The High Court has ruled against four claimants who brought a claim against the DWP for failing to give them the same £20 uplift that was given to universal credit (UC) claimants during the pandemic.

Between March 2020 and October 2021, the standard allowance element of UC was increased by £20 a week to support claimants during the pandemic.

However, claimants of legacy benefits, such as ESA and JSA were not given a similar increase.

The four legacy benefits claimants argued that the failure to give them the same uplift was discriminatory.

The High Court accepted that there were a greater proportion of disabled people on legacy benefits and that disabled claimants on legacy benefits were in the same position as disabled claimants on UC.

However, the judge held that the difference in treatment was justified because the DWP said it was done with the intention of providing additional support to people who had lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic and were forced to claim UC for the first time.

The judge accepted this in spite of the fact that all UC claimant, not just those who had recently lost their jobs, were given the uplift.

The judge also refused to be swayed by evidence that claimants who have recently lost their jobs tend to have higher rates of savings and were better able to meet the additional costs of the pandemic.

The judge also accepted that claimants of legacy benefits have a very low level of income and must have experienced additional hardships due to the pandemic, but did not consider that this was relevant to the decision.

The claimants legal team is considering whether there are grounds for an appeal.

Full story on the Osborne Law website.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wu · 1 years ago
    Isn’t it typical that the DWP are discriminatory!  The failure to give the uplift is because they want everyone off legacy and onto UC, then they can deny everyone!
    I would be really glad to receive £1200 towards my costs since the pandemic.  As a vulnerable individual, I have had to go out shopping because I cannot afford to pay delivery fees to the likes of Tesco or Sainsbury or Asda or anyone else.  There is hardly enough money to feed my face let alone heat the place.  Thanks a lot Mister Judge.  Hope you have to struggle financially and physically and on top of that battle with the idiots at DWP!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Carol · 1 years ago
    Glad another appeal has gone in hopefully to the high court justice for human rights that they overturn this decision for all disabled and legacy benefits members.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Carole · 1 years ago
    I wonder if there's any chance of the moderators providing a link to the online petition regarding this case ? If we can get 100.000 signatures the matter would be taken to parliment and the government will have to respond. I see this as a way for us to support those involved in the actual case, as well as showing government we are serious and making them accountable. The petition has 17.000 signatures, the last I looked, so we are still some way away from the total needed. Thankyou.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Terry · 1 years ago
    The judge had no idea of the amount of stress 'ALL' types of the general public had to go through when this pandemic started. People lost their jobs because of it, whether they were disabled, or not. Yet disabled people on ESA/JSA were not treating in the same way. It is total discrimination. I bet if a member of the judge' family was on ESA/JSA he would probably had reversed the decision. Why should we be treated different, we're all human & if those, who were already on UC before the pandemic & those who were put onto UC, due to the pandemic, were given the extra £20/week, why should people on ESA/JSA be treated differently. Lets carry on fighting.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    ThisGovernmentsGoneToFar · 1 years ago
    Hi all, as we cannot add photos etc. This I part of the filed appeal notice that's been submitted.

    APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL Case No: C/813/2021
    ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
    Before Mr Justice Swift

    BETWEEN

    THE QUEEN
    (ON THE APPLICATION OF T)
    (ON THE APPLICATION OF PHILIP WAYLAND)
    (ON THE APPLICATION OF MARTIN KEATINGS)
    (ON THE APPLICATION OF IAN BARROW)

    Appellants
    and

    THE SECRETARY OR STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
    Respondent
    CLAIMANTS' APPLICATION ON PERMISSION TO APPEAL
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    fil501 · 1 years ago
    The Judge's reasoning in respect of the uplift being designed to support the newly unemployed was ridiculous on so many levels and I hope the decision will be overturned.

    I can't help but wonder if some form of corruption forced his hand to make such a decision as corruption seems to be spreading like a cancer with everything the Tories touch.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    ThisGovernmentsGoneToFar · 1 years ago
    I've Just been told The legal team have submitted an application for appeal against the flawed decision to dismiss our case regarding the Legacy High Courts benefits decision..

    If I get any more on this I will add it. Wishing it well and hope there is justice this time.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Frances · 1 years ago
    I would say yes! There are grounds for an appeal as the judge even agreed !

    Quote; " The judge also refused to be swayed by evidence that claimants who have recently lost their jobs tend to have higher rates of savings and were better able to meet the additional costs of the pandemic.

    The judge also accepted that claimants of legacy benefits have a very low level of income and must have experienced additional hardships due to the pandemic, but did not consider that this was relevant to the decision.
    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Louel · 1 years ago
    Oh well folks, maybe the judge got out of the wrong side of the bed or was having a bad hair day🤣. I have to laugh, it's the only thing that keeps me going. 😤😔
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Louel · 1 years ago
    The judges decision is beyond ridiculous. As with all decisions made by judges in this country it really is just a case of pot luck... Which judge you get. It's truly disgraceful. This decision is devastating for so many people who are going to struggle Even more going forward. The DWP have blood on their hands. Perhaps that's what they want? It would suit them to get rid of all the sick and disabled people. I struggle to see how this case could fail upon appeal, but nothing surprise's me anymore. It is clear discrimination and proof of the contempt the DWP feel for the disabled.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    JL · 1 years ago
    Shocking decision but no surprise. Some can party when those most in need suffered. What a country Great Britain has become. Disgrace.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    C · 1 years ago
    "The judge also accepted that claimants of legacy benefits have a very low level of income and must have experienced additional hardships due to the pandemic, but did not consider that this was relevant to the decision."

    It is completely relevant, and would be the basis of a successful appeal.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    dawn · 1 years ago
    this is no way fair and i would like my 20 pounds a week as i am on income support if i were on universal credit i would be getting exactly the same as i get now shocking
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Golly · 1 years ago
    wow! can't believe this cretin of a judge? what planet is he on? disgusting
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    MausGras · 1 years ago
    I despair of this country's legal system these days. I used to believe that the Law, the Courts and the judges that ran them were principled and ensured genuine Justice for those who came before them. Was I naive? Perhaps they have always been just another arm of The Establishment conducted by the Haves to keep the Have Nots in their place. That's certainly the case now. Following the Assange hearings made that obvious.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Deborah Wenn · 1 years ago
    I’m not surprised, just confirms what we already know. And that we don’t matter!! It’s the way we have been treated since the conservative government took over. And I would be very surprised if the judge wasn’t a conservative .
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pauline June Gilmartin · 1 years ago
    This is son un fair it seems to this government that Disability is a dirty word they have taken this out of the benefits system they do not use the term disability in any of there benefits
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Thomas · 1 years ago
    This is a disgraceful decision by the judge, as ever its the poorest in society who suffers.

    Rules set by a bunch of posh men, educated at Eton, but don't know the price of a pint of milk, or indeed will never have to chose between heat or eat.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Whiskers · 1 years ago
    The whole thing stinks. Unfair and biased. Much respect to the 4 who took the case to court.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Brett · 1 years ago
    This was in reality a ploy to force people onto UC. You want the extra then switch to UC. A rich judge throwing crap at the most vulnerable people in this country, disgusting.
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.