LCWRA and Council Tax Support

oatster0

councils have no right to include LCWRA payment as a surplus income; councils that do this are interpreting legislation to meet there own needs when they are neither qualified or authorised; only a judge can interpret legislation; it is also discriminatory; there have been two recent court cases where councils have lost.

• Discriminatory: “It is argued the scheme unlawfully discriminates against disabled people because it treats disability-related elements of Universal Credit as if they were ‘spare income’. This means people whose benefits are increased to reflect disability-related needs are assessed as less in need of support and are required to pay more council tax than non-disabled people with comparable financial circumstances. It also treats people with identical needs and incomes differently based on whether they are receiving ‘legacy’ benefits or Universal Credit.” 

Recent Court Rulings on Council Tax Reduction Schemes

Case 1: Three Rivers District Council

• Date of Ruling: February 2, 2026
• Claimants: Lynn and David Bleakley
• Background: The Bleakleys, both with severe disabilities, were migrated from Employment and Support Allowance to Universal Credit (UC). Their income remained unchanged, including transitional protection.
• Issue: Three Rivers District Council treated the transitional protection as surplus income, resulting in a council tax liability of over £1,500 per year.
• Court Decision: The High Court ruled this treatment as discriminatory and unlawful, stating that the Bleakleys' income had not increased and their needs had not decreased. The council must now disregard UC transitional protection payments for all residents and compensate the Bleakleys.

NedS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81896086#Comment_81896086

That court ruling related to the treatment of UC Transitional Protection element, not LCWRA as being discussed here.

marcia_

this thread is a year old

oatster0

NedS; your comments relate to the particulars of the case. The ruling states (not just one) that the LCWRA is a disability related benefit and much be treated as such. You need to understand the welfare act my friend. Currently there are but a few councils that do not recognise it as a disability related benefit and class it as surplus income. This is clear discrimination practices which is what the ruling is all about.

sheramber

why would comments not be made on the contents of the case you quoted.

If you want comments on a case relating to LCWRA cases then post details of the case.

TimeLord1

To be honest, I have always thought this decision was wrong in the context of being moved/migrated to UC, which would end up costing or not costing the claimant money based based on the individual councils' rules. Very controversial for someone previously exempt under disability rules. But why have you posted something that is now ruled as unlawful ?

TimeLord1

I think legally anybody who was affected could potentially have a legitimate case to be compensated, especially if they were previously exempt.

HillStreetBlues

I do feel this goes beyond just TP.
The argument was that their income never changed, so if a person moved from ESA to UC and the income was the same but the council for example took into account LCWRA which meant more (some) CT was charged it would be the same principle.

I expect many councils will have to have a look at their policy regarding this.

NedS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905220#Comment_81905220

The case you cite, Bleakleys vs Three Rivers District Council is specifically related to the treatment of the Transition Protection (TP) amount of UC, and whether this is to be treated as income or not when calculating Council Tax Reduction

The Transitional Protection element in itself is NOT a disability payment. It is a payment to make up any shortfall in amount of UC that a person who has undergone managed migration from legacy benefits may be entitled to. Both abled and disabled people may or may not receive the Transitional Protection element, depending purely upon the financial circumstances of their claim.

This high court ruling makes no reference to LCWRA or any other element of Universal Credit, only the Transitional Protection element which the court ruled must not be treated as surplus income for the purposes of calculating Council Tax Reduction.

https://www.bindmans.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026.02.02-R-Bleakley-v-TRDC-Final-Approved-Order.pdf

The High Court did rule that it was discriminatory (para 8) under the Equality Act 2010. Whilst I absolutely agree with the High Court decision, I fail to see how it is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 when a person not protected by the Equality Act 2010 would have been treated in exactly the same way (so how has the person of protected characteristics been discriminated against?). The issue is not one of disability but of fairness in that their circumstances and income have not changed. The fact they may be disabled is irrelevant in this case.

Anyway, my point was that in this case the High Court made absolutely no ruling on LCWRA or any other disability-related payments, only on the Transitional Protection element of UC.

marcia_

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905220#Comment_81905220

the evidence has been provided in what the case was actually about. Do you have evidence to the contrary?