Judge agrees £20 uplift was to prevent newly unemployed becoming dependent on welfare, not to reduce hardship

The Court of Appeal has found in favour of the DWP and held that their failure to give legacy benefits claimants the same £20 uplift that was given to universal credit (UC) claimants during the pandemic was lawful.  Shockingly the judge agreed with the DWP that the uplift was needed to prevent newly unemployed people developing ‘dependence on welfare’ rather than to protect claimants from hardship.

In February 2022 four claimants 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.

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 High Court 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 Court of Appeal ruled today that they could find no fault in the High Court judge’s decision.

In particular, the Court of Appeal judges accepted the DWP’s claim that the £20 uplift was not intended to alleviate hardship, but to reduce the financial shock to the newly unemployed and prevent them becoming dependent on benefits in the long-term.

The court accepted that the uplift was paid   “in recognition of the fact that sudden, short-term unemployment can trigger social and health problems, leading to dependence on welfare, and hampering a return to employment.”

The court went on to find that:

“The uplift was not targeted at alleviating hardship as a result of increased costs during the pandemic. It was targeted at alleviating a particular type of financial disruption, namely that experienced by those who had lost or were at risk of losing employment or significant income, and who as a result were making new claims for social security benefits for the first time having previously been financially self-sufficient.”

Legacy benefits claimants were not a priority for help because they were:

“ . . . either not in the labour market at all by virtue of their disabilities, or only to a limited extent. That does not mean they were not a deserving group, and they were undoubtedly vulnerable. Nonetheless, a hard choice was made to prioritise those in the labour market but who it was anticipated would quickly become unemployed as a direct consequence of the pandemic and the lockdown measures that followed, and do so in large numbers.”

It is not known yet whether the claimants will attempt a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

You can read the full decision here

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.
    AB · 1 years ago
    this is total discrimination, please who ever the claimants are take it higher x 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pip · 1 years ago
    This needs to go to the Supreme Court - ALL UC claimants got the uplift, not just the ones who had 'lost' jobs! Plus, some of us on legacy ESA DO permitted work, so the assumption that we are all lying on our beds doing nothing is insulting and discriminatory. It is already appalling that those on contributions-based benefits get less than others - the very fact we CONTRIBUTED enough obviously means nothing. And as for being responsible and having savings (often saved before we  became disabled), what's the point? I guess we just have to spend our hard-earned savings on just existing - talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place!

    A bit off piste but still relevant - what about single/solo-dwelling disabled folk on legacy benefits? We have ALL the costs to bear – full rent, council tax, utilities etc. No partner to share the costs or give daily support with our disabilities. If you are on PIP you could be a millionaire and still claim it; or have a double/triple income household and claim PIP. The whole welfare system needs a complete overhaul in favour of EQUITY not EQUALITY.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Don 56 · 1 years ago
    The judge is probably a dyed in the wool Tory who cares only about his own kind and sod the rest. Whatever it does not seem a decision of wise judgement by any stretch of the imagination!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Charisma · 1 years ago
    Utterly disgusted but not suprised. The tone that the judge used was arrogant and aloof because quite frankly this issue did not affect her and she probably had been directed to give this verdict ( via a back door of course). It happened to the WASPI women, it has now happened to disabled people, There are too many unelected people running the world and the poor will get poorer and the sick will get sicker. Short of euthanising anyone who can't contribute to their wealth this is obviously another route they can take by directing the 'elected' people and telling them what to vote for. If any government clamped down on tax avoiders then there would be plenty of money to fulfill the social contract, they don't and why? Because they are tax avoiders themselves. Sky news are running a series called Westminster Accounts - it seems they are not only avoiding paying tax ( haha Nadhim Zahawi having to pay a seven figure sum to the tax man because they caught up with him!) BUT MP's are taking 'donations' from anyone who will hand them money  - well, well, MP's being bought - perish the thought!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Anne · 1 years ago
      @Charisma Thank you for this information I was not aware Zahawi  having to pay tax that was avoided! and to think this man could have been our next prime minister another Tory millionaire who does not like paying Tax. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Kim · 1 years ago
    People who were unexpectedly having to claim JSA counts because they became unemployed have suffered massively. The government should at the very least have given the £20 uplift to them.  The "get them back to work ' argument is an unfair punishment for not being able to claim Universal Credit.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Fibro warrior · 1 years ago
    That doesnt explain why everyone on UC got the £20 uplift regardless of losing job or on furlough during pandemic typical penalties the disabled 😡
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Mrs F · 1 years ago
      @Fibro warrior I agree 100% most disabled people were shielding during the pandemic because they were at extreme risk of dying if they caught covid and kept away from their families only able to speak to them on the phone or FaceTime so had to upgrade their phone allowance or face huge bills and forced to do food shopping online and paying ridiculous delivery fees and heating and electricity was being used a whole lot more to keep people mentally healthy but got no extra help to cover that disabled people are being treated like society outcasts 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Tracey Banbery · 1 years ago
      @Fibro warrior The govt even lied to those who were furloughed saying they wouldn't have to wait the usual waiting time if they claimed UC, my daughter was furloughed, employer was not paying any furlough money so she claimed UC in the April and was told her first payment would be in July, she obviously had rent and bills to pay so found another job before July but if she hadn't done that she would have had 0 money coming in for 3 months, lies are all this govt are capable of.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Andrew · 1 years ago
    Wait a minute, hold up....everyone on UC got the £20, not just those that had just lost their jobs because of the government's inefficient way of dealing with covid
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Julie22 · 1 years ago
    The d.w.p Don t care about disable or illness .their only help some people .but disable
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    FJaballah · 1 years ago
    No doubt the judge is looking for some sort of recognition for making this decision.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Lynne · 1 years ago
    Can you please confirm when ESA claimants will be moved over to universal credit. I've been given two different years one end of 2024 the other being in 2028, which is it meant to be?? A very confused 🤔 person
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Tuna · 1 years ago
    I’m sorry this wasn’t for newly claim as friend of my had UC for long time they had uplift DWP lie and also other friend had WTC had one off payment of £500 or £600 to help them? So UC and people who are on WTC (working tax credit) had the payment to help them for same reason instead £20 uplift NOT fair for us don’t get any penny from uplift or CTC to pay us instead WTC.. u need to see hard proof that isn’t for new claim of UC as I know few people who been Uc long before Covid had uplift. U fail disabled people who on old style ESA, IC etc we wasn’t allow to change over to UC for some reason at that time due to law.. now we do by 2024?! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Rob · 1 years ago
    There was only one purpose of excluding legacy benefit claimants, it was to entice them into switching over to UC without transitional relief.
    Short term gain with a long term loss 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Amanda · 1 years ago
    Disgusting outcome as many on uc don't work anyway and had not just lost there jobs!!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Graham · 1 years ago
    Have you ever heard such nonsense. You couldn't make it up. Why didn't they just say in the first place - you are no use to society, a drain on resources, and we are not paying you. end of.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Ex forces. · 1 years ago
    This gov have just lost the next election,this decision will make everyone on benifits who lost out on the payment will not give them their vote.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne · 1 years ago
    Voting labour now for the first time ever hopefully the other 2million on disability will do same
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jacqueline · 1 years ago
      @Pip Of course there’s no guarantee but I’m certain they can’t do any worse than these bunch of thieving, lying discriminating uncaring idiots!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Eddy · 1 years ago
      @Wayne A disabled person voting tory is akin to a fox voting to legalise hunting.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Eileen · 1 years ago
      @Maxi Tories have made it worse there was no death list with labour
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Eileen · 1 years ago
      @Andrew Not as bad as tories there's a death list od disabled people treated badly by this government I know cos I deal with it for one of mine
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    John · 1 years ago
    Their argument fails on the fact that people on tax credits were given the uplift. So it wasn't for newly unemployed UC claimants alone.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Mick · 1 years ago
    During the hearing the assertion was made by the dwp lawyer that anybody could have switched to UC if they wanted to avail themselves of the extra £20. However just before covid, people who were most seriously disabled and got the severe disability premium  on IR esa were barred from claiming UC, due to other legal technicalities, so it really wasn’t as easy as that. In reality the most needy would have to have sacrificed £60 to get the extra £20, the court agreed this was indirect discrimination yet effectively allowed it as it wasn’t direct discrimination.
    The retrospective claim it was to stop newly unemployed people from getting sucked into the welfare system long term is utterly ridiculous, since when do new claimants get extra wedge of cash? . When it was announced nobody said that, it was to help the worst effected by the pandemic, and there were more of that consort of people in the legacy benefits. I’m really surprised by this verdict.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Wren · 1 years ago
      @Mick I'm really surprised by it too, as both times the judges have agreed there was discrimination, but suggested that it didn't matter in this particular case. How can discrimination like this ever be considered 'justice'?! And, it sets a horrible precedent for the government, moving forward, in which they can just disregard the dire circumstances of disabled people in order to push perks to those in the 'working market'. An awful result!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Pip · 1 years ago
      @Mick Totally agree. This has to go to the Supreme Court.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Jason Lee · 1 years ago
    Hope Labour win next election and they stop assesments for people on sick. also lots of people will be worse off on UC - esp SDPayments?   Like me...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Mick · 1 years ago
      @Jason Lee It would be nice to use some of these assessors, qualified nurses and paramedics to actually help people, in their real roles,  rather than trash our mental health every few years!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Mick · 1 years ago
      @Eileen Well I don’t think it will be a panacea for benefit claimants under labour, but at least they have some understanding of the issues people face, and a given issue is fairly debated, and reason comes into it. Under the tories we are part of a long term project to just cut, cut cut the welfare state. I’m sure there are some of the hard liners in that party who would be happy to abolish it altogether together with the nhs. The only reason we get a near inflation rise this year is for political reasons, coming up to an election, and they want some chance of hanging onto red wall seats. I don’t believe it’s some transformation to compassion!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Eileen · 1 years ago
      @Jason Lee Agree will be better under labour
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Steve · 1 years ago
    Didn't we know the outcome before the announcement government courts government owned dwp obviously they would stick together still absolutely disgusting no rights for disabled 
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.