Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 105

Thread: No £20 Uplift - Finally going to High Court

  1. #51
    (17th Nov 21) (THE HEARING) 3 weeks to go folks.

  2. #52
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by scrubingcookers View Post
    (17th Nov 21) (THE HEARING) 3 weeks to go folks.
    I still think they will just end up delaying it again until next year.

  3. #53
    They must think they are in the right and not bothered by whatever it cost"s for a hearing. Would this be megga bucks? not cheap i bet.

  4. #54
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    13
    Hi all,
    Do we know if the case is still going ahead?

  5. #55
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    Hi all,
    Do we know if the case is still going ahead?
    Osborne's Law site still states 17-18th.

  6. #56
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisDA95 View Post
    Osborne's Law site still states 17-18th.
    If the claimants win the case how long do we think it will take the gov to send us the back payment?

  7. #57
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    If the claimants win the case how long do we think it will take the gov to send us the back payment?
    Don't know but assuming the case is successful, the Court can't demand the government issue back payments, just that they rectify the problem. The obvious way of doing that is through back payments. I wouldn't put it past this government to try and weasel their out of paying anything.

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisDA95 View Post
    Don't know but assuming the case is successful, the Court can't demand the government issue back payments, just that they rectify the problem. The obvious way of doing that is through back payments. I wouldn't put it past this government to try and weasel their out of paying anything.
    What other way would you think they might try not to pay?

    Sorry but I completely disagree with that. Any other time they have lost legal challenges, they have paid those affected, I don't recall anything in recent history that suggests they won't this time.


    There is a case listed for tomorrow against the DWP, but without many details being public it's hard to tell if it is this one or not

    CO/813/2021 The Queen on the application of T v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

    Not sure if Mr Justice Swift is a good judge or not though, he is a Tory supporter, however has found against the DWP in an ESA case previously, but also found for them in a challenge about this same thing, but for carers allowance, rather than ESA.

    what is very clear is that as at March 2020 the Government faced unprecedented circumstances in which, because of restrictions that would be imposed to address the spread of COVID-19, many people were likely to suffer a significant drop in income. Some might need to have resort to universal credit for the first time. Many other groups in society would also suffer hardship in consequence of restrictions that had been imposed. I entirely accept the Claimant's evidence that the restrictions caused her expenditure to increase. However, as Mr Knight explains the resources available to the Government were finite and an order of priorities was required. The Government's choice was to direct support to certain groups likely to suffer a loss of income. This included those who by reason of a reduction in their earnings might be first-time claimants for universal credit. The same objective also explains the thinking behind the JRS and the SEISS. In light of that explanation it is not arguable that these decisions resulted in unlawful discrimination against the Claimant either on grounds of her sex or because she was a person in receipt of carer's allowance.

    If he takes the same view tomorrow (if it is indeed this case) then I think the claimant might be facing a bit of a battle.

    Regarding the question of when any back payments would be made, any answer on that will be a guess. The judgement might not be handed down tomorrow, and even if it is, the SoS will most likely want to look at the merits of an appeal before paying anyone. I would be very surprised if anyone gets anything before Christmas, and, if they appeal, then I wouldn't be surprised if it is this time next year before anyone gets anything.

  9. #59
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by atmywitsend View Post
    What other way would you think they might try not to pay?

    Sorry but I completely disagree with that. Any other time they have lost legal challenges, they have paid those affected, I don't recall anything in recent history that suggests they won't this time.


    There is a case listed for tomorrow against the DWP, but without many details being public it's hard to tell if it is this one or not

    CO/813/2021 The Queen on the application of T v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

    Not sure if Mr Justice Swift is a good judge or not though, he is a Tory supporter, however has found against the DWP in an ESA case previously, but also found for them in a challenge about this same thing, but for carers allowance, rather than ESA.

    what is very clear is that as at March 2020 the Government faced unprecedented circumstances in which, because of restrictions that would be imposed to address the spread of COVID-19, many people were likely to suffer a significant drop in income. Some might need to have resort to universal credit for the first time. Many other groups in society would also suffer hardship in consequence of restrictions that had been imposed. I entirely accept the Claimant's evidence that the restrictions caused her expenditure to increase. However, as Mr Knight explains the resources available to the Government were finite and an order of priorities was required. The Government's choice was to direct support to certain groups likely to suffer a loss of income. This included those who by reason of a reduction in their earnings might be first-time claimants for universal credit. The same objective also explains the thinking behind the JRS and the SEISS. In light of that explanation it is not arguable that these decisions resulted in unlawful discrimination against the Claimant either on grounds of her sex or because she was a person in receipt of carer's allowance.

    If he takes the same view tomorrow (if it is indeed this case) then I think the claimant might be facing a bit of a battle.

    Regarding the question of when any back payments would be made, any answer on that will be a guess. The judgement might not be handed down tomorrow, and even if it is, the SoS will most likely want to look at the merits of an appeal before paying anyone. I would be very surprised if anyone gets anything before Christmas, and, if they appeal, then I wouldn't be surprised if it is this time next year before anyone gets anything.
    Do all of the details out of the first day of court stay secret or will the news come out today or after it concludes on Friday?

  10. #60
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    10,081
    Quote Originally Posted by atmywitsend View Post
    Not sure if Mr Justice Swift is a good judge or not though, he is a Tory supporter, however has found against the DWP in an ESA case previously, but also found for them in a challenge about this same thing, but for carers allowance, rather than ESA.
    The reasoning in that Carers Allowance case was somewhat different than it is with the current case

    The current case is all about discrimination. It isn't about 'unfairness' which isn't discrimination.

    It is those who are waiting to be migrated to UC that have been discriminated against.

    In the case of Carers Allowance although it may have been (was) unfair not to give the £20 uplift it was not discrimination, and so the court couldn't rule against the DWP in that case.
    That is because CA is not going to be migrated into UC.

    With IR-ESA/IB-JSA/IS then because those will be migrated to UC, and especially because those who had already migrated got the uplift, then it's discrimination against those who havent/hadn't yet migrated.

    It's no fault of their own that they haven't yet been migrated to UC. (If migration had gone as planned then they would all have been on UC in 2019 well before covid).

    And it's been made clear by the High Court in previous cases that the government has to treat those already Naturally Migrated and those who will migrate later under Managed Migration in exactly the same way - or it's discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

    The decision(s) in the various TP & AR vs DWP about the loss of SDP on natural migration but not on managed migration makes that point, although in those cases the discrimination is the other way round (and still going on, the latest JR was last month we are still waiting for that verdict).

    So this case is all about that discrimination against those waiting to be migrated, and only those.

    The governments stated intention was that the uplift was for those losing work because of covid, and if they has done only that then it would have been unfair on others but not a legal problem.
    But they didn't do only that, they gave it to everyone on UC including those who had already migrated from ESA/JSA, in doing that they discriminated against those who are yet to migrate, and it's that discrimination that make it a legal problem.

    The other government argument was/is that it was easier to do the uplift for UC than for Legacy benefits.
    That's total hogwash and even if it were true doesn't matter anyway, the Equalities Act does not allow discrimination simply because it 'easier' to discriminate than not to.

    Leaglly the government/DWP don't have a leg to stand on, intentionally or not they discriminated against those who were/are waiting to migrate to UC.
    But nobody is counting any chickens yet (never mind Christmas turkeys) because strange things can happen at times, plus the government/DWP have developed a habit of ignoring the law and the courts.
    Last edited by nukecad; 17-11-21 at 15:42.
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. MR waiting times being challenged in High Court.
    By nukecad in forum News and general discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-19, 00:56
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-19, 10:36
  3. PIP assessment soon following High Court ruling
    By flumu in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19-01-18, 20:15
  4. Housing Benefit Challenge Dismissed by High Court
    By sea queen in forum News and general discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 31-07-13, 11:37
  5. Housing benefit changes legal test to begin at High Court
    By davewhit in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-05-13, 16:22

Posting Permissions

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