DWP Court Challenge

1246

Replies

  • CosmoChicCosmoChic Forumite
    49 Posts
    Third Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    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.
    If I understand this correctly, the uplift was about the rate for ESA/JSA being increased by £20 per week to be aligned to SSP, not the fact it's means-tested.  If it was about being means-tested, would those on, say, Pensioners' Credits etc. not have received the £20 uplift too?  

    IMO, it's like a rate for a job (or in our case not being able to undertake a job for whatever reason), irrespective of what your other circumstances are, you get paid the same rate as everyone else.   I think the principle is there.  It'll be interesting to see what judgement is made in any case.   
  • Gig1968Gig1968 Forumite
    301 Posts
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    The principle of the argument is most definitely there for discrimination. I'm sure the legal team who are bringing the case will do a brilliant job then it's all down to Mr judge. If he turns it down it will be interesting to read the reasons why. But of course if he upholds the case. The government my appeal. By the way just as a an aside has anyone seen Mr chancellor in the last month
     He seems to have disappeared off the tv. I'm concerned he has done a runner has he might have to pay out.
  • edited 1 October 2021 at 12:44PM
    p00hsticksp00hsticks Forumite
    10K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 1 October 2021 at 12:44PM
    Gig1968 said:
    By the way just as a an aside has anyone seen Mr chancellor in the last month
     He seems to have disappeared off the tv. I'm concerned he has done a runner has he might have to pay out.

    You're not looking hard enough - he was on last night talking about the end of furlough and the UC uplift.
  • spingoblinspingoblin Forumite
    115 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts
    Nannytone said:
    The issue isnt whether UC is enough to live on, rather that 2 groups of people in the same situation, have been treated differently
    This. Forget every other post, it boils down to this only.
  • NedSNedS Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭
    Nannytone said:
    The issue isnt whether UC is enough to live on, rather that 2 groups of people in the same situation, have been treated differently
    This. Forget every other post, it boils down to this only.

    But that's the point - they weren't in the same situation. The uplift was intended for those unable to work due to Covid but for whatever reason could not claim SSP.
    The two groups of affected people who were in the same situation and would have been treated differently if not for the UC uplift were:
    1. Those who were unable to work due to Covid and were able to claim SSP at £95/week
    2. Those who were unable to work due to Covid and were unable to claim SSP at £95/week, and were only able claim other benefits at the lower rate of £75/week.
    Those are the two groups of people who were in the same situation, and the government introduced the UC uplift to ensure that the second group of people were not discriminated against.
    I would agree that if you were no longer able to work due to Covid and unable to claim either SSP or UC (maybe due to partners earnings, or savings over £16k), then you may have been discriminated against, but equally you probably had the means to support yourself. Was anyone in the thread in that situation?

  • edited 4 October 2021 at 6:55PM
    Spoonie_TurtleSpoonie_Turtle Forumite
    3.2K Posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 4 October 2021 at 6:55PM
    NedS said:
    Nannytone said:
    The issue isnt whether UC is enough to live on, rather that 2 groups of people in the same situation, have been treated differently
    This. Forget every other post, it boils down to this only.

    But that's the point - they weren't in the same situation. The uplift was intended for those unable to work due to Covid but for whatever reason could not claim SSP.
    The two groups of affected people who were in the same situation and would have been treated differently if not for the UC uplift were:
    1. Those who were unable to work due to Covid and were able to claim SSP at £95/week
    2. Those who were unable to work due to Covid and were unable to claim SSP at £95/week, and were only able claim other benefits at the lower rate of £75/week.
    Those are the two groups of people who were in the same situation, and the government introduced the UC uplift to ensure that the second group of people were not discriminated against.
    I would agree that if you were no longer able to work due to Covid and unable to claim either SSP or UC (maybe due to partners earnings, or savings over £16k), then you may have been discriminated against, but equally you probably had the means to support yourself. Was anyone in the thread in that situation?

    There was indeed still a disparity, because employed people with too much income and/or savings for UC could still claim SSP despite already having the means to support themselves, whereas self-employed people could only access UC if their income/savings were low enough.

    The point of the case regarding legacy benefits is that people already out of work, unable to work, or working but on a very low income in exactly the same situation as some people on UC, ended up with different treatment as a result of the UC uplift being applied across the board.  However a lot of people complaining seem to be on ESA, which I think with the SDP still came to about the same as uplifted UC anyway?  As far as I understand, it's mainly those not getting the SDP (and those on JSA/IS) who missed out if they didn't realise they could consider applying for UC.

    Edit: I'm not commenting on the validity of the case, just reiterating why it came about.
  • calcotticalcotti Forumite
    13.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Nannytone said:
    The issue isnt whether UC is enough to live on, rather that 2 groups of people in the same situation, have been treated differently
    This. Forget every other post, it boils down to this only.
    Two groups of people in the same situation are treated differently on UC and legacy benefits regardless of the uplift.
    Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Some rules may be different in other parts of UK.
  • edited 7 October 2021 at 4:56PM
    srpsrpsrpsrp Forumite
    43 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 7 October 2021 at 4:56PM
    I'm on JSA still and following this Saga. I gather UC people are treated a lot worse, kind of like a implicit that that they can just stop your money, added to the fact that you have to keep plugging away at the phone lines and online diaries etc, not to mention the 5 weeks with no money. I decided it wasn't worth switching. Shame though, I could have used the money to fix my car and probably get a job. I've not even had to go to sign on since March 2019 either 👍
  • Gig1968Gig1968 Forumite
    301 Posts
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    I keep regarding the arguments that there is no discrimination between legacy and universal benefits. I keep hearing that the uplift was to help people who are on low income and are worse off due to the situation. People on universal credit are also migrators from other benefits so are technically not on the scenario that the government is aiming to help by the uplift in the £20. So having helped those people it simply is treating old style people on legacy benefits differnlty to those on universal credit. I eject the argument that they could have migrated as irrelevant. It should not be thencasebof the general public to chase the benefit that the chancellor's has increased, A general increase accross all benefits was the way forward, two sets of people who were claiming the same benefit in January 2020 have been treated differently. 
  • calcotticalcotti Forumite
    13.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gig1968 said:..two sets of people who were claiming the same benefit in January 2020 ..
    Two sets of people in similar circumstances but claiming different benefits.
    Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Some rules may be different in other parts of UK.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest News and Guides