'll see if I can find that number anywhere, or infer it from other figures, but I am sure that it isn't going to be easy to track down unless the DWP want people to see that it's low and now publish it.  An FoI might eventually winkle it out, but I suspect not without a fight).

Yamor

I don't agree. Firstly, the legislation does add it to the existing transitional SDP element (if it is hasn't yet been eroded to nil). But either way, that doesn't make a difference to this discussion.

If it had been added from the start of the award, then for all the months it took (or will take) for the original transitional SDP element to erode to nil they would have received the extra elements in full.

Try it out with example figures!!!

EDIT TO ADD: I wasn't suggesting that it would be added twice, just that people are losing out due to the fact that it is only being added in Feb 2024 and not from the start of their claim. It goes without saying that if it would have been added at the start then they wouldn't have added it again now.

Newcad

My error, I was missing 3 words in that draft which make a difference- it isn't added to SDP-TE 'in all cases'.
But as you say not really important here and i've edited it out.

I do see where you are coming from, you haven't had the extra during those previous years.
But you have to also factor in that you will now be getting the extra for more years going forwards.

ie. You have to expand your comparisons into the future.

Yes you have lost the extra in those previous years, but you are now also gaining the extra for more years going forwards to make up for that.

Where previous to this legislation your SDP-TE would have eroded to zero at a certain time the extra amount now means that it will continue for longer.
So where in future you would have been geting nil SDP-TE you will now still be getting paid the extra (eroding as usual).

And I do see what you say about the extra all being paid in those previous years, but reducing in future years.
That is going to take more number crunching, and will depend on individual cases and when their SDP-TE started.

Yamor

I don't think there will be any cases where the claimant is not worse off. Here are some examples with random figures for illustrative purposes:

Example 1:
Original Transitional SDP Element: £300
Extra amounts: £200

UC claim in 2020, and erosion of £100 per year.

If they would have added the extra amounts from the start, then they would have have received the following:
2020: £500*12
2021: £400*12
2022: £300*12
2021: £200*12
2022: £100*12
2023: NIL
TOTAL: £18,000

Now that they have only added it from 2024:
2020: £300*12
2021: £200*12
2022: £100*12
2023: NIL
2024: £200*12
2025: £100*12
2026: NIL
TOTAL: £10,800

Example 2:
Original Transitional SDP Element: £300
Extra amounts: £200

UC claim in 2022, and erosion of £100 per year.

If they would have added the extra amounts from the start, then they would have have received the following:
2022: £500*12
2023: £400*12
2024: £300*12
2025: £200*12
2026: £100*12
2027: NIL
TOTAL: £18,000

Now that they have only added it from 2024:
2022: £300*12
2023: £200*12
2024: £300*12
2025: £200*12
2026: £100*12
2027: NIL
TOTAL: £13,200