Policy background What is being done and why?
Policy background
What is being done and why?
...
Transitional Protection
...
Managed migration – adjustment to transitional element where other elements increase
During the passage of the 2012 Act, the Government announced that existing benefit claimants who are migrated to UC by the Government who would otherwise have an initial lower entitlement to UC than they had to their existing benefits at the point they make their UC claim will be Transitionally Protected. To this end, regulation 55 of the 2014 Regulations establishes how Transitional Protection will be applied to the UC award via the calculation of a Transitional Element (TE) in UC.
The announced policy has also always been that TE will subsequently be reduced by an increase in a UC element already in award or the award of a new UC element. Although this is the case, an issue has been identified in the legislative structure that where a UC claimant:
• was previously on income-related Employment and Support Allowance and was in receipt of both the Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and the Work-Related Activity Component;
• was moved to UC by the Government and awarded the Limited Capability for Work (LCW) addition and received TE as a result of previously receiving the SDP in their existing benefit(s);
• they could lose out financially at a later date if they were subsequently found to have Limited Capability for Work and Work-related Activity (LCWRA).
From a policy perspective, it has always been the intention that a reassessment from LCW to LCWRA be treated as an increase in the claimant’s health-related element and TE should therefore be reduced by the amount of the difference between the LCW and the LCWRA.
However, the issue identified in the legislative structure means that LCW and the LCWRA are two distinctly different elements. They are not two rates of the same element and therefore, where a claimant’s health deteriorates and their work capability is reassessed, they do not experience an “increase” in their health-related element. Instead, the LCW is terminated and the LCWRA is awarded as a new element.
- 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)