Labour presses PM for action ahead of benefit vote To Keep £20 Extra For U/C

[StarBright]

The £20 uplift is to people on benefits what furlough is to people who work or will have a job still at the end of it. So I expect the £20 uplift to stay as long as the furlough does. Then I think both will go.

(yes people on legacy benefits should of had it added too)

[birdwatcher]

So, again those on legacy benefits are left out.

Surely this cannot be right?

[StarBright]

No one has yet taken up the case of people on legacy benefits finding things more expensive due to Covid 19 the same as everyone else, does not mean no one ever will. It could be soon or in a year or longer than that.

When ever they do & if it goes our way (as it should do) then they will have to pay everyone who is on legacy benefits the same amount of money as they gave people on U/C. Which could be a lump sum to look forwards to in the future or not depending which way it goes (lump sum not good for people with addictions)

Until then we can moan about it as much as we like it's not going to change anything it will only make us miserable, frustrated, & peed off. So until the right people realise this is wrong & starts the fight to get us the money instead of thinking I'm hard done by I look at it as a possible lovely lump sum in the future

[nukecad]

The 6 months 'extension' of the covid uplift rather than a full year may have been a clever legal move on the part of the government to forstall any new legal challenge about not including it in legacy.
(It could explain why they only made it 6 months, which is puzzling many of the press).
I'm trying to work out the ramifications of that for a court challenge/Judicial Review, and I'm sure better brains than mine are doing the same.

Any challenge made now would still be on the same grounds as before - discrimination between those who have already Naturally Migrated to UC and those who will be Managed Migrated to UC in future.
The government have already lost 2 major cases on those grounds, the latest one only last week when they were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. (I did another thread about that one).

'Fairness' alone is not enough for a legal challenge, it's not against the law for benefit policies to be unfair.
Which is why these cases have to be fought on the grounds of discrimination between Natural Migration and Managed Migration.
If they do something as a result of one type of Migration then they have to do it for both types or it's discrimination.

It's not quite that simple with the covid uplift, but the government would have to argue against that principle, which has now been established by the previous court cases.

Just to note that any such challenge would be about Income Related legacy benefits, and would not include Contribution Based only legacy benefits.
(Note that the CB-only 'New Style ESA and JSA didn't get the uplift either).
ie. It would only be about the IR legacy benefits that will eventually be Managed Migrated to UC.

I have noticed that no-one in the mainstream press has yet mentioned anything about legacy benefits, it's been conspicuously absent in the TV news.
There again that was the same last year, until the campaigners got on the case.

It does make you wonder if it's a blind spot for the government; they failed to force/sneak their Managed Migration bill through parliament so they'll just pretend that UC is the only IR benefit there is anyway - and the mainstream press seem to be swallowing that.

[birdwatcher]

No one has yet taken up the case of people on legacy benefits finding things more expensive due to Covid 19 the same as everyone else, does not mean no one ever will. It could be soon or in a year or longer than that.

When ever they do & if it goes our way (as it should do) then they will have to pay everyone who is on legacy benefits the same amount of money as they gave people on U/C. Which could be a lump sum to look forwards to in the future or not depending which way it goes (lump sum not good for people with addictions)

Until then we can moan about it as much as we like it's not going to change anything it will only make us miserable, frustrated, & peed off. So until the right people realise this is wrong & starts the fight to get us the money instead of thinking I'm hard done by I look at it as a possible lovely lump sum in the future

I mean, that's all well and good, and personally, I don't need any extra right now.
But there are countless people who are suffering and even if it comes in a few years, that won't help those who need the extra help right now and are struggling to pay their bills.

[Pau]

Yes, this all seems really unfair. Maybe this is their way of trying to get everyone moved over to UC ?- I dunno- but the needs of someone on UC and ESA are exactly the same. I’m on UC so I do receive it and it’s been massively helpful, but I can totally understand those on legacy benefits need the same help.

[birdwatcher]

Yes, this all seems really unfair. Maybe this is their way of trying to get everyone moved over to UC ?- I dunno- but the needs of someone on UC and ESA are exactly the same. I’m on UC so I do receive it and it’s been massively helpful, but I can totally understand those on legacy benefits need the same help.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ESA support group already receive a higher amount on UC compared to those on legacy ESA support group.
So they were already receiving a higher amount, and now also have the £20 a week top up.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are trying to make more people aware, but it doesn't seem anyone is interested. Even someone like Martin Lewis said there was a lump sum to those on WTC, so that was OK for those on legacy benefits missing out. There seems to be a huge lack of concern or interest.

[StarBright]

I mean, that's all well and good, and personally, I don't need any extra right now.
But there are countless people who are suffering and even if it comes in a few years, that won't help those who need the extra help right now and are struggling to pay their bills.

Absolutely, but as I said people are getting no where except feeling worse by being on about it, it's not going to help the people who need it weather they worry, stress or get peed off about it. Until someone who can do something about it decides to then nothing will change.

[StarBright]

The 6 months 'extension' of the covid uplift rather than a full year may have been a clever legal move on the part of the government to forstall any new legal challenge about not including it in legacy.
(It could explain why they only made it 6 months, which is puzzling many of the press).
I'm trying to work out the ramifications of that for a court challenge/Judicial Review, and I'm sure better brains than mine are doing the same.

Any challenge made now would still be on the same grounds as before - discrimination between those who have already Naturally Migrated to UC and those who will be Managed Migrated to UC in future.
The government have already lost 2 major cases on those grounds, the latest one only last week when they were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. (I did another thread about that one).

'Fairness' alone is not enough for a legal challenge, it's not against the law for benefit policies to be unfair.
Which is why these cases have to be fought on the grounds of discrimination between Natural Migration and Managed Migration.
If they do something as a result of one type of Migration then they have to do it for both types or it's discrimination.

It's not quite that simple with the covid uplift, but the government would have to argue against that principle, which has now been established by the previous court cases.

Just to note that any such challenge would be about Income Related legacy benefits, and would not include Contribution Based only legacy benefits.
(Note that the CB-only 'New Style ESA and JSA didn't get the uplift either).
ie. It would only be about the IR legacy benefits that will eventually be Managed Migrated to UC.

I have noticed that no-one in the mainstream press has yet mentioned anything about legacy benefits, it's been conspicuously absent in the TV news.
There again that was the same last year, until the campaigners got on the case.

It does make you wonder if it's a blind spot for the government; they failed to force/sneak their Managed Migration bill through parliament so they'll just pretend that UC is the only IR benefit there is anyway - and the mainstream press seem to be swallowing that.

Thanks for explaining all that nuke, I agree apart from a small feature on sky news about a man struggling more because of Covid 19 who is on legacy benefits that's all that I've seen about it too.

[nukecad]

It's been given a one line mention in some newspapers, other that that the national press seem to be ignoring it for now while they shout about the rest of the budget.
I suppose they see it as a non-issue, on the lines of: legacy didn't have it anyway so it can't be extended?

To go back to what I was saying about the 6 months 'extension' possibly being a clever legal move.
To challenge such a decision you usually use a Judicial Review at the High Court.
Normally you have to file for JR within 3 months of the grounds for challenge arising, which of course has lapsed by now.
By making this an 'extension' the government are hoping that the court will not see it as a 'decision' that can be challenged.
Personally I'd say the extension is a new decision and so can be challenged at JR, which would then include last years ommission, but of course I'm not the High Court.