Legal challenge to Universal Credit


A terminally ill man is challenging the government in the High Court over the introduction of UC when he was left significantly worse off after moving on to the new benefit. The case could have implications for thousands of other disabled claimants whose benefits have reduced under UC. The claimant lost his severe disability premium (SDP) and enhanced disability premium (EDP). The government removed both these benefits despite pledging that no one with a severe disability would be worse off under UC. 


In February 2018, law firm Leigh Day reported it had permission to take the first judicial review in the High Court over the government’s decision to implement UC. The full judicial review will take place sometime between May and July 2018. 


According to Leigh Day, the removal of the two benefits has seen their client lose £178 each month. Lawyers argued that the government’s decision to remove them, and make no provision for a replacement, undermines its stated policy intention on the introduction of UC, which was to focus additional support on the severely disabled.


They argue that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, David Gaulke, “has made clear and repeated commitments to protect existing benefit levels with ‘top up payments’ for claimants migrating to UC so that: ‘no one will experience a reduction in the benefit they are receiving at the point of migration to Universal Credit where circumstances remain the same.’”. 


However, Leigh Day says he has failed to introduce any such “top up” provision to assist the many thousands of severely disabled people who will now lose SDP and EDP through the current roll out of UC. No top up payments are planned until July 2019 at the earliest when “managed migration” begins.