Background
Background
MJ was in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance (income-related) (“ESA”) between 8 March 2011 and 10 February 2018. Her award included Severe Disability Premium (“SDP”) in the period immediately preceding her claim to Universal Credit (“UC”).
On 10 February 2018 she made a claim for UC as a natural migrant (i.e. because of a change of circumstances). On 11 August 2019 the Secretary of State determined that she was entitled to the transitional SDP amount in the sum of an additional £285 per month. That decision was made pursuant to Schedule 2 to the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 (“the 2014 Regulations”), inserted by the Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 (“the 2019 Regulations”), which provided for transitional SDP amounts and which were made following the High Court decision in R (TP, AR and SXC) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin)) (“TP1”) (on appeal [2020] EWCA Civ 37).
On 13 October 2020, the Secretary of State converted the transitional SDP amount to the TSDPE. On 18 June 2021 MJ notified the Secretary of State of a relevant change in circumstances, namely that she had been diagnosed with polymyalgia.
At the time of the erosion decision, MJ’s UC award comprised a carer element of UC. On 25 October 2021, with effect from 10 October 2021, the Secretary of State decided to add a LCWRA element to MJ’s UC award and in consequence the carer element of the UC award was removed, pursuant to regulation 29(4) of the 2013 Regulations.
By virtue of regulation 55 of the 2014 Regulations, the effect of the addition of the LCWRA element was to erode MJ’s TSDPE to nil. Overall, the amount of her UC award went from £975.20 for the earlier assessment period (10 September 2021 to 9 October 2021) to £879.98 for the following UC assessment period (10 October 2021 to November 2021, i.e. the assessment period which is the subject of the appeal).
- 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
![[2025] UKUT 035 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)