![[2025] UKUT 035 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
As a result, these regulations amend the 2014 Regulations to put it beyond doubt that the treatment of the LCWRA as a relevant increase is an exception to the general rule regarding amounts awarded fo
As a result, these regulations amend the 2014 Regulations to put it beyond doubt that the treatment of the LCWRA as a relevant increase is an exception to the general rule regarding amounts awarded for the first time to ensure these claimants do not lose in the above cases where LCWRA is subsequently applied to the UC award”.
It is apparent from this that the driver for these proposals was to avoid reduction of an award when health deteriorates. Why then, asked Ms Smyth pointedly, should that result eventuate when the claimant is carer? Again there is nothing to explain why someone in the position of MJ should be subject to a cliff-edge when no one else in a comparable position is.
Ms Smyth quoted to me extensively from the cases in the TP litigation, in particular from TP1 at [36], [64], [82-88], TP2 at [30-38]. [48-51], [59-60], [64-65], TP (CA) at [38], [87], [92-93], [127], [158] and [162-163], TD at [53-55] and [90] and TP3 at [23-25], [99-113], ]152-156], 158-166], [192-196], [206], [211], 22] and [222-224]. I do not need to set out all of those passages in this judgment, which would serve only to increase the length of my decision inordinately. Suffice it to say that
- Heading
- Section 1
- The Issues
- Background
- MJ’s Entitlements to UC before and after the erosion decision
- Standard allowance £324.84
- Standard allowance £324.84
- The Decision of the Tribunal
- The Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Submissions
- the effect of the addition of the LCWRA element was to erode the TSDPE to nil if the only issue were the application of the erosion principle to the TSDPE upon the addition of LCWRA to MJ’s UC award, she would receive £68.51 per month more in UC (see
- The Justification for Regulation 29(4) of the 2013 Regulations
- Conclusion
- MJ’s Submissions
- the Administrative Court in R(TP & AR) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“ TP3 ”) , per Holgate J, as he then was, at e.g. [74], [162]-[163], [166]-[168], [222]-[224]. Pertinently to this ap
- Status and comparators
- Analogous position
- Justification
- Remedy
- Analysis
- Ambit and Status
- Comparators
- Justification
- Policy background What is being done and why?
- This means, that under a strict reading of regulation 55, the claimant’s TE should be reduced by the full amount of the Limited Capability for Work and Work-related Activity (LCWRA) (not the differenc
- As a result, these regulations amend the 2014 Regulations to put it beyond doubt that the treatment of the LCWRA as a relevant increase is an exception to the general rule regarding amounts awarded fo
- the policy identified in TP1 at [64] that the view of the decision maker that it is desirable to encourage people to act as carers is hardly consistent with deciding that a carer whose needs increase
- just as in TP1 at [82-88] there is no material before me to indicate that the issue of the loss of benefit for someone in MJ’s position was considered before the making of the relevant regulations eit
- the point made in TP2 at [48-52] applies with equal force in the present case. The claim in this case is not directed to any general proposition that Article 14 requires transitional protection to be
- as Swift J found in TP2 at [64], the requirement of justification brings with it the burden of explanation. Overall, I am not satisfied that the Secretary of State has identified any reason which explain
- as in TP2 at [65], it may be that the shortfall to MJ and those in her situation is small in absolute terms (£100 per month), but the difference in real terms is very significant indeed. She is a care
- the argument that it is inherent in the UC scheme that there will be winners and losers or that the erosion principle applies to all claimants across the board fails, just as it did in in TP (CA) at [
- as explained in TP (CA) at [158], citing Lord Bingham of Cornhill in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68 at [68]
- as the Court of Appeal explained in TD at [54]
- JA
- Remedy
- Conclusions