Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Defeat for govt in High Court in TP & AR
So the people affected years ago (I think TP & AR case started in 2016 or 2017) instead of having it for a past period with a complicated calculation of erosion that would have occurred, just get it in February and experience the erosion afresh in future?
Although that doesn’t mean they are not worse off. They would have had it for much longer if it would have been added from the start.
Yes of course, it would have eroded much more slowly during the period when benefit rates were frozen or uprated only by a small amount.
What is a single person with LCWRA who qualifies for the EDP additional amount going to lose of the £84 straight away in the April uprating, at least £51 just through the uprating of of standard allowance plus LCWRA ...
What does this clause actually mean please?
2. This Schedule does not apply where the claim was a qualifying claim and the award is to include a transitional element.
What does this clause actually mean please?
2. This Schedule does not apply where the claim was a qualifying claim and the award is to include a transitional element.
A qualifying claim is one which has gone through managed migration and who therefore receives a transitional element based on any actual loss in claiming UC.
So it means you can’t ‘double dip’ by getting both the payments under the special arrangements for former SDP claimants as well as the normal transitional protection.
think the timing is bad though, up-rating will erode straight into it and also any April rent increases will dig into it too..
the bit I don’t understand though is why compensation for the disabled child premium or the enhanced disab premium etc is only paid to those also getting an SDP?
isn’t that discrimination against disabled people who have a carer?
e.g. if I was on PIP and ESA and had a severely disabled child (mid rate care) I would only get compensation if no one claimed as my carer?
Adults with an EDP but not an SDP would have gained on migration to UC anyway (all other things being equal), so there is no need for them to get any protection just for that reason. The issue here is that the rate of the existing SDP element plus the LCWRA element is less than the combined amount of the SDP and EDP.
But the difference between the lower level disabled child additions in UC and legacy benefits is completely separate and it seems irrational to link it. If I’m reading the new Schedule 3 correctly, though, the threshold condition for getting extra money for a disabled child is that the UC award includes or included an adult SDP transitional element - is that right?
[ Edited: 23 Nov 2023 at 11:10 am by HB Anorak ]definitely how it reads, these are all additions to TSDPE so if no SDP/TSDPE no protection for loss linked to disabled children.
1. This Schedule applies to an award of universal credit where—
(a)in the first assessment period beginning on or after 14th February 2024 the award includes a transitional SDP element by virtue of Schedule 2 or a transitional SDP amount by virtue of that Schedule as saved by regulation 3 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (Claimants previously entitled to a severe disability premium) Amendment Regulations 2021(4), or would have done had it not been eroded to nil by virtue of regulation 55 (the transitional element - initial amount and adjustment where other elements increase); and
(b)at least one of the conditions in paragraph 4 is satisfied.
paragraph 4 (basically lists) legacy with enhanced, disability or disabled child etc
but unless you qualified for TSDPE at some point don’t think these reg’s kick in
Yes of course, it would have eroded much more slowly during the period when benefit rates were frozen or uprated only by a small amount.
Not just that. Even if the upratings would have been the same, they are still worse off.
If the extra amounts would have been added from the start, then for the whole time it takes/took for the original transitional SDP element to be eroded, they would have received the extra amounts in full, and only after that would the extra amounts have started eroding.
What does this clause actually mean please?
2. This Schedule does not apply where the claim was a qualifying claim and the award is to include a transitional element.
A qualifying claim is one which has gone through managed migration and who therefore receives a transitional element based on any actual loss in claiming UC.
So it means you can’t ‘double dip’ by getting both the payments under the special arrangements for former SDP claimants as well as the normal transitional protection.
Thank you, Elliott. I guessed it was to prevent duplication of payment but wasn’t confident.
But the difference between the lower level disabled child additions in UC and legacy benefits is completely separate and it seems irrational to link it. If I’m reading the new Schedule 3 correctly, though, the threshold condition for getting extra money for a disabled child is that the UC award includes or included an adult SDP transitional element - is that right?
Getting the SDP TP/TE (or having done so prior to erosion) is a pre-requisite for any payment under these new provisions.
The payments in respect of the reduced disabled child elements are a consequence of ground 2 of TP (No 3) (see para 199-238 of the judgment). The claimant’s case was expressly based on the position of migrating parents receiving the SDP who also have disabled children, who were set as being a sub-group of SDP migrants generally. The court was, expressly, not dealing with the position of other parents of disabled children.
So if the goal is to do the minimum in compliance, they are not going to provide any coverage for non-SDP parents of disabled children.
Kudos for getting to para 199 without losing the will to live. Taking one for the team - thanks for clarifying.
So the additional funds will be paid, but only from February 2024. Nothing to be paid in respect of the two years during which the DWP has sat on the court’s January 2022 decision, or for any period prior to that decision.
Minutes from the SSAC’s October meeting published today highlight (at para 2.6(i) that backdating provision was included in the draft of the regulations, but this was discretionary and vague. In response to the Committee’s concerns, the DWP confirmed it would remove the backdating provisions.
So the additional funds will be paid, but only from February 2024. Nothing to be paid in respect of the two years during which the DWP has sat on the court’s January 2022 decision, or for any period prior to that decision.
Minutes from the SSAC’s October meeting published today highlight (at para 2.6(i) that backdating provision was included in the draft of the regulations, but this was discretionary and vague. In response to the Committee’s concerns, the DWP confirmed it would remove the backdating provisions.
Ahh, the DWP monkey paw.
The system for backdating is discretionary and vague and needs to be changed.
Fair enough, we’ll just delete it altogether then.
New decision from Judge Wikeley looks at remedies for unlawful failure to compensate claimants for loss of EDP identified in TP(3) and finds that, although not possible for regs to be disapplied, DWP must redecide entitlement on a lawful basis -
https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/fl-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2024-ukut-6-aac