High Court decides on absence of uplift to legacy benefits
Tori_Scope
Scope Posts: 12,452 Championing
High Court decides on uplift to legacy benefits (Osbornes Law)
Is there anything you're unsure about after reading the article?
What do you think should happen next?
What was the case about?
Between 30 March 2020 and 5 October 2021 the standard allowance element of Universal Credit (“UC”) was increased by approximately £20 per week. The standard allowance is the element of UC that is intended to cover basic living costs. There was no corresponding increase for those on so called “legacy benefits”, including Employment and Support Allowance (“ESA”), Jobseekers’ Allowance (“JSA”) and Income Support (“IS”).
Four Claimants brought a challenge in the High Court in relation to the government’s failure to apply a similar increase to legacy benefits. Two of the Claimants were in receipt of ESA and the Third and Fourth Claimants were in receipt of IS and JSA. Permission for the case to proceed was granted by the High Court on 27 April 2021, and a final hearing was heard on 17 and 19 November 2021.
The Claimants argued that this ongoing difference in treatment between those in receipt of UC and those in receipt of legacy benefits was discriminatory, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Four Claimants brought a challenge in the High Court in relation to the government’s failure to apply a similar increase to legacy benefits. Two of the Claimants were in receipt of ESA and the Third and Fourth Claimants were in receipt of IS and JSA. Permission for the case to proceed was granted by the High Court on 27 April 2021, and a final hearing was heard on 17 and 19 November 2021.
The Claimants argued that this ongoing difference in treatment between those in receipt of UC and those in receipt of legacy benefits was discriminatory, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What did the Court decide?
The Court accepted that there were a greater proportion of disabled persons in receipt of legacy benefits, compared to disabled persons receiving UC and that disabled persons in receipt of legacy benefits were in an analogous position to disabled persons in receipt of UC.
Whilst the Court accepted that there was discrimination towards disabled people on legacy benefits, the Judge ruled that the difference in treatment was justified. Mr Justice Swift (giving judgment in this case) accepted the justification put forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“SSWP”), that the increase to the standard allowance of UC was done with the intention of providing additional support to those people who lost their jobs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and were forced to claim UC for the first time. Mr Justice Swift accepted that using the increase in UC to cushion the loss of employment or reduction in income was a legitimate objective.
Whilst the Court accepted that the regulations increasing the rate of UC in March 2020 (and those extending it March 2021) did not distinguish between new UC claimants and persons already in receipt of UC (with the effect being that all UC claimants received the uplift), Mr Justice Swift did not consider this affected the justification advanced by the SSWP.
At the hearing, the court had been presented with evidence that, those new to benefits tended to have higher rates of savings and were better able to meet the costs of the pandemic as a result. The judgment did acknowledge the very low level of income provided by legacy benefits and the hardship those in receipt of these benefits must have faced during the pandemic. However, Mr Justice Swift did not consider that this was legally relevant to the justification advanced by the SSWP.
Whilst the Court accepted that there was discrimination towards disabled people on legacy benefits, the Judge ruled that the difference in treatment was justified. Mr Justice Swift (giving judgment in this case) accepted the justification put forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“SSWP”), that the increase to the standard allowance of UC was done with the intention of providing additional support to those people who lost their jobs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and were forced to claim UC for the first time. Mr Justice Swift accepted that using the increase in UC to cushion the loss of employment or reduction in income was a legitimate objective.
Whilst the Court accepted that the regulations increasing the rate of UC in March 2020 (and those extending it March 2021) did not distinguish between new UC claimants and persons already in receipt of UC (with the effect being that all UC claimants received the uplift), Mr Justice Swift did not consider this affected the justification advanced by the SSWP.
At the hearing, the court had been presented with evidence that, those new to benefits tended to have higher rates of savings and were better able to meet the costs of the pandemic as a result. The judgment did acknowledge the very low level of income provided by legacy benefits and the hardship those in receipt of these benefits must have faced during the pandemic. However, Mr Justice Swift did not consider that this was legally relevant to the justification advanced by the SSWP.
What next?
The Claimants legal team is currently giving consideration to whether there are merits to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Over to you...
What do you think about the outcome?Is there anything you're unsure about after reading the article?
What do you think should happen next?
0
Comments
-
To be honest I always thought it would go that way.0
-
I think most people knew it would happen, a shame because they could do with the extra money the way thinks are going. You can't miss what you never had though.0
-
-
Indeed, thanks @calcotti. I just copied it over from the article, but I can see it could be misleading! I'll change that now.0
-
To be honest I always thought it would go that way.I think many people feel the same way @MarkM88. Was there any particular reason you thought this would be the decision?0
-
@Tori_Scope to be honest it was just more of a gut feeling really, nothing too logical in my thinking.0
-
If the government had increased all of the other legacy benefits for the short period can you imagine what the outcry would have been when it was then removed.
All that has happened is that the temporary increase for UC only was to give a little more help for new claimants of UC because of Covid.0 -
[removed by moderator].
Just because something is labelled as temporary dosen't mean it shouldn't be made pernament. Especially because circumstances can change significantly in that time.
Given the rise in costs of living due to Brexit, COVID (which is not over btw) and now the invasion Ukraine, that by itself is reason to justify not only keeping it pernament, but also to increase all benefits.
not extending it is discrimination, simple as. the judge behind this decision has sent thousands more disabled people to their deaths.1 -
Stellar said:
not extending it is discrimination, simple as. the judge behind this decision has sent thousands more disabled people to their deaths.
The court case wasn't about extending the uplift to UC or tax credits. It was about the extra £20 per week that wasn't given to those claiming the old legacy benefits.
1 -
still discriminatino and dosen't change the fact the uplift shouldn't have ended, nor should legacy claimants be denied what they are entitled to. Nor anything else i said.poppy123456 said:Stellar said:
not extending it is discrimination, simple as. the judge behind this decision has sent thousands more disabled people to their deaths.
The court case wasn't about extending the uplift to UC or tax credits. It was about the extra £20 per week that wasn't given to those claiming the old legacy benefits.0 -
Stellar said:
still discriminatino and dosen't change the fact the uplift shouldn't have ended, nor should legacy claimants be denied what they are entitled to. Nor anything else i said.poppy123456 said:Stellar said:
not extending it is discrimination, simple as. the judge behind this decision has sent thousands more disabled people to their deaths.
The court case wasn't about extending the uplift to UC or tax credits. It was about the extra £20 per week that wasn't given to those claiming the old legacy benefits.Why is it discrimination because it ended with UC? Not everyone that claims UC is disabled.Those claiming legacy benefits weren't entitled to it. I still claim legacy benefits and if i'm honest the decision made by the court didn't surprise me.0 -
The comments above are just in response to what members feel about the decision. I can only say that it was good that UC claimants were given help, tho it couldn't have gone on indefinitely.Everyone here is either disabled/has a disabled relative/an understanding about disability, so accusing members of an online community for disabled people, who are indeed very thoughtful, is most unfair. Eugenics certainly doesn't come into it at all either.I appreciate that times are very hard for all people, disabled or not, but those on legacy benefits, & indeed PIP, are not therefore necessarily entitled to more monies. However the proposed Council Tax Rebate will be welcomed by many of us.0
-
because people on UC are more likely to be disabled, single parents, other groups on low incomes and face structural barriers to working. hence any loss in money (especially when other groups are allocated it). Hence there's an argument for discrimination in the courts. that's why the case went to court in the first place.poppy123456 said:Stellar said:
still discriminatino and dosen't change the fact the uplift shouldn't have ended, nor should legacy claimants be denied what they are entitled to. Nor anything else i said.poppy123456 said:Stellar said:
not extending it is discrimination, simple as. the judge behind this decision has sent thousands more disabled people to their deaths.
The court case wasn't about extending the uplift to UC or tax credits. It was about the extra £20 per week that wasn't given to those claiming the old legacy benefits.Why is it discrimination because it ended with UC? Not everyone that claims UC is disabled.Those claiming legacy benefits weren't entitled to it. I still claim legacy benefits and if i'm honest the decision made by the court didn't surprise me.
There will likely be an appeal or two where this decision will eventually get overturned. this case was put forward by those who support disability rights. despite what the judge ruled, in the long term we'll be proven right. that's how social justice works.
The attitudes in the comments are a wider view of people in the country as a whole. this is because most people - those who are thoughtful of disability and those who are not - do not possess basic knowledge on politics, economics (including how money is created), critical thinking and more. Even though this is through no fault of their own.chiarieds said:The comments above are just in response to what members feel about the decision. I can only say that it was good that UC claimants were given help, tho it couldn't have gone on indefinitely.Everyone here is either disabled/has a disabled relative/an understanding about disability, so accusing members of an online community for disabled people, who are indeed very thoughtful, is most unfair. Eugenics certainly doesn't come into it at all either.I appreciate that times are very hard for all people, disabled or not, but those on legacy benefits, & indeed PIP, are not therefore necessarily entitled to more monies.
hence why many people do not see the issue with disabled people not getting they money they're entitled to. we're all entitled to a good quality of life. Arguing otherwise only helps those who wish to take away the support disabled people and other marginalised groups need (which includes, but not limited to, eugenicists). Just because a view is popular dosen't make it factually accurate.
anyway, i'm going to stop as to not derail this thread any further. [removed by moderator].0 -
Sorry I don't have your understanding of politics & economics, oh, & apparently critical thinking, tho I'd dispute the latter. I personally find your comments about eugenics distasteful.No-one is 'entitled' to anything, tho the benefits system does try to ensure that the majority of claimants receive an award due to their disability, low income, etc.However, despite what you say, your comments were addressed to members of our community, not others/a wider view of people in this country. This is your opinion, which you can hold, tho we're asked not to present opinion as fact here in the community, unless you can give links from reputable websites that say otherwise.0
-
It was not about the uplift in UC and i don't know why you insist on saying this. The uplift ended and it won't be returning. Those that are entitled to the work allowance had this increased in December as well as the taper rate being decreased. It's not a popular view, it's a fact.Being disabled doesn't automatically entitle anyone to any benefits.1
-
The case was not about people on UC. The case was about people on legacy benefits.Stellar said:because people on UC are more likely to be disabled, single parents, other groups on low incomes and face structural barriers to working. hence any loss in money (especially when other groups are allocated it). Hence there's an argument for discrimination in the courts. that's why the case went to court in the first place.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 14.2K Start here and say hello!
- 6.8K Coffee lounge
- 69 Games den
- 1.6K People power
- 101 Community noticeboard
- 22K Talk about life
- 5K Everyday life
- 58 Current affairs
- 2.2K Families and carers
- 824 Education and skills
- 1.8K Work
- 438 Money and bills
- 3.4K Housing and independent living
- 895 Transport and travel
- 659 Relationships
- 64 Sex and intimacy
- 1.4K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.3K Talk about your impairment
- 845 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 893 Neurological impairments and pain
- 1.9K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 35.8K Talk about your benefits
- 5.6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 18.5K PIP, DLA, and AA
- 6.6K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.1K Benefits and income