Labour’s savage severe conditions criteria (SCC) cuts to universal credit (UC) have now taken effect for new claims from 6 April. New disabled claimants will get just half the UC health component that existing claimants get, meaning that they will be approximately £50 a week worse off.

Under the new rules, new claimants who have limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA), but do not meet the SCC will receive a UC health component payment of just £217.26 per month, whereas existing claimants and those who meet the SCC receive £429.80 per week.

In order to meet the SCC, new claimants have to show not only that one of the functional LCWRA descriptors apply to them, but also that the descriptor will apply constantly for the rest of their life.

There’s more details about how claimants qualify for the SCC here.

And readers can take our updated WCA self-test here, which now includes the SCC.

The DWP are doing their best to keep the guidance they have provided to health professionals about how to assess the SCC secret.  However, Benefits and Work obtained a copy of the guidance issued after the SCC was first introduced, although at that time it was only used to decide whether claimants should be subject to reassessments, rather than to decide how much money they should receive. 

We’ve used this information to create, for subscribing members, our updated guide to the WCA which you can download from this page.  It includes:

  • a detailed explanation of how the SCC works
  • alerts to warn you which descriptors qualify as you complete the WCA50 form
  • details of how and where on the WCA50 form to show whether you qualify
  • sample SCC answers
  • sample SCC case studies.

We’ll be updating the guide regularly as more information becomes available about how the DWP are assessing people and making decisions in practice.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    It's just another method of exclusion and pushing for cuts
    Someone with pain condition among many others that will impact them long term and will only get worse like arthritis, will end up on the lower rate because the DWP think it's not severe enough. 
    Fluctuating chronic conditions who have no chance of working will be pushed into poverty, becayse the government thinks they should be working.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    There seems to be very little clarity on how a claimant can reasonably prove that a descriptor will always apply for the rest of their life.

    Im autistic and receive LCWRA since I meet the descriptor "Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the claimant."

    Autism is lifelong, but some people can or do improve social functioning. I also have a diagnosis of Social Anxiety Disorder, which is arguably not lifelong, which also meets the descriptor yet could arguably improve with certain treatments. But if the SAD is secondary to my Autism diagnosis - i.e. the root of my anxiety and inability to cope is rooted in Autism - then it seems less likely I would improve. But not impossible?

    Obviously nobody has answers. I figure we'll have to wait for case law to develop around the SCC before there's any real clarity. But superficially it seems trivial for the DWP to argue that theres a realistic chance that my condition "could" improve just enough that the descriptor might not always apply for the next 30-40 years? Remember the difference between the LCWRA descriptors and LCW descriptors is often just "always" versus "the majority of the time." So perhaps they might only have to show theres some realistic chance of minimal improvement?

    It's very scary.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Avie It’s meant to be… IMHO. Easy to get lost in the detail. That’s the top line. And easy to miss that top line. Once you know that, everything else falls into place. Now putting morals aside and in my honest opinion, it’s a immoral, indefensible and economically counter-productive. This is not going to go well for anybody. We are slow slowly but slowly on picking social cohesion. This cannot possibly go well for anybody eventually…