Judge agrees £20 uplift was to prevent newly unemployed becoming dependent on welfare, not to reduce hardship
The Court of Appeal has found in favour of the DWP and held that their failure to give legacy benefits claimants the same £20 uplift that was given to universal credit (UC) claimants during the pandemic was lawful. Shockingly the judge agreed with the DWP that the uplift was needed to prevent newly unemployed people developing ‘dependence on welfare’ rather than to protect claimants from hardship.
In February 2022 four claimants brought a claim against the DWP for failing to give them the same £20 uplift that was given to universal credit (UC) claimants during the pandemic.
The four legacy benefits claimants argued that the failure to give them the same uplift was discriminatory.
The High Court accepted that there were a greater proportion of disabled people on legacy benefits and that disabled claimants on legacy benefits were in the same position as disabled claimants on UC.
However, the High Court judge held that the difference in treatment was justified because the DWP said it was done with the intention of providing additional support to people who had lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic and were forced to claim UC for the first time.
The judge accepted this in spite of the fact that all UC claimant, not just those who had recently lost their jobs, were given the uplift.
The Court of Appeal ruled today that they could find no fault in the High Court judge’s decision.
In particular, the Court of Appeal judges accepted the DWP’s claim that the £20 uplift was not intended to alleviate hardship, but to reduce the financial shock to the newly unemployed and prevent them becoming dependent on benefits in the long-term.
The court accepted that the uplift was paid “in recognition of the fact that sudden, short-term unemployment can trigger social and health problems, leading to dependence on welfare, and hampering a return to employment.”
The court went on to find that:
“The uplift was not targeted at alleviating hardship as a result of increased costs during the pandemic. It was targeted at alleviating a particular type of financial disruption, namely that experienced by those who had lost or were at risk of losing employment or significant income, and who as a result were making new claims for social security benefits for the first time having previously been financially self-sufficient.”
Legacy benefits claimants were not a priority for help because they were:
“ . . . either not in the labour market at all by virtue of their disabilities, or only to a limited extent. That does not mean they were not a deserving group, and they were undoubtedly vulnerable. Nonetheless, a hard choice was made to prioritise those in the labour market but who it was anticipated would quickly become unemployed as a direct consequence of the pandemic and the lockdown measures that followed, and do so in large numbers.”
It is not known yet whether the claimants will attempt a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
You can read the full decision here
