[2025] UKUT 035 (AAC)

It is a stark fact in the present case that MJ’s monthly award of UC decreases from £975.20 to £879.98 despite her needs increasing.

I am satisfied that there is no justification for such differential treatment, indeed there is no real explanation for it. What the Secretary of State has sought to do is to justify regulation 29(4) of the 2013 Regulations, which concern the interaction between the carer’s element of UC and the LCWRA element of UC, which is not and never has been in dispute in these proceedings, as Ms Smyth made clear in her skeleton argument and her opening submissions.

In reaching this conclusion, I have particularly borne in mind the injunction of the Court of Appeal in TD at [69] to the effect that

“It is important that the legislation in this country governing social security should be interpreted in a way which conforms to practical reality, given the potential impact on some of the poorest people in society.”

Regulation 29(4) provides that, where an amount would, apart from that paragraph, be included in an award in relation to a claimant by virtue of paragraphs (1) to (3) (i.e. a carer element) and the claimant has limited capability for work and work-related activity, only the LCWRA element may be included in respect of the claimant.

That, however, is not an answer to MJ’s claim that she has been treated differently, and less favourably, than other transitionally protected claimants, none of whom suffer a loss of benefit on a change of circumstances which result in their needs increasing.