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.
    C Martin · 2 years ago
    I think they should definitely appeal because it is clearly discriminatory giving some benefit claimants more money/help than another group of benefit claimants when they are all in the same dire financial situation apart from some new claimants that may have lost their jobs and may have existing savings to support themselves, surely it can’t be legal to treat people in the same boat differently, this is not equality for all absolutely not
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    David · 2 years ago
    I think it's wrong everyone should have had the £20 hope it's appealed I've been on ESA for 8 years after working all my life a friend of mine has never worked and signed of jsa to go on EC to get the £20 and was better of than me
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Navigator · 2 years ago
    This Judge was obviously chosen by the DWP to arrive at the decision they wanted, and he did. How could he state the uplift wasdone 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?
    When the DWP themselves made no mention of the uplift only applying to thosewho had lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic and were forced to claim UC for the first time?
    If that was the case why did they not simply state that the £20- uplift was for only those who had recently been made unemployed by the pandemic, but they did not, they gave it to everyone on UC.
    So how can this Judge state something as fact, when the DWP themselves did not make that point at anytime during the paying of the uplift.
    I feel if nothing can be found in writing, or found verbally, then the judge was wrong to state the "DWP SAID" when in fact the DWP didn't mention any such thing, and that is why the uplift was paid to everyone on UC, and not just the selected few, or that would entitle the DWP in affect, to ask those who had not lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic and were forced to claim UC for the first time, to give their £20 uplift back, but they haven't? As usual the DWP made a mistake, which they should now pay for......
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Ken · 2 years ago
    I note the judge not having been swayed by an argument regarding persons having savings that had lost jobs due to the pandemic but I doubt that any account would’ve been taken by the judge of the fact that the pandemic is very likely to also have seriously reduced the the availability of jobs generally and as such the opportunity for disabled persons to find employment. Would this be a relevant point for arguing the case?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Marish · 2 years ago
    Clearly demonstrates that the Judiciary are no longer unbiased and honest.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    K J Doyle · 2 years ago
    It’s just another attack, and there long standing intentions to make sure the poor people especially the disabled remain in the depths of poverty. It makes me so sad to see what our government are doing But it also angers me when they give themselves a chunky 2.5k pay rise
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Ken · 2 years ago
    As would appear to be the norm and what I have found to be usually the case in my considerable experience regarding matters that occur in the High Court once again a decision is made that is illogical and contradictory to the true facts circumstances and evidence surrounding the actual purpose of there having been made a £20 increase from my own understanding of this matter although I may not have all of the relevant information.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Paul. ESA . · 2 years ago
    Equality Act 2010...What Equality Act ??? 1 of the 9 protected characteristic of law, the disability discrimination act 1995 is only a "lip service" discrimitory practice that carries no consequence to the perpretrators of "DIRECT DISCRIMINATION" ? Unless it suites the so called goverment it is not enforced...
    The Law in this case means nothing...Is this what the current goverment call their " Leveling out process" Vote with you feet people...They (The goverment) are suposed to work for US...Not us cowtailing to them...A vote of no confidence in the Equalities Act 2010 should be called for !!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dodgerjac · 2 years ago
    Who pays the judge?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Mark · 2 years ago
    Shocking display by a corrupt government that will hopefully not get voted back in. Maybe the judge was invited to the parties at No.10 during lockdown.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    AC · 2 years ago
    Sounds politically motivated, it certainly isn’t justified nor fair & is discriminatory.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    PS. HEREFORDSHIRE. · 2 years ago
    Its hard not to believe that the Judge has been influenced by Political players as it is such a perverse decision and the facts of the case are a compelling case of discrimination whether, directly or indirectly.
    It is imperative a successful appeal is sought to refer the case to the Supreme court who will discredit the judge and report his clear errors in law.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dr Slinky McVelvet · 2 years ago
    I think this court case demonstrates only too well how the British judicial system fails individuals and needs reforming. Anyone who has been to court and lost their case will know that the system isn't fair much of the time and it's very much still run by the 'old boys club'.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Carole · 2 years ago
    I said from the start that the uplift should only to go those who needed to make a new claim, or revise/upgrade an existing claim, because of lockdown and WFH rules. Those already in receipt of full UC claims shouldn't have received the uplift, how many of the existing claims also received school meal vouchers as well as the uplift ? Some groups have benefited greatly from the pandemic, sadly that seems to be at the cost of people like myself/ourselves who are once again being treated as second rate citizens.
    Many of us on legacy benefits are classed as unable to work, we didn't have the option to help fill gaps in the retail industry (for example,) where as some of the existing UC claimants could have done that. I hope the DWP four find the courage to continue their fight.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Stig of the Dump · 2 years ago
    Im like lots of you on legacy benefits struggling every day to keep going financially, I did not get the £20 uplift yet a brother in law did, he is on UC and got 5his payment with his UC, housing benefit etc he is better off than I am on ESA contribution based. So unfair!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    mermaidnwuk · 2 years ago
    I cannot understand how a Judge has made a ruling on flawed evidence i.e. UC uplift was intended for those that had lost their jobs as a result of COVID. The flaw was that it was given to EVERYONE in receipt of UC - the employed and unemployed. I would certainly think that was solid grounds for an appeal on the ruling.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    M · 2 years ago
    I was one of the UC claimants who was given the extra £20 a week as I'm in the UC support group and my Mum is in the ESA support group. It's totally wrong that I was given the extra money while she wasn't. The increase was clearly designed to punish people on legacy benefits as the DWP want to shift as many people as possible onto UC. Simple facts.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Ron · 2 years ago
    I would just like to make three points. 1. I think that the uplift was made to try to make it look like we had a reasonably good Welfare system to new claimants. We all know we do not. 2. I think they also hoped it would encourage people to voluntarily move to UC. Then to reduce it later once they are on UC. 3. I just despair that England keeps voting for these people.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    des · 2 years ago
    so if the £20 uplift was for those who lost their jobs surely they were saying the benefits were too low for everyone in first place?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Peppercorn · 2 years ago
    Which minister is the judge bff with???
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.