Two severely disabled men have won a legal challenge over the Department Of Work And Pensions’ failure to provide adequate transitional payments to protect them and others from a loss of income following their move on to Universal Credit (UC).
The DWP is found to have discriminated against the pair when it didn’t compensate them the full sum of around £180 a month difference in the payments they received on legacy benefits and the payments they received on UC when they moved into an area where UC had already been rolled out.
According to the DWP, in evidence it gave to the court when defending the judicial review claim, the ruling will affect up to 50,000 people and will involve sums of up to £150 million over a six-year period to put right.
The ruling is the fourth in favour of the men, called TP and AR in court and having a terminal illness and bipolar disorder respectively, who began their legal campaign after they suffered a severe drop in income when they were moved on to UC in 2016 and 2017 as a result of house moves to areas where UC was in operation. Previously they had each received Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and Enhanced Disability Premium (EDP), which are described here.
Despite rulings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the DWP still refused to pay severely disabled people affected by the policy the full monthly loss of around £180 and instead paid them just £120 a month, compensating for the loss of SDP and not EDP.
The judgment in this case represents the fourth time that the Court has given detailed consideration to claims under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights alleging unlawful discrimination against severely disabled adults who ‘naturally’ migrated to Universal Credit.
Mr Justice Holgate found: “The Covid-19 uplift received by UC claimants during the pandemic does not undo or make up for the disadvantage caused by the failure to cover the loss of EDP.
The inclusion of relief for EDP would not overpay those of the 71,000 claimants who receive SDP but not EDP. Overpayment could be avoided if legislation provided for six fixed rates of payment rather than three. “The suggestion that transitional payments in respect of EDP could not be deliverable has simply not been made out,” he said.
The judgment also found in favour of claimants AB and F, a disabled mother and child, represented by Southwark Law Centre saying that the discrimination they suffered “is manifestly without reasonable foundation”.
Tessa Gregory, a partner in Leigh Day, the legal firm representing the two men, said:
“Whilst we are delighted that the court has once again found in our clients’ favour, we do not understand why this matter is still being litigated.
“Following the three previous findings of unlawful discrimination, the DWP should have ensured our clients were not losing out on severe and enhanced disability payments following their move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. Instead after each judgment the DWP has made further attempts to short-change this group of highly vulnerable claimants who faced a cliff edge loss of income when none of their disability needs had changed.
“Our clients hope that this judgment marks the end of the road and that the DWP will stop wasting money on legal fees and get on with protecting the vulnerable.”
