Advice for claimants RE: disabled carer’s TP errosion due to LCWRA addition

Emilee

I am aware a number of disabled UC claimants on here were impacted by losing over £200 a month once awarded LCWRA, due to the issue with transitional protection.

The Upper Tribunal case regarding this found in the claimants favour but this does not mean that all claims will automatically be updated and if you have been impacted you will need to be proactive in challenging it now.

CPAG have shared the following information with advice for claimants in this position:

"Claimants in either of the following two groups should be able to have the judgment applied in full to their UC awards (meaning that when recognised as having LCWRA, their transitional element should only be reduced by the difference between the LCWRA element which is added and the CE element which is removed):

• Group 1: claimants who have already passed through mandatory reconsideration stage:

This group applies to claimants who had already, by the date of the UT decision, had a decision reducing their UC award because their transitional protection was reduced by the full amount of the LCWRA element despite the fact that otherwise their maximum amount of UC only increased by the difference between LCWRA they gained and CE they lost and who have, also by the date of the UT, also been refused mandatory reconsideration of such a decision.

Claimants in Group 1 should, if they have not already, file an appeal against the decision which reduced their UC. On appeal the FTT should simply apply the SSWP v MJ judgment with the effect that the reduction in their UC will be changed from when it first occurred - UC will instead be amended by reducing the transitional element only by the difference between LCWRA element they gained and the CE element they lost.

• Group 2: claimants with CE who are accepted as having LCWRA from some date on or after 29 January 2025:

This group applies to claimants who are accepted as having LCWRA and being entitled to the LCWRA element only from some date on or after 29 January 2025. 

Claimants in Group 2 should only have their transitional element reduced by the difference between the LCWRA element which is added and the CE which is removed.

For other claimants, then things are potentially more complicated due to the effect of the “anti testcase” rule in s.27 Social Security Act 1998 and its interaction with the Human Rights Act 1998."

Rosie_Scope

Thanks for sharing @Emilee, I have announced this in the category so members can find it 😊

h69

hi there ,

I put in mandatory consideration well before the UT hearing and subsequent ruling and didn’t have a decision on MR until a of months couple after UT ruling. They decided to not apply the new ruling. Therefore I immediately applied for appeal. It is still being looked at and as of yet not had a date for appeal. Does anyone know if my case is one of those complicated ones related to test case (which I don’t fully understand what that means).
any advice would be fully appreciated

Thank you in advance x

h69

@Emilee

hi there , 

I put in mandatory consideration well before the UT hearing and subsequent ruling and didn’t have a decision on MR until a of months couple after UT ruling. They decided to not apply the new ruling. Therefore I immediately applied for appeal. It is still being looked at and as of yet not had a date for appeal. Does anyone know if my case is one of those complicated ones related to test case (which I don’t fully understand what that means). 
any advice would be fully appreciated 

Thank you in advance x