WCA consultation ruled unlawful - White paper, part 2

MadMilan2019

Sorry some illnesses flaring up, so I have not got back to you al re he progress of my legal case on your behalf.

Will do it by Saturday 15th March Saturday latest.

Thanks for your patience, dear kind, inspiring folks.

In the meantime, more articles or extracts fro the media - he pint of these last 2 and the 1 below is for you to quote in writing to your MP, if you do not know who your MP is, please Google ''Find your MP, U.K.''

May Thanks.

I f you have doubts of or fear about being assertive in this way, if it is your low self esteem brought about by a stigmatising politics, and society, well feel, th doubt , fear and anxiety, and do it anyway.

We CAN win this 'battle' (e win battles by not being angry but by making a sincere heartfelt, calm reasoned, rigorous case), - literally for some, disabled people our lives depend on it, I have felt suicidal, but choose courage, freedom and lifeand a fried of mine ha become severely depressed on receiving his Migration letter from the DWP/ Jbcentre to UC, and is sucidal. No amount of tender encouragement, or informing him of his/our universal human rights has brought him round to campaigning - yet there is a clear duty of care owed to us bt the DWP and govt, they cannot ignore the right to life, and other human rights. We all need to get that.

Abramovich 'owes Britain £1 billion' Metro.co.uk Thursday January 30th 2025

In unpaid tax. leaked documents suggest.

The ex-Chelsea FC Chief routed hedge funds investments worth £4.7 billion via frm i the British Virgin Islands.

Bu they were managed from the UK and should have been taxed here, the BBC reports.. for full article please Google it.

Thanks.

The sheer injustice, the £22 billion blackhole is myth, we disabled, and elderly people are being persecuted, some have already suicided, or gone even deeper into chronic, severe anxiety, suicidal depression, agoraphobia and paralysing fear, have gone to a mental hell.

SHAME ON LABOUR SHAME ON STARMER, he promised so many leftwing policies e.g. boosting women pensioners pay to equalise it with men, not to cut disability benefits, and at least 12 other redistributritive Socialist policies, then n election completely sold out, and accepted many gifts from businesses.

I have written to him, his DWP Minster 'Sir' Stephen Timms who has no disabilities as far as I know, and NO empathy for disabled people, he should be SACKED, AND A DISABLED PERSON should replace him, elected by disabled peoples organisations. Now that would be truly democratic. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor, and his whole cabinet, and thrown down the gauntlet, told them they have already caused massive immense suffering increased suicidal, anxious, agoraphobic symptoms of elderly, and disabled people, told them I'm taking the govt to court, that hey should be deeply ASHAMED f themselves, and their corrupt 2-faced power, and selling out of the left. That they are worse than the Tories on pensioners, and welfare, and that I WILL take them to court, and publicise their cruel, uncompassionate, unskilflness, hypocracy, and unkindness, in the media at large, even BBC, ITN, and social media, but not only these forms of publicity/ media.

I have thrown down the gauntlet, on behalf of disabled people, and will not let go, will not get bitter, even though I feel suicidal.

I will show my best kindest humanity and assertiveness, and so will others wronged by this 'Labour' government, and give them a chance to reverse this proposed cutting of benefits and attempted abuse of 8 human rights, and will not, never take no for an answer, or suicide, tempting as it may be.

Why? Because compassion for all - even my 'enemies, as a Buddhist-Socialist- Communitarian- Human Right Campaigner, is, as Mandela so rightly said:

''The struggle [for equality, equal opportunities, human and civil rights, the very best in humans, and not taking, or giving offence] is my life.''

What a man - what a human being, shining, radiating with euphoria and total love, and compassion, and unstoppability.

Anger is not a crime, its only a feeling, but to act on it is.

Even feeling bitter, down hearted suicidal and depressed, are not crimes, they are only feelings, with a cause, injustice, and indicate a lack of self compassion, and compassion for others.

We all need to develop more self compassion, most days, and nights, and transform them to self-love and peace of mind and wisdom.

Tantric Buddhism says thus:

''All demons are diamonds.''

Geddit, nothing is unsurmountable with the right insights, individual to or personality karma, and in common compassion with others.

We are not pieces of S***

and will not be treated as such, we are simply human beings with disabilities, distresses, sufferings and human rights - which latter were created against the horrors of abuses of genocide, against elderly, disabled, BAME people, Jews and others in the Second World War.

Never give up, do not give up. United we stand.

Solidarity, and courage.

MadMilan2019

News

DWP loses WCA changes High Court battle

 Published: 16January 2025

The DWP have today lost a major High Court battle over changes to thework capability assessment (WCA) which may have serious implicationsfor the Labour  government’s plans for benefit reforms.

In September 2023, the Conservativegovernment launched an eight week consultation on a variety ofpossible changes to the WCA.  The proposals were presented as away to help more disabled claimants into work.

In November 2023, the governmentpublished its response to the consultation and set out changes to theactivities and descriptors in the WCA which would make it harder fornew claimants to be found to have limited capability for work-relatedactivity.

The Office for Budget Responsibilityonly then revealed that whilst 450,000 new claimants would be over£400 a month worse off as a result of the changes, just 15,400 wouldfind jobs by 2029.  In other words almost 97% of those affectedwould be worse off.

Disability campaigner EllenClifford launched a judicial review of the consultation lastyear, on the grounds that people talking part were not given enoughinformation to provide an informed response, but were instead misledinto believing that the changes were about helping people into work.

Today, the High Court found in Ellen’sfavour, ruling that “theClaimant has surmounted the substantial hurdle of establishing thatthe consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful.”

The judge found that the consultationwas unlawful on three grounds:

1. The DWP failed to adequately explainthe proposals.  The judge agreed with Ellen that “bearingin mind the audience for the consultation, it was not made adequatelyclear that the legislative proposals for the affected groups were toreplace voluntary work related activity with compulsory work relatedactivity, and to reduce the income of a large number of claimants.”

2.  The DWP failed to explainadequately the rationale for making the proposals.  The judgeagreed with Ellen that saving money rather than getting people intowork was the main reason for the changes.

3.  The DWP failed to providesufficient time for consultees to respond.  The judge agreedwith Ellen that 8 weeks was too short a time for a consultation,given that “These were proposalswhich, in particular, could potentially drive vulnerable people intopoverty as well as adversely affecting disabled people andsubstantial risk claimants who have mental health conditions andsuicide ideation.”

In summing up, the Judge held that anysingle one of these grounds, let alone all three, would have beensufficient for the consultation to be so unfair as to be ruledunlawful. 

The judgement relates to Conservativeproposals for the WCA, whilst Labour said they would be producingtheir own plans for benefits changes. Yet when Ellen’s case came tocourt, Labour fought hard to try to defeat it.

Because, the reality is that losingthis case means that Labour will have to be honest about theirproposals in the Spring, if they still intend to produce a greenpaper.

They will have to give clearinformation about the reasons for any changes, the number of peoplewho are likely to be worse off and how much they are going to loseout by.  And they will have to give disabled claimantssufficient time to consult with professionals if they need to, beforeresponding.

Being open and honest about what theyare doing is something the DWP have avoided for many years, so thisruling will be a major blow.

You can downloadthe full 42 page judgement in Clifford v SSWP from this link.

You can be sure that DWP ministers havealready done so and are reading it with growing dismay.

Congratulations to Ellen Clifford onher courageous fight and genuinely important victory.

Facebook

 

16thJanuary 2025

TheHigh Court has ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)acted unlawfully by presenting benefit assessment reforms as a wayto support disabled people into work, without making clear that costsavings was a “primary rationale” for the proposals.  

Readthe full judgement here

Thejudge also found that the consultation failed to explain thatplanned reforms would lead to 424,000disabled people receivinglower benefit rates and that many would be worse off by atleast £416.19per month.The consultation, which ran for just under 8 weeks before thecost-saving changes were announced in the Autumn Statement, was alsounlawfully short given the circumstances.

PLPclient Ellen Clifford faced the DWP in court on the 10th and 11thDecember 2024 over the consultation held in 2023 on these proposedchanges to the Work Capability Assessment. The DWP uses thisassessment to evaluate whether Deaf and Disabled people are eligiblefor the health component of Universal Credit or Employment SupportAllowance.

Ellen Cliffordsaid:

“

Iam overjoyed that the court has recognised the importance ofproperly consulting Deaf and Disabled people on reforms that wouldleave many worse off by at least £416.19 per month.

“

Thisis a life-or-death issue. One internal DWP estimate (which we onlyknow about because of my legal challenge) indicates that 100,000disabled people who are classed as highly vulnerable would be pushedinto absolute poverty by 2026/27, as a result of the types of cutsthey proposed in this consultation.”

“

Wenow urge the Government to rethink these proposals and make thesafety and well-being of disabled benefit claimants their priority,as well as commit to consulting us fairly and lawfully in thefuture.”

AoifeO’Reilly, the Public Law Project lawyer acting for Clifford, hasargued that the consultation was unlawful for several reasons,including that:

• Itdid not explain properly that many people would receivesignificantly less money if impacted by the reforms, and startbeing required to meet conditions (or, in some cases, meet morestringent conditions) in order to receive their payments, with arisk of sanctions if they did not meet them.
• Thetrue or primary motive behind the consultation was to reducespending on disability benefits, which was not disclosed. Theconsultation papers had presented the proposals as being abouthelping people to move into or closer to the labour market, withoutproviding any evidence at all to explain how this purported aimwould actually be met.
• Aconsultation that ran for just under 8 weeks was too short, giventhe importance of the proposals and the additional time that Deafand Disabled people and their organisations need to engagemeaningfully in this context.

Overthe course of the judicial review, internal DWP documents revealedthat:

• DWPhad not done any employment, equality or disability assessment onthe impact of the proposals prior to the consultation beinglaunched, though civil servants had identified that almost 100,000people could move into poverty, based on certain internalestimates. The equality impact assessment that was completed afterthe consultation was launched remains unpublished;
• Civilservants were aware that the proposals would have a particularlystrong impact on those with preexisting significant mental healthconditions and suicidal ideation, and that the “reduction inincome alone might be a bigger contributory factor to adeterioration in mental health than undertaking work preparatoryactivity”;
• Civilservants made proposals to ministers on what changes to consult onbased on the fiscal impact, with the emphasis being on scorablesavings that could be announced for the Autumn Statement 2023.Internal documents recorded for example, that “… the PrimeMinister indicated that the DWP should consult on reforms to theWCA gateway in time to score them for the Autumn Statement…”
• DWPwas also aware that the proposals would be controversial and thatthere was a risk they’d be “perceived as purely cost-savingmeasures by influential disability rights groups, individualstakeholders and by SSAC”, leading to recommendations that “awider narrative based on modern and home working” was alsodeveloped.
• TheSecretary of State considered including particular proposals aspart of the consultation, notwithstanding that they would not leadto savings, solely because this could be “useful” to support anarrative that the motivation for consultation was about theimportance of getting more people into work, and not saving money.

AoifeO’Reilly said:

“

Weare delighted that the court has agreed with our client.

“

Thisjudgment has vindicated our criticism of the DWP’s unlawfulconsultation and we now urge the Government to scrap these plannedreforms, which were disingenuously presented to the Deaf andDisabled people who would be affected.

“

Consultationis a key way for the general public to participate in state decisionmaking and that crucial method of input should be respected. It isparticularly important that consultation processes are undertakenconscientiously when it relates to policymaking that impacts groupsthat are often marginalised.

“

Deafand Disabled people should have been given a fair opportunity toshare their input on sweeping and punitive proposals that, ifimplemented, will have a profound impact on all those

 

affected.”

Inhis judgment, Mr. Justice Calver found that the consultation was“misleading”, “rushed” and “unfair.”

EllenClifford said:

Thelack of transparency in this consultation was overwhelming and I amrelieved that the judge has recognised that this is not the rightway to engage the Disabled community.

“

Butthe crucial question is what lessons the Government should learnfrom this case. Measures to help the economy should not require theimpoverishment and suffering of hundreds of thousands of Disabledpeople. Such measures would simply represent a false economy inthat they will substantially increase pressures on public servicessuch as the NHS and lead to higher spending in other areas.

“

DWP’sown civil servants acknowledged this internally when they recognisedthat the proposed reduction in income for people with significantmental health conditions and suicidal ideation could contribute tofurther deterioration in their mental health.”

“

Thatis why we are calling for these harmful reforms to the WorkCapability Assessment to be dropped.”

Mr.Justice Calver relied on the views expressed and evidence providedby key stakeholders, including Deaf and Disabled People’sOrganisations, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Workand Pensions Committee and a number of welfare rights organisations,in reaching his conclusions.

The UKDDPO CRPD Monitoring Coalition said:

“

TheUK Coalition congratulates Ellen on her successful challenge, whichwe have been so proud to support. The UN Committee on the Rights ofDisabled People recently found that the UK was still in “grave andsystemic” violation of the Convention on the Rights of DisabledPeople. Misleading and unlawful consultations like the one Ellenchallenged demonstrate the disregard that the former Government hadfor its international obligations towards disabled people in thiscountry.

“

Inorder to begin to build a welfare system that works for all, thecurrent Government must start by properly working in co-productionwith disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, avoidingthe urge to rush through poorly-formed policy that purports to savemoney. We call on the Government to scrap these proposals, and towork with Disabled people and our organisations on policy-makingthat impacts them.”

InclusionLondon said:

“

Weare pleased the court saw beyond the DWP’s deceptive tactics andupheld the rule of law. The policy if implemented would bedevastating for at least 450,000 Disabled people.  The judgewas clear today, If the government wants to inflict such harm, theymust be transparent in their consultation documents.

“Wenow call on the new government to fully hear Disabled people’svoices and consider our needs and rights. When our country ratifiedthe UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled people, it promised toprotect our right to an adequate standard of living and toco-produce policies with us. We urge the government to stop,rethink and drop this deeply harmful policy and start seeing socialsecurity support as an investment in people’s lives.”

DisabledPeople Against Cuts said:

“

We’redelighted Ellen has won her case, as it will mean so many disabledpeople will no longer be pushed into further poverty (unless by aLabour government re-introducing it, in which case they should beutterly and totally ashamed.)”

ThePublic and Commercial Services Union said:

“

PCShas long campaigned for a radical overhaul of the Social Securitysystem in the UK, with greater flexibility given to our members tosupport those that use DWP services. We welcome the judgement todaythat the government consultation on the WCA changes was not carriedout properly and was, we believe seriously flawed. We urge the newgovernment to scrap these proposed changes to the Work CapabilityAssessment, which will see more than half a million more Deaf andDisabled people at risk of sanction, and instead carry out ameaningful consultation on genuine welfare reform with all keystakeholders.”

Cliffordis represented by Public Law Project, Jenni Richards KC of 39 EssexChambers and Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers.

Readthe full judgement here

  News& Updates 

FEBRUARY 2025:This is my application for civil legal aid, let us see whatresults

MILANGHOSH,

DISABILITYBENFIUT CLAIMANT OF ESA SUPORT GROUP, PIP DP SDP

LEGALAND MORAL CASE TO ANSWER TO BE PUT TO STARMER'S 'LABOUR' GOVERNEMNET

MYGUESS OF LATTER, FOR SOLICITOR TO PERUSE AND STENGTHEN.

Iam not a lawyer but have set 3 legal precedents in my life:

 1 being refused IS 44 years ago,when I left home after a row with violent mum

was estrange from her my single parent,

suffering hardship, living with friendswho fed me for 5 months

 The DSS said Income Support wasonly for 18 year olds, I said to my solicitor, but there are lawswelfare against a citizen suffering hardship, which LAW ispredominant.

I received the 5 months backdate ofIncome Support in due course.

MadMilan2019

This only a 3rd of my proposed legal case to my lawyers/ sources of legal advice e.g.

Disability Rights UK

Public Health Lawyers

Pro Bono Unit

Mind Legal Unit

I have only outlined a case proposal for 3-4 human rights that will be broken if GWB goes ahead, there are 5 more potentially material/ relevant legally pertinent universal human rights.

Sorry for bdelays I have many 31 illnesses, have been low, but chjoose to battle on andbe kind to myself, and other disabled people including YOU.

I am eternally grateful to everyone and SCOPE, and find your compassion and wisdoms touching, am in tears right now, but I have my friends, including YOU LOVELY PEOPLE, kind and courageous people; youare all stronger, and better, than you know.

A rebellion by many Labour MPs IS possible; so please keep writing to them

Google ''Find your MP''

if you do not know who your MP is.

And keep writing to the press, TV radio.

Don't give up never give up - we are all worth it - we are wrth supporting and worth disability benefits.

Be Positive. Be Strong. Survive.

Thrive.