Schedule 10 Para 2 UC Reg 2013 refusal - DWP Discrimination?

Adam3411

I would be grateful for any advice and assistance on the following matter:

I am a Universal Credit Claimant. I have been refused an MR. The facts are: I have a second property which is occupied by my mother. My mother is of elderly of age (not state pension age) and has longstanding medical conditions – type 1 diabetes (insulin controlled), hypertension and recently, diabetic neuropathy. She could be eligible for certain benefits (e.g. PIP), although she is not a recipient of any benefit (she chooses not to be in receipt by her own choice).

Under Schedule 10 Para 2 of Universal Credit Regulations 2013, a UC claimant’s second property can be disregarded when…

Premises occupied by a close relative of a person as their home where that close relative has limited capability for work or has reached the qualifying age for state pension credit.

Medical evidence was submitted although the DWP however refused to apply the provision on reasons:

 The relative has not had a Work Capability Assessment (WCA); and

 The relative is not on benefits, so cannot be accepted as having LCW.

DWP suggests the above are only relevant to claimants of benefits (UC/ESA)

Some of my points of argument, amongst others against this at the tribunal will include:

Equality considerations

• Denying the disregard because my mother has not claimed a benefit would ignore the Equality Act 2010 s.6 definition (disability status independent of benefits, assessed as if untreated: Sch 1), and is inconsistent with the PSED duty to consider disability impacts
• Limiting LCW to benefit claimants would exclude disabled/vulnerable relatives who have not claimed UC/ESA, undermining the important and purposeful protective intent of Sch 10 para 2.
• This would amount to indirect discrimination against disabled persons (Equality Act 2010 s.19, s.149; Article 14 ECHR).

I would be grateful for any authority/case law that I can submit at the tribunal to support the argument that LCW is a status which is not dependent upon benefits (i.e. can be applicable to non-claimants), and can be determined from medical evidence alone.

Also I would like to reference the following post:

(https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/Forums/1725/Database/viewthread/15167/#71778)

where is has been mentioned

“Commentary in Sweet and Maxwell says it’s arguable either that the words “limited capability for work” merely have their ordinary meaning or that it is not necessary that the relative be in receipt of any benefit or credit based on a determination as to limited capability for work.

This is because regs 38-44 only apply in determining whether a claimant has LCW, not the other person residing in the property.”

I would be grateful if anyone could verify or expand upon this, as it seems very helpful to my issue and would greatly help my case at the tribunal.

Please also provide sources/attachments that I can provide/quote at tribunal.

Thank you very much in advance.

durhamjaide2001

hi there sorry I can't be of much assistance but I just wanted to welcome you to the forum and recommend that you visit the benefits side of the forum because there may be people their with similar experiences of you.

As well as this I would recommend that you visit the coffee lounge for a general chat or the games den for some fun these can be great for distraction.

Girl_No1

I find MSE benefits forum to be a great source for information regarding non-standard questions.

The posters on there appear to understand the nuances of DWP-speak.

MW123

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/137787/schedule-10-para-2-uc-reg-2013-refusal-dwp-discrimination

Firstly Adam I would like to say welcome to the community.

I carried out a thorough search in the hope of locating the information you’re seeking. I found no reported or published cases directly supporting the view that “limited capability for work”, under Schedule 10(2) of the Universal Credit Regulations, can be established for non-claimants solely on the basis of medical evidence. This is unsurprising, given that many First-tier Tribunal decisions are not published, and that individuals affected by this rule may either choose not to appeal or instead encourage a relative to claim benefits in order to simplify the process.

However, the absence of case law is not a barrier to success. Tribunals primarily base their decisions on the wording of the regulations, relevant legal principles, respected commentary such as Sweet & Maxwell, and, above all, the quality of the medical evidence provided.

Your argument that the concept of LCW should be interpreted in its ordinary sense and applied beyond benefit claimants is legally credible. It is consistent with equality principles, including the Equality Act 2010, which protects disabled people regardless of benefit entitlement.

While your case is undoubtedly challenging, given the lack of precedent and established administrative practice, it is far from without merit. With robust medical evidence and carefully framed submissions, there is genuine potential not only to persuade the tribunal but also to shape how similar cases are approached in the future.

I wish you every success in pursuing this.

SM9346

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1060507#Comment_1060507

I second that. I’d recommend benefits and work forum too as I’m sure that’s run by people involved in the whole thing or used to be.

Adam3411

Thank you all for your comments and support. And a special thank you to member MW123 for taking the time to research for any known Tribunal decisions. You have grasped the issues that I face very well.

I agree, that this is a challenging case, but I also feel it is an important one that I must pursue.

Best regards.