[2025] UKUT 035 (AAC)

If the issue of justification for regulation 29(4) has to be reached in this case, its legitimate aims and proportionality are easily identifiable in light of the facts of MJ’s case.

When she received the carer element of UC, she was responsible for caring for her son for at least 35 hours per week. However, prior to the addition of LCWRA (or LCW), she may have been more capable of engaging in the labour market. In this regard, there was no legal limit on the number of hours that she could work or income that she could receive while still being entitled to the carer element. This is in contrast to the position under carer’s allowance.The approach to the conditions for the carer element of UC is consistent with one of the principal objectives of the UC scheme, namely to encourage people into work. The availability of the carer element, to recognise caring responsibilities while also permitting entitlement irrespective of the amount of income received from employment, is an important policy aspect of the UC scheme.

The carer element of UC is not a health-related element. Rather, it is awarded on the basis that someone is not able to work because of caring responsibilities, but, as just noted, an award of the carer element of UC does not prevent someone working if they are able to do so, and the UC scheme incentivises that situation by imposing no limit on the income which may be received from work affecting entitlement to the carer element.

Equally, the UC scheme recognises that some people have limited capability to work for health-related reasons. In such cases, LCWRA may be awarded. LCWRA therefore covers a different reason for difficulties in engaging fully with employment, namely, health-related considerations.

LCWRA is paid at double the rate of the carer element. This reflects the greater needs arising from health problems leading to a limited capability for work. Accordingly, it is wrong to say, as MJ does, that the award of LCWRA does not reflect the greater needs of a person awarded LCWRA as compared to someone awarded the carer element who has caring responsibilities. The level at which LCWRA is paid, as compared to the level of the carer element, reflects the “increasing” needs of a person in receipt of LCWRA who is limited in their employment for health-related reasons.

Moreover, it cannot be ignored that MJ receives other benefits, for example, personal independence payment (“PIP”). These awards address needs which she has and which are provided for by those benefits. It is not correct to suggest, as she appears to do, that there is a failure of the benefits system as a whole to address her needs.In summary, a person cannot at the same time receive LCWRA in recognition of a health-related reason for having limited capability for work and the carer element of UC for caring for someone for at least 35 hours per week. If receipt of both LCWRA and the carer element were possible, a person would be entitled to two elements of UC which are both addressed to work considerations. Moreover, the level at which LCWRA is paid reflects the increased need of someone whose ability to fully engage with employment is diminished for health-related reasons. Given these considerations, regulation 29(4) pursues legitimate aims as part of the UC scheme and does so in a proportionate way, not least given the level at which LCWRA is paid.