Disability benefits for people moving house are protected by a Shelter legitimate gain.

People with severe disabilities should not be denied gains simply because they move from one type of house to another, according to an important decision at the Upper Tribunal. Elliot Kent, a lawyer for Shelter, describes what this means for her and different clients.

The” cliff-edge” problem

Prior to the introduction of Universal Credit (UC), the government decided to forgo premiums previously paid to people with disabilities, most notably the Severe Disability Premium ( SDP ). People who are receiving benefits from the pre-UC system ( known as legacy benefits ) have to relocate to UC since 2018 when their circumstances change. This meant that when circumstances, such as moving home, made it difficult for people who had previously received SDP to relocate to UC, their money frequently saw a significant fall.

These immediate revenue drops could cost hundreds of pounds per month, and they would occur when the man was now dealing with a costly and demanding change in their circumstances, such as a move to a new home.

This” cliff-edge” effect was determined to be unlawfully discriminatory after legal challenges, and the government was required to make changes to the law to facilitate a smoother transition from traditional benefits to Universal Credit.

A” transitional payment” was created by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP), which would be made available to people who were severely disabled when they relocated to UC. Their benefits were almost at the same level as they had formerly been, but this payment would “erode” over time. This meant that it would be decreased if another UC components were increased.

Another” cliff-edge” in Julie’s case

Julie, a client of Shelter, has major disabilities and is eligible for the transitional payment. Since the introduction of UC, the majority of people’s book has been covered by the cost of housing. Legacy cover benefit, which is administered by local authorities, continues to include some specialist accommodations, including temporary housing for homeless people and refuges for domestic abuse survivors. This is then paid for by the child’s UC, which provides for their monthly expenses.

Julie switched from housing prices paid by housing benefit to shielded housing and nbsp, and as a result, her housing prices would now be covered by UC. Despite the fact that she was moving to a much less expensive rented residence, the transition from a housing benefit to a UC resulted in her receiving a total increase in her UC, despite the fact that her money was not increasing. Her intermediate safety was “eroded” in one go as a result.

In much the same way that the Courts had previously held that the DWP needed to avoid, Julie’s loss of her intermediate security resulted in another sudden drop in her salary. Julie’s total income decreased to £285 per month, which she felt was unfair, but she sought advice from Shelter. &nbsp,

The charm is made

Julie was helped by Shelter Counsellor Jeni Wainwright to challenge the DWP’s decision&nbsp to prevent her intermediate protection at the First-tier Tribunal, which handles claims brought against benefits decisions by the DWP and other government departments. The judge decided that the DWP&nbsp needed to recalculate her nomination and granted the appeal.

But, Julie needed Shelter’s assistance in resolving this charm to the Upper Tribunal because the DWP had already filed an appeal against this decision. Following the 2013 legal aid cuts, there are hardly any welfare benefits available, but Shelter was powerful in applying for Exceptional Case Funding to symbolize our customer and instruct her attorney, Tom Royston of Garden Court North. &nbsp, &nbsp,

The appeal was scheduled for a whole evening reading before the Upper Tribunal in London due to the complexity and significance of this legal issue.

The president’s appeal is dismissed and the Upper Tribunal finds in our favor.

Judge Church, the prosecutor who heard Shelter’s arguments, dismissed the government’s appeal.

Judge Church determined that people like Julie, who switched from the legacy housing benefit to the housing costs portion of the UC, were not treated equally to those who moved within the same benefit and who would n’t have the” cliff-edge” effect of losing all of their transitional protection payments in one go. This unfair cure amounts to unconstitutional discrimination because the DWP was unable to support it.

People who receive intermediate protection payments because of their important disabilities do not want to lose all of them because their housing costs have changed or have actually increased, as it is against the law.

Julie’s treatment had failed to prevent the” cliff-edge” effect of a sudden loss of income. When a claimant’s circumstances change, and they need to move between given accommodation funded through Housing Benefit and non-specified accommodation that attracts the Housing Costs Element of Universal Credit, the Judge argued that “what may occur is the unjust stripping away of all intermediate protection in one fell swoop.” ‘&nbsp,

The DWP has not yet confirmed whether they intend to file an appeal.

The entire determination can be found on the website of the Upper Tribunal.

What does this mean for people who are similarly positioned?

The Upper Tribunal’s choice confirms that it is unlawful for disabled people to lose their transitional security just as a result of moving from professional housing funded by housing benefit to more conventional housing provided by UC. Because of our advocacy for Julie in this case, she should n’t have to endure the same hardship and” cliff edge” that she did.

The DWP’s “managed movement” approach means that over the course of the next year, hundreds of thousands of people will be transferring onto UC their original “legacy” benefits. Child Poverty Action Group raises the concern that the rollout’s rapid pace may cause some people to fall through the cracks and face unpaid rent and poverty.

The government must make the Tribunal’s findings a part of the law immediately. And the DWP must ensure that managed migration does n’t lead to more people with disabilities and health issues facing financial difficulties.

We advise anyone who believes this determination might have an impact on them to seek professional advice in the interim.

Visit our get assistance section to learn more about the various forms of guidance Shelter offers.

Your assistance is crucial to our critical work, which includes helping people like Julie win legal problems and fighting for changes to the systems that leave people homeless. Kindly make a donation right now.

Published in https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2024/03/shelter-legal-win-protects-disability-benefits-for-people-moving-home/