Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 153

Thread: Chancellor £1000 UC 12 month pledge.

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    450
    In that case I am not sure I agree with you, it cannot be discrimination just because the name of the benefit is different, discrimination is against people not products. The issue with the SDP was that people who migrated were financially losing out from the migration, whilst in this case people are not financially losing out in the same way, as nothing is been taken from them, simply they have not been given that something that others have, exactly the same as the situation where new WRAG claimants were not given the WRAG component, I see both things as the same, so if one isnt discrimination, neither is the other. Also was the SDP policy change even put down to discrimination as the reason?

    If you was correct then it means all of the following are also discrimination.

    DLA recipients not getting the same money as PIP.
    IB recipients not getting the same money as ESA (they get less than ESA+EDP+SDP).
    ESA WRAG not getting the WRAG component.

    If someone is on IR ESA and they want this extra payment, they are allowed to close the claim and claim UC instead, so on that basis alone its not discrimination.

    Also personally I would consider this petty, we have a virus that is causing misery across the world and I would consider it "sad" if someone was to mount a legal challenge over this. Money isnt important right now, survival is.
    Last edited by worried33; 23-03-20 at 10:11.

  2. #22
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3
    I am in the IR ESA group.
    Considering the difference a £1000 a year would make is annoying, but it's not something I would jump up and down about until the Covid-19 $hit-storm is over.

    The main point here is that the Government have effectively stated that UC is not enough to live on.

    Think about it.

    Up until last week, UC was there as a safety net, the Government's idea of 'looking after those most vulnerable'

    Now they say they are going to increase it by £1k a year (for a year) - what has suddenly changed? Rent suddenly went up did it? Food suddenly became more expensive? Hmm......I look forward to watching the smarmy buggers squirm at the end of the year.

  3. #23
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,652
    Quote Originally Posted by worried33 View Post
    I would consider it "sad" if someone was to mount a legal challenge over this.
    I totally agree with you there that now is not the time to be mounting legal challenges.

    But discrimination is what it is, it's unlawful, and someone will mount one sooner or later. (See my next post).

    Quote Originally Posted by worried33 View Post
    The issue with the SDP was that people who migrated were financially losing out from the migration,
    .
    Also was the SDP policy change even put down to discrimination as the reason?
    Not at all - although many people got that impression, mainly because of press stories, financial loss was never the legal reason for the ruling.
    (The judge made the specific point of stating that in his Statement of reasoning).

    And yes, Discrimination was the legal reason, because two identical groups were being treated differently by Government policy.

    The sub-headline on the webpage of the solicitors who conducted the case says it clearly (my bolding):
    The Government has settled a case of unlawful discrimination against two men with severe disabilities who both saw their benefits dramatically reduced when they moved Local Authority and were required to claim Universal Credit.
    The legal case was always about discrimination, not money loss.
    https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News...pensation-foll

    Indeed in that first TP & AR case (back in 2018) the judge made the specific point in his SoR of saying that if the cut in money had applied to both managed as well as natural migration then it would not have been discrimination.
    Nor was it about different rates for different benefits. He said that as well.

    Neither of those would have been discriminatory, merely a benefits cut, and so would be legal.

    The judgement was that it was discrimination to treat two essentially identical groups of people differently.
    ie. one group who naturally migrated were being treated differently than an identical group who would be managed migrated.

    The ruling itself was all about treating people differently; the money (admittedly why the case was brought in the first place) was only a consequence of that ruling.

    The DWP conceded that it was being discriminatory between identical groups of people, and so then had to stop natural migrations to UC for those with SDP.

    The two further TP & AR cases were later brought because even after admitting that it was discrimination the DWP were still trying to treat them differently.
    They have also won both those cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by worried33 View Post
    exactly the same as the situation where new WRAG claimants were not given the WRAG component
    Again as said above not discrimination because that applied to both ESA WRAG and UC-LCW, both identical groups are treated the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by worried33 View Post
    If you was correct then it means all of the following are also discrimination.

    DLA recipients not getting the same money as PIP.
    IB recipients not getting the same money as ESA (they get less than ESA+EDP+SDP).
    ESA WRAG not getting the WRAG component.
    DlA-PIP, not discrimination because everyone on DLA will have to transfer to PIP, so all are teated the same and its just a matter of timing.
    IB-ESA, not discrimination because the qualifying conditions for each are not the same, so the two groups aren't equal/identical.
    WRAG, already covered above, a benefit cut from a certain date but not discrimination because both identical groups (WRAG & UC-LCW) were/are treated the same.
    Last edited by nukecad; 23-03-20 at 15:12.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  4. #24
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,652
    I mentioned above that someone is sure to mount a legal challenge sooner or later.

    I've had replies from both CPAG and Leigh Day to the emails that I sent them yesterday.

    Leigh Day have replied from their 'Human Rights New Clients Enquiries' division:
    Thank you for your enquiry regarding disability discrimination. We would like to speak to you regarding this. Please could you provide a telephone number with which we can contact you on.
    I hadn't sent an enquiry, I was just asking if they had spotted it.
    I can only think of one reason why they would want to talk to me, if they agree with me that it's discrimination and they are looking for an ESA claimant who's willing to take the case to Judicial Review.

    They are a well respected law firm, who have led many DWP challenges like this, and rarely lose the cases they take on.
    (They've done all 3 of the PT & AR cases, among many others).

    I'm not sure how I feel about that, or if I'll respond or not.


    CPAG replied:
    We are working on a briefing to cover this and other Covid19 related benefit issues.

    Please check the website within the next few days.
    Last edited by nukecad; 23-03-20 at 14:48.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by ANdy2k3 View Post
    I am in the IR ESA group.
    Considering the difference a £1000 a year would make is annoying, but it's not something I would jump up and down about until the Covid-19 $hit-storm is over.

    The main point here is that the Government have effectively stated that UC is not enough to live on.

    Think about it.

    Up until last week, UC was there as a safety net, the Government's idea of 'looking after those most vulnerable'

    Now they say they are going to increase it by £1k a year (for a year) - what has suddenly changed? Rent suddenly went up did it? Food suddenly became more expensive? Hmm......I look forward to watching the smarmy buggers squirm at the end of the year.
    I do agree with pretty much everything you said. They have obviously changed it knowing that the new people claiming it would soon realise existing benefit levels are harsh. I dont have that opinion in situations where someone gets ESA+SDP+PIP, but for people just on the base amounts of money, its a very low amount of money to live on.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    450
    Thanks for the updates nukecad, will see what they publish in the upcoming days.

  7. #27
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Warwickshire
    Posts
    24
    If I have read it correctly then the Coronavirus bill passed by parliament yesterday is saying that from April, all on UC, JSA and ESA will receive £150 per week for individuals and £260 per couple from April.

    1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations —
    (a) increase the value of the benefits specified in subsection (2) so that, for the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020—
    (i) an individual not in work will be awarded at least £150 per week, and
    (ii) a couple who are both not in work will be awarded at least £260 a week.

    (b) disapply the minimum income floor of universal credit for the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020;

    (c) provide that, for the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020—
    (i) households newly claiming universal credit receive an advance of their first payment by default, and
    (ii) households in sub-paragraph (i) are not required to repay any part of this advance for a period of at least six months beginning with the date on which they received the advance; and

    (d) make provision to ensure that claimants of universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance and Employment and Support Allowance are not subject to sanctions in the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020.

    (2) The benefits to be increased under subsection (1)(a) are—
    (a) the standard allowances of universal credit,
    (b) jobseeker’s allowance, and
    (c) employment and support allowance.

    (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

  8. #28
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Kine View Post
    If I have read it correctly then the Coronavirus bill passed by parliament yesterday is saying that from April, all on UC, JSA and ESA will receive £150 per week for individuals and £260 per couple from April.
    You have to be very careful about what you are looking at

    You didn't give a link, but I think that I have found the document that you are looking at:
    Monday 23 March 2020
    COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

    That document is not the bill itself. (The bill itself is much, much, longer running to 360 pages).
    It is simply a list of proposed ammendments that have been 'tabled' that day.

    It says at the top:
    NOTE
    This document includes all amendments tabled to date and includes any
    withdrawn amendments at the end. The amendments have been arranged in the
    order in which they relate to the Bill.
    That's all it is a collection of proposed ammendments.

    Or to put it another way it is a 'wish list' of what some MPs would like to see included or ammended in the bill itself.

    The excerpt that you have quoted is just one of those proposed ammendments.
    It is proposed ammendment NC9.


    The actual bill itself, as introduced, can be found here:
    https://services.parliament.uk/bills...ronavirus.html

    It's very long, and if/when passed will give the government some very sweeping powers.
    But it contains nothing about ESA, JSA, or even UC. It does have a clause about Working Tax Credits.

    It is not law yet.
    Last edited by nukecad; 24-03-20 at 19:47.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  9. #29
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Warwickshire
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    You have to be very careful about what you are looking at

    You didn't give a link, but I think that I have found the document that you are looking at:
    Monday 23 March 2020
    COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

    That document is not the bill itself. (The bill itself is much, much, longer running to 360 pages).
    It is simply a list of proposed ammendments that have been 'tabled' that day.

    It says at the top:


    That's all it is a collection of proposed ammendments.

    Or to put it another way it is a 'wish list' of what some MPs would like to see included or ammended in the bill itself.

    The excerpt that you have quoted is just one of those proposed ammendments.
    It is proposed ammendment NC9.


    The actual bill itself, as introduced, can be found here:
    https://services.parliament.uk/bills...ronavirus.html

    It's very long, and if/when passed will give the government some very sweeping powers.
    But it contains nothing about ESA, JSA, or even UC. It does have a clause about Working Tax Credits.

    It is not law yet.
    Well that just burst my bubble!

    I thought I was going to get a few quid extra each week! That will teach me to read stuff on social forums. (apart from here of course!)

    Thanks anyway Nukecad, at least it's stopped me telling the wife about something that's not going to happen!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    680
    I Emailed Therese Coffey MP who is responsible for the DWP asking if this was an oversight ,and her response was no not an oversight only UC tax credits and LHA will be increased not legacy benefits SO desrimination then IMO

Similar Threads

  1. "Within 1 month of the date of this letter" - a calendar month or 4 weeks?
    By Eusabius in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-08-19, 16:38
  2. Liberator Accent 1000 for sale with The Grid2 installed
    By Alexsdad in forum News and general discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14-06-17, 18:52
  3. 1000 Mile World Record Attempt On A Mobility Scooter
    By TGA Mobility in forum Suppliers' news
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-03-15, 16:12
  4. Chancellor's speech
    By googlybear in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-12-12, 15:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •