The DWP faces a third court case over Universal Credit discrimination

Royal Courts of Justice and the DWP logo
Support us and go ad-free

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is facing court action over Universal Credit. The legal challenge by claimants is the third such time the department will have been in the dock on this specific issue.

Four years of Universal Credit chaos

Enhanced Disability Premiums (EDP) and Severe Disability Premiums (SDP) are social security payments. The DWP gives them to disabled people with high support needs. But, if you have to start claiming Universal Credit, these allowances don’t exist. Instead, claimants get different payments based on their circumstances. For some people, this meant they lost money. As The Canary first reported in 2017, there could be claimants losing thousands of pounds a year. So, two disabled claimants have repeatedly taken the DWP to court over this.

As The Canary reported back in 2018, the initial case was brought by two claimants, known only as TP and AR. Law firm Leigh Day represented them. TP is terminally ill, living with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Castleman’s disease. In November 2016, the DWP started paying him EDP and SDP. This was because he lived alone with no support. On his doctors’ advice, he moved to London. Because he had a change of circumstance (his address), he had to make a new claim to the DWP which saw him moved on to Universal Credit. Leigh Day claims TP then lost around £180 a month.

The DWP had put in place so-called ‘transitional protections‘. It claimed these would protect claimants from losing money by topping up their payments. But these ‘protections’ don’t protect everyone. Not least, they don’t apply to claimants who’ve had a change of circumstance. Nor do they apply to new claimants. And they never covered the full £180.

The DWP in the dock

So, court cases and appeals followed. A judge in the first case ruled that the DWP was discriminating against some severely disabled people. The judge in the case said:

The implementing arrangements do at present give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to article 14 ECHR… A declaration will be granted that there is unlawful discrimination.

The DWP tried to appeal the ruling twice and lost both times. So, it had to change its policy and made backdated payments to people affected. But it only added an extra £80 a month to Universal Credit and people affected. TP, AR, and Leigh Day challenged this in court and won again. The DWP was forced to increase the amount to £120. But this still doesn’t cover the full loss of social security for some claimants. So, TP, AR, and Leigh Day are taking the DWP back to court once again.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free
A judicial review

They’re bringing a judicial review against the department. It will look at whether the DWP’s decision to only increase some severely disabled people’s Universal Credit payments by £120 is lawful. The claimants argue it should be the full £180. This would mean that financially no-one loses out by moving on to Universal Credit.  As Leigh Day said in 2020:

The issue in this third claim is whether £120 a month in transitional payments constitutes unlawful discrimination because those people who moved onto UC before 16 January 2019 are still around £60 a month worse off. On 16 January 2019 the SDP Gateway came into force which prevents any further severely disabled benefits claimants from being forced to move onto Universal Credit until they are subject to a managed migration process which maintains their level of benefits.

The High Court will hear the case between 19-21 October 2021. But TP and AR’s action has also sparked a larger court case.

An ongoing group claim

Leigh Day is representing 275 severely disabled people who lost out in similar ways to TP and AR. As The Canary previously reported, it’s specifically for people who made a claim for Universal Credit before 16 January 2019 and were claiming EDP or SDP before that (16 January 2019 was when the DWP brought in new rules under the SDP Gateway). Leigh Day said of the group claim:

The claimants are asking the [DWP] for compensation equal to the amount of money they have lost following their transfer to universal credit, for their previous level of benefits to be restored and maintained until a lawful migration scheme is established, and for compensation for the stress they have been caused.

“Difficult to believe”

Leigh Day told The Canary that the group claim was ongoing but paused (‘stayed’) while TP and AR’s new cases is heard. AR said in a press release:

Yet again I am having to go to court and fight for what is fair. Over the last years I should have had much needed support in place to help me get through the challenges I face on a daily basis as a result of my disabilities, but instead I have had to put time and energy into fighting for that support. I hope this is the last time we have to fight the [DWP] for support that is so obviously needed.

Leigh Day solicitor Tessa Gregory said:

It is difficult to believe that our clients have been forced to bring a third set of legal proceedings against the government in order to ensure they and thousands of other severely disabled persons are not unlawfully discriminated against following their move on to Universal Credit. Those affected are some of the most vulnerable individuals in society and the Government should be ensuring they are fully supported, not seeking to again short change them, this time by around £60 per month.

If in October a judge agrees with TP, AR, and Leigh Day, then once more the DWP could be facing pay-outs to countless severely disabled people. So, this case is important and The Canary will continue to monitor the situation.

Featured image via StevovoB – Pixabay and Wikimedia

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. I do not know where the DWP are recruiting these heartless people from, my suspicion is that they get them from boarding schools and preferably applicants that have been boarding since the age of 8. This would explain their total hatred of other people and their loveless opinion of all mankind.They behave more like sociopaths than open minded considerate people that understand when a person who has less than six months to live is in no condition to fight.
      How can a terminally ill person be “cheating the system” for Gods sake?

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.