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.
    Abby · 2 years ago
    Why am I not surprised…
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Exiled Londoner. · 2 years ago
    How many lost their jobs?
    How many UC claimants where there before the job losses?
    Legacy was included for the purposes of bribing claimants to migrate to UC. Uplift was a double edge sword.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Debd · 2 years ago
    If this uplift was for people who lost their jobs then why did every uc claiments get it. Totally unfair to us all on legacy benefits. Definatley a ground for appeal with the judge saying it was for people who lost their jobs only.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    ThisGovernmentsGoneToFar · 2 years ago
    All I can add to this is I tried putting a post up regarding this exact situation in how out of order this is, one of the nice moderators asked Owner of B&W Donnison, he Steve sent me an email detailing why they could not have it posted, as it was very much to the bone and I don't blame Steve or the moderator not allowing it to be posted.

    I no one of the claimants that's made this all possible we've been disgusting it further the are going to appeal this decision they are absolutely astounded from this outcome as Gary points out it was down to this judge and friends in the right place, I won't go into the ins and outs in what I want to say you will all need to draw your on conclusions i what I mean.

    In totally unfair how this was, and has been conducted, this government only wanted new claimants that started on UC for loosing their jobs, as is well documented everyone ended up getting, it that was all on UC?

    The simple fact they wanted legacy benefits claimants to move onto UC under what is called the Natural Migration thus loosing SDP etc.

    This is a very wrong decision and there's plenty of grounds and faults that have be made regarding this out of order decision.

    This won't be the end of this that I can tell you all. I find it hard to accept this has happened?

    @steve @moderator No hard feelings.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Terry · 2 years ago
    Totally unfair & discrimination against the disabled. I was reading, according to this Osbornes Law crap, that the people who were put on Universal Credit (UC) received the extra £20/week, because they were furloughed from their jobs & put on UC. Now I've also been hearing reports, from friends, who were already in receipt of UC, got it too. So, if the current UC claimants could received it, why should current Legacy Benefit claimants have to continue to suffer. We have a life, we've got bills to pay like these people & with everything, like domestic bills, going up now & them lucky people being able to come off UC & start to go back to work to earn the wage, they were on before this pandemic started, laughing their heads off after receiving the extra £20/week it is 'Total Shambles'. Lets keep up the fight. Stand United. We got to fight, for our rights, to get this government to understand what difficulties we have to go through every day of our lives.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Terence Macdonald · 2 years ago
    I’m in the EXACT same situation as neighbours of mine, the only difference was they were receiving UC and I was kept on the older JSA, almost everyone who’s still on JSA has been receiving it for a long time. Before the uplift, I received the exact same payments as they did, yet they got the uplift and I was denied it!!
    It’s as clear cut a case of blatant discrimination as I’ve ever seen!
    The judges “reasoning” for continuing this discrimination is bizarre and arbitrary, just like the government’s was.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Louel · 2 years ago
    As mik pointed out, I was also unable to claim UC due to receiving the severe disability premium. So the judge didn't even take that in to consideration. I really hope that Osbourne law can find grounds to appeal this ridiculous decision. This decision is going to be devastating to all the legacy benefit claimants who have waited so patiently and have struggled the most. If the DWP's point is that it was to help first time UC claimants due to losing their jobs, how come all the people who have claimed UC for a long time who are unemployed were given the extra £20 a week? I'd love to know what the judge has to say about that. The decision is ridiculous and cruel. Mind you even if the judge had of ruled in our favour, they can't force the DWP to pay it. How thoroughly depressing. Hope the judge sleeps well at night. Disgraceful!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Mik · 2 years ago
    I was in the group that at the time couldn’t claim UC due to getting severe disability premium, so I didn’t have the ability to claim the extra £20 whatever. I thought that was a convincing argument…appears not!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Louel · 2 years ago
      @Mik Exactly! I just like you thought that being prevented by the DWP's own rules, to make a claim for UC due to being in receipt of the severe disability premium would have been a valid argument. Surely there has to be grounds for appeal.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Defeated in all ways · 2 years ago
    "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." -- This is absolutely true and why the uplift 100% cannot be defended as 'helping those who needed it most'. It was protecting the masses from experiencing the grinding poverty of standard benefits and, as many will have moved off and back into employment *because they are able to do so*, they will carry with them the experience of it being a struggle but not abjectly defeating after 10 years of zero benefit increases but plenty of inflation. I can't cope. I really needed this extra money to help with all the extras the pandemic brought with it. This is such a blow and a terribly poor judgement.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Susie27 · 2 years ago
    This is so upsetting, but also unsurprising.

    However, I have so much respect for the 4 claimants who sought justice for all of us who really struggle to make ends meet.

    I just remember that the uplift was given to UC claimants because of those who were claiming benefits for the 1st time "through no fault of their own". Even today, this infuriates me; I did NOT choose to be ill - it is NOT my fault. Nor is it the fault of anyone who is disabled and/or becomes sick.

    The coalition years where benefit claimants were posited as "scroungers" against "strivers" still runs very deep - that narrative did (and still does) so much damage.

    As someone else here has pointed out, how is it OK to recognize that legacy benefits claimants have been discriminated against but that it doesn't matter?! What the ?!!😡

    I do hope that this can go to appeal and be tried by a judge who has a smidgen of a sense of fairness.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Trev · 2 years ago
    I have a question, can we sack coffee( and I know not have you spell her name) for lying to parliament ?

    cause when to uplift started she kept saying the computer system was to old and other excuses. It was only Martin lewis who got "helping working people losing there job" from the chancellor of the exchequer a year later. So she's lied to parliament and/or the Court...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Thisisclasswar · 2 years ago
    https : // petition.parliament.uk / petitions/ 608486
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    tintack · 2 years ago
    By the way, this bit is mind-boggling:

    " 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 claimants, not just those who had recently lost their jobs, were given the uplift."And this man is a senior judge!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Angel · 2 years ago
    Total bstds. This Government is corrupt.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Porridge · 2 years ago
    Thanks for explaining this, it is very sad. It is sad because, although the DWP would not strictly have had to rebate legacy benefits claimants the £1,500, the government has left all people on low incomes having to choose between starving or freezing this winter. I would be glad to contribute to a crowd funder to raise money for an appeal.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    tintack · 2 years ago
    From the Osborne Law website:

    "Whilst the Court accepted that there was discrimination towards disabled people on legacy benefits"

    What exactly is the point of anti-discrimination legislation if the courts rule that it's OK for the government to, er, you know, discriminate?

    Reading the Mirror article on this, the "justification" according to the judge is apparently that " “New benefits claimants would need to adjust to a loss in income. They would be affected differently to persons already claiming benefits." And yet: "Mr Justice Swift admitted legacy benefits were "low", and "it is obvious that any person required to rely only on that level of income will suffer hardship"." But the B&W article above states that "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."

    Putting these statements together, it seems the judge's "argument" is that people who had just lost their jobs needed to be protected, but people on poverty-level benefits didn't because they were more used to struggling. Top logic.

    Is there any chance the case could be re-run with a judge in possession of a functioning cerebellum?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jessie Bell · 1 years ago
      @MrFibro The only issue is that comes ten years after Tories have been elected out, they will be confidently elected back in again with the cry of "the Left squandered the money tree" and Tory's solution of cutting off all its branches to rectify it.  A cycle that has been repeated time and time.  The British public is very much on the right and then some and it is like a crazed addiction.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      MrFibro · 2 years ago
      @tintack This was obviously a senior judge who has a privileged life, and who is in total denial of how the pandemic has inflicted more financial burden, and hardship on the disabled.

      That's 2.2 million voters who wont be voting the nasty party in 2 years time. The only way to win is to out vote the nasty tory party at all elections. Once again Tory corruption across the entire board@ it's finest.
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.