Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Legacy Benefits Case Continues in Court.

MS Society UK on Twitter: "Today, it was announced that the High Court is  to decide whether it was lawful of the Government to refuse the same  financial uplift for nearly two

Case Continues.

Were it not for some of our eagle-eyed contributors this case would be ignored even on this site.

It is an injustice, not just for disabled people but for those on ” Income-based Jobseekers Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit.”

Those claimants did not get the uplift when people on Universal Credit got the extra £20 a week.

There was an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, (February 2021)

That this House recognises the financial effect that the covid-19 outbreak has had on disabled people; further recognises that research from the Disability Benefits Consortium found that over six in 10 disabled people in the survey had gone without essentials such as food, heating or medication since the pandemic began; is concerned that no uplift was provided to people on legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and income support; calls on the Government to implement a £20 uplift for legacy benefits to reflect the additional costs disabled people have faced; and further calls on the Government to commission research to assess the adequacy of benefits for disabled people.

And a debate in the House of Commons, on the 15h of September 2021 which mentioned this injustice,

Opposition Day Debate: Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

On Wednesday 15 September there will be an Opposition Day Debate on the motion ‘That this House calls on the Government to cancel its planned cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit which from the end of September 2021 will reduce support for many hardworking families by £1,040 a year.’

This uplift, however, did not apply to any other benefits, such as contributory benefits or extra-costs disability benefits such as Personal Independence Payment (PIP). It also did not extend to means-tested benefits which are being replaced by Universal Credit, but are still being claimed by many low-income families of working age. These are known as ‘legacy’ benefits and include: income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), and Income Support.

There were some protests and a petition protesting against this injustice.

Government responded

This response was given on 11 March 2021

The Government has now confirmed the temporary £20 per week increase to Universal Credit remains in place for a further six months. There are no plans to extend a benefit increase to legacy benefits.

But the only avenue left now seems to be this important court case.

A disabled man from Milton Keynes is to make history with a judicial review in the High Court that could help two million other benefit claimants in the UK win a backdated amount of cash.

Ian Barrow is one of four people nationally to challenge the decision of the government not to give legacy benefit claimants an extra £20 to help them during the Covid pandemic.

All Universal Credit claimants were given the weekly ‘uplift’ but those on legacy benefits received nothing extra.

Legacy benefits are Income-based Jobseekers Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit.

He is in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance and has been assessed as having limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA).

At the beginning of the pandemic the Chancellor announced the £20 per week increase to the standard allowance of Universal Credit, but this increase was never extended to those on legacy benefits, the majority of whom are disabled, sick or carers.

A spokesman for Osbornes said the legal argument is that this action is discriminatory and unjustified. The High Court has agreed it is arguably unlawful and will decide the case later this year. The claimants have asked for the trial to be heard before the end of July 2021.

Claimants return to court for third battle with DWP in fight for universal credit justice

The high court has this week heard the latest stage in a long-running battle to secure justice for thousands of disabled benefit claimants who lost out financially after being forced onto universal credit.

The hearing, due to end today (Thursday), concerns policies that left many claimants worse off when their circumstances changed and they had to move from legacy benefits like employment and support allowance onto universal credit (UC).

Two of the three claimants taking the case – known as TP and AR for legal reasons – have already twice defeated the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in the court of appeal in connected cases.

Their first legal case challenged rules that meant they lost out on about £180 a month in the move to UC, because they were no longer receiving severe disability premium (SDP) and enhanced disability premium (EDP).

DWP responded by temporarily stopping other claimants in similar positions from migrating onto UC and introducing payments of about £80 month for those already affected.

TP and AR then had to take another legal case – which they also won – because this payment failed to bridge the gap between what they were now receiving and what they would have been receiving if they were still claiming ESA.

Despite the two victories, they were forced to take a third legal action after DWP announced that the level of compensation for disabled people who had been receiving EDP and SDP and had moved onto UC before 16 January 2019 – when another set of regulations came into force to protect other claimants in similar situations – would be set at a lower rate than the £180 a month they had secured through the second case.

They have been joined in the third case by another disabled claimant, AB, who has a partner and a child, and has lost out by even more.

TP and AR are currently losing out by £60 a month and AB and her partner by nearly £400 a month.

TP said last month: “It has been entirely frustrating and exhausting having to exist on an overall unreasonable cut in financial assistance brought about by a move forced upon me into universal credit, whilst at the same time battling debilitating illness during a most challenging period of increased expenditure during this pandemic.

“The principle of a fair transition into universal credit has already been upheld by the courts on numerous occasions now, yet the government has been dragging its feet for a prolonged period of time to my detriment in abiding by these rulings both in letter and spirit.”

AR added: “Yet again I am having to go to court and fight for what is fair.

“Over the last years I should have had much needed support in place to help me get through the challenges I face on a daily basis as a result of my disabilities, but instead I have had to put time and energy into fighting for that support.

“I hope this is the last time we have to fight the secretary of state for support that is so obviously needed.”

Their solicitor, Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, said last month that it was “difficult to believe that our clients have been forced to bring a third set of legal proceedings against the government in order to ensure they and thousands of other severely disabled persons are not unlawfully discriminated against following their move on to universal credit”.

Written by Andrew Coates

October 23, 2021 at 6:24 pm

118 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ’It is not the function of this court to advise upon government policy. Yet I cannot avoid the consideration
    that the difficulties and delays of these proceedings, might have been avoided, and also the cost to the public purse.Yet these matters seem to have been regarded as secondary to the political issues concomittant with the withdrawal of the £20 so-called ‘uplift payment’ to Universal Credit.
    Having considered all the evidence presented, the court finds in favour of the plaintiffs. The Department of Work and Pensions will therefore pay the sum of £1050 to each legacy claimant, and this is to completed by the 30th of November. In addition, I direct that an official letter of apology be provided to each legacy claimant, and included with this letter, a picture of the Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions riding upon an elephant.’’

    Jeff Smith

    October 23, 2021 at 6:58 pm

  2. And well done to Ipswich Unemployed Action for keeping this in the public eye. When the cowardly mass media would just as soon forget all about it. It’s claimantism of the worst kind, deliberate discrimination against claimants, and employment profiling. What they forget in Tory Towers is this, claimants are people too.

    George M

    October 23, 2021 at 7:07 pm

    • Yes, indeed. Where’s the coverage on C4 News? BBC Newsnight? HIGNFY? Or even John Craven’s Newsround:

      “You see children, this is what happens when mummy & daddy vote Tory, that’s why you have to hold Harvest Festival collections at school for the local foodbank, because the Tories hate poor people and want them to suffer before going to an early grave. Now the Weather…”


      October 23, 2021 at 8:44 pm

      • trev

        October 23, 2021 at 8:51 pm

      • c4 is owned buy the government and the bbc is funded buy the tax payer via the governments license fee.

        they only follow the governments agenda.

        just look at testing they have done 320 million tests and found 8 million cases and 139k deaths so far.

        it will only end when the testing stops and another lock down will be based on cases not deaths because that is there agenda or why pass the emergency powers for another 6 months! and no debate and waved through like a joke.

        yet there is a fun fair in the tesco pub car park tonight with big rides and everything pmsl £6 a ride. and 10 quid for a burger.


        October 23, 2021 at 8:57 pm

      • I heard that the Tories are on the verge of Privatising Channel 4.


        October 23, 2021 at 9:20 pm

      • Besides destroying the political party he was leading the only things that stand out in my mind about Nick Clegg was seeing him champion universal credit as a cure to poverty, defending the bedroom tax tooth and nail, failing to get the alternative vote system introduced, failing to reform the house of lords, and saying that he had to explain to his son that being deputy prime minister was actually better than being leader of the liberal democrats something he seemed particularly chuffed about. Oh! And talking about the pupil premium at every opportunity, probably because it was pretty much the only libdems policy that got introduced by the coalition.

        Basically he was a comprehensively big fat failure while making himself the Tory’s bitch.

        (And yet still ended up with a plum job with Facebook! Worra laugh!)


        October 24, 2021 at 3:57 pm

  3. “Despite the two victories, they were forced to take a third legal action after DWP announced that the level of compensation for disabled people who had been receiving EDP and SDP and had moved onto UC before 16 January 2019 – when another set of regulations came into force to protect other claimants in similar situations – would be set at a lower rate than the £180 a month they had secured through the second case.”

    Can the DWP not know defeat !!! If or should i say when the DWP lose the 3rd court case it is now a criminal matter under Human Rights Laws.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 23, 2021 at 7:46 pm

    • Which means it is not now a political matter, to hide behind.

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 23, 2021 at 7:48 pm

      • It always was Political, i.e. Class War.


        October 23, 2021 at 8:26 pm

  4. This is what happens when people vote in a Tory government. Not only do the poor get shafted, but the poorest of the poor, the most vulnerable of all, get trodden into the ground face first and a thousand dirty Tory feet wiped on their backs like a fucking door mat.

    “no amount of cajolery could eradicate from his heart a deep burning hatred of the Tory party. “So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin,” he went on. “They condemned millions of people to semi-starvation.”

    – Nye Bevan


    October 23, 2021 at 8:36 pm

  5. A valuable insight into the inner workings of the High Court…


    October 23, 2021 at 9:15 pm

  6. So if we win the case how much are we dye? Is it about £1500 ? Maybe unrelated to this case, perhaps more to do with Human Rights (?), but I read somewhere that Raab is sneakily trying to make a new law to give him the right to “adjust” the ruling of a Judge! How the fuck can that be legal?


    October 24, 2021 at 12:28 am

  7. Buses now claiming a shortage

    The cause apparently is the haulage firms and while the higher wage is a draw for someone already or near holding a HGV, i reckon delivery companies are driving people away who normally wouldn’t have this easy avenue to get into that only requires a standard driving license.

    So will the bus companies raise the wage or will government invent an apprenticeship for that aswell.


    October 24, 2021 at 5:54 am

  8. Te last time the DWP lost a workfare case brought by Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, during the IDS days, rather than obey the judgement the government with, help from Liam Byrne and most of the Labour opposition, introduced retrospective legislation to render the judgement meaningless. With an 80 seat Tory majority in parliament this is what would happen if the courts ruled that the DWP had to pay a lump sum of £1,500 to legacy claimants because the DWP unfairly discriminated in respect to legacy claimants when giving universal credit claimants a £20 per week uplift for 18 months.

    There ain’t no way, no how ever going to be no back pay folks.

    Mike Hunt

    October 24, 2021 at 8:06 am

    • Although I live in hope I suspect that you’re probably right. This bunch of criminals will find some way of blocking or overturning it even if the Court rules in our favour.


      October 24, 2021 at 2:39 pm

    • Hey Mikey

      I hear that. There’s absolutely no way in hell the DWP are going to pay up if they lose.

      jj joop

      October 25, 2021 at 5:56 am

    • Retrospective legislation is generally defined as legislation which ‘takes away or impairs any
      vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new
      duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past’.
      However, there are examples of legislation which has been applied retrospectively, for
      example to validate activities which have no statutory basis, or to correct practices which
      have been found to be illegal.

      So how do you apply this in this case when clearly some people on UC weren’t working at all not as a result of covid not to mention prior and some people on legacy who worked less than 16 and declared it as is lawful inside the covid period.

      DWP and or government have to answer or will strongly avoid the question on whats the difference between opposing benefits architecture that justifies a clear divide of like cases/incidences.

      At least in the Reilly and Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the direction was clear in that the court ruled in favor of the named claimants and government acted to stop the floodgate opening in the same way.

      “The Government says the legislation is necessary to avoid a potential liability of up to £130 million, and to ensure that those sanctioned do not receive an unfair advantage over “compliant” claimants.”

      So if we use this case as only an example of comparison, while there is financial liability, could you argue legacy claimants would have an unfair advantage over UC claimants. As things stand being a UC claimant during this time gave said person a clear financial advantage over a legacy claimant.

      Now i certainly dont profess to have an answer how government would go about dealing with this uplift issue but generally its about stopping someone who has already gained, could continue to gain and addressing the balance.

      One thing for sure is government tend to act before these things get to supreme court.

      Here is the link to my source material but do use the links contained within it to clarify various aspects.


      Here is a link to the regulation changes towards benefits/claimants


      Maybe someone else would like to take a stab as all i can see on first glance is that government/DWP constructively left legacy claimants out of the uplift but included them in other areas again highlighting putting legacy claimants at a disadvantage.

      In basic terms i see government has already kicked the dog in more than one area and to retrospectively act would entail kicking the dog all over again.


      October 25, 2021 at 8:18 am

      • Mr Ford [the solicitor bringing the case] previously said: “The case centres on a claim of unlawful discrimination between two groups, those on Universal Credit and those on legacy benefits.

        ***** “If the court finds in favour of that and makes a declaration, the Government has to go away and then decide how to rectify that. But the court can’t tell the DWP what to do so we have to wait and see.” *****

        A DWP spokesperson said: “It has always been the case that claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for Universal Credit if they believe that they will be better off.”



        October 25, 2021 at 10:34 am

  9. Cloverleaf

    October 24, 2021 at 11:35 am

  10. Neil oliver, hey government we are not stupid.


    October 24, 2021 at 11:44 am

    • Och Aye, ’tis a broad brich moonlit nich the noo


      October 24, 2021 at 1:03 pm

  11. Leaked government memo hints at ‘immediate’ roll-out of winter Covid Plan B restrictions



    October 24, 2021 at 1:18 pm

    • Wait until there’s also a National outbreak of Cholera due to the Tories now allowing water companies to discharge raw untreated sewage into rivers and the sea, in order to save on buying the correct chemicals that have become too costly and in short supply due to Brexit.


      October 24, 2021 at 2:17 pm

      • So we are going to get shit in our drinking water as well as sodium fluoride how marvelous I bet the toffee nosed ⚓ankers won’t be drinking it, it’s meant for us plebs.


        October 24, 2021 at 6:37 pm

      • It’s an horrific scenario, a potential public health hazard and an environmental disaster that could kill off loads of fish and other wildlife. A reckless decision to save money for the Water companies (that Tory MPs probably own shares in). Plus the Surfers won’t be happy. Or anyone who lives on the coast, or anyone whose homes get flooded when the rivers overflow each winter. No mention of this story yet in mainstream media.


        October 24, 2021 at 7:03 pm

  12. If we don’t get the backpay, then there is no alternative – the legacy claimants must go on strike.
    No money = No signing.

    George M

    October 24, 2021 at 1:32 pm

  13. Reveller blamed ‘lockdown cabin fever’ and booze for punching man in Newcastle pub

    Stephen Lewis, who holds a respected position dealing with Universal Credit at the DWP, could offer no explanation as to why he randomly ran across a dance floor at The Yard pub, in Newcastle city centre, and struck the shocked victim in the head.



    October 24, 2021 at 2:56 pm

  14. Reblogged this on Tory Britain! .


    October 24, 2021 at 6:57 pm

  15. There are now 100,000 Dustbin Rubbish Drivers short. They have gone only to Supermarket Van Delivery Driving which pays better at £40,000 a year rather than £24,000 a year working for the Local Councils. Bin men used to get paid quite a lot in years gone by. The lack of drivers mean no rubbish collection & then why do you pay coumcil tax oh dear Poll Tax.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 24, 2021 at 7:16 pm

    • “Bin men used to get paid quite a lot in years gone by”

      I think it was ok but not fantastic rate of pay but that was before they started farming the work out to agencies. Workers on a proper Council contract are always better paid than the agency staff.


      October 24, 2021 at 7:32 pm

  16. Champagne will be so much cheaper after the Budget. Now we can have champange for breakfast Boris lunch & tea & some more champagne at dinner.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 24, 2021 at 7:18 pm

  17. Another £200,000 on the DWP Court Case on DWP Defense Lawyers. To Date Long Drawn Out DWP.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 24, 2021 at 7:19 pm

    • And that’s just on one case !!!

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 24, 2021 at 7:20 pm

  18. Meanwhile, just another normal day in the UK:

    Andrew Coates

    October 25, 2021 at 12:10 pm

    • What the hell is he talking about? What a thing to say to 8 – 12yr old kids !


      October 25, 2021 at 1:10 pm

    • Very insensitive Boris let’s start feeding politicians to animals.

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 25, 2021 at 3:34 pm

  19. If the claimants do win the case it’s unlikely to lead to us on legacy benefits getting a pay out. I can’t imagine Starmer or Rachel Reeves standing up for people on legacy benefits as they ignored us during the pandemic.


    October 25, 2021 at 12:52 pm

    • Reeves has a pathological hatred of anyone on Benefits.


      October 25, 2021 at 1:07 pm

      • I notice she has gone from Ruthless Reeves, who was proud to be ”tougher than the Tories”, to a new more caring Reeves. But it won’t do any good if Labour keep on being so useless. Nobody is going to vote for them as things stand. So their whole performance is nothing more than a useless talking-shop. Labour have become a purely ceremonial opposition party.

        Jeff Smith

        October 25, 2021 at 2:44 pm

  20. Austerity policies in England linked to 57,550 extra deaths in five years – British Medical Journal



    October 25, 2021 at 1:14 pm

  21. superted

    October 25, 2021 at 2:50 pm

  22. Number of EU citizens claiming benefits doubled during pandemic
    Nearly 800,000 people received working-age benefits, amid fears many are living abroad while still getting paid



    October 25, 2021 at 2:52 pm

  23. Disability Living Allowance changes taking place in Scotland: how to apply for new payment
    DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE is set to be replaced by an entirely new benefit payment with applications opening as soon as next month in Scotland.



    October 25, 2021 at 2:55 pm

  24. That’s good after the Budget we can all go back on Holiday as the Government because of all the death threats on Twitter. Politicians will over come back off holiday when they get no death threats on Social Media & the Budget.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 25, 2021 at 3:36 pm

    • So never come back off holiday – Key highlight word

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 25, 2021 at 3:37 pm

  25. Still waiting – I have done £600,000 DWP Benefit Fraud & they don’t want to know. Since its been over 10 years they still can’t act upon the info. Setting someone up the ladder.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 25, 2021 at 3:39 pm

    • The DWP are committing a crime because they can’t act yet they have the info.

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 25, 2021 at 3:40 pm

      • It gets worse with Disability Benefit Fraud. Set an example.

        Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

        October 25, 2021 at 3:41 pm

  26. Andrew Coates

    October 25, 2021 at 4:42 pm

    • And if UC increases will legacy JSA also increase or are we to be left to rot on an increasingly impossible (to live on) £74 per week?


      October 25, 2021 at 8:14 pm

    • Benefits are only linked to earnings by cynical politicians trying to justify cutting or freezing social security benefits when wages have been static or falling. When earnings are growing and going up you won’t hear a single politician invoking imaginary links between benefits and earnings to suggest raising social security fairly and appropriately, so that the poorest in society can be advantaged by economic growth and national prosperity in the way that working citizens do. For years and years the poor have gradually become poorer and how long this trend can be tolerated is anybody’s guess. Food banks have become accepted by the public, normalised and integrated into society in ways I never dreamed possible. Surely there must be some limit to the amount of hardship, social injustice and cruelty the British can stand? Or is there?


      October 26, 2021 at 6:59 am

      • You’re right Robins, JSA ought to be at least £100 p/w by now not £74, which is impossible to adequately live on. There are still plenty of brain-dead Rightwingers out there who believe that people are getting too much in Benefits, or should be made to work in exchange for their pittance, you only have to read some of the comments on online newspapers, or Rightwing videos on YouTube, to see that a great many of such awful people exist.


        October 26, 2021 at 7:37 am

      • You have a government see deaths of covid as an acceptable loss just as long as the economy flows, a society consume more than ever despite climate change so why wouldn’t it be the case that foodbanks are acceptable when the majority of a population aren’t in that group.

        A person would think considering things like insulation protest, Dave Chapelle’s latest show and the death of George Floyd to name but a tiny few of the outrages we see year on year that the public would embrace any act on protecting fellow man BUT OH NO.

        Poverty is seen as a sour brand and we all know if you cant make a brand and build an empire like other known movements out of something, dont touch it, it could ruin your social media profile and as such kill that ad venue and patreon funding.


        October 26, 2021 at 9:16 am

      • @ Doug

        About 2,606 people perished when the Twin Towers were destroyed in Manhattan, Doug, and the world was convulsed and left reeling. In the UK during September 2021 some 3,584 Britons died after infection with coronavirus and nobody in the UK seems to be turning a hair.


        How can this be possible? How can people be so scotimized to such a horror? I don’t get it, can’t fathom it.


        October 26, 2021 at 10:07 am

  27. And as for the sewage that’s being pumped into the rivers, if someone was caught fouling a river or reservoir, they could be prosecuted for it. But it seems it’s okay as long as there are tons of it going past.

    George M

    October 25, 2021 at 7:52 pm

    • Only very recently Water companies were being fined millions for polluting, now they can pollute to their heart’s content as a tweet by Feargal Sharkey shows;

      “104 days after been fined £90m for dumping sewage into the environment and less than 12 hours after Gov voted to protect water companies and not our rivers, @SouthernWater were dumping sewage at 60, yes 60, different locations along the south coast of England.#COP26 hypocrisy pic.twitter.com/y1KCVPYoTP ”

      — Feargal Sharkey (@Feargal_Sharkey) October 21, 2021


      October 25, 2021 at 8:10 pm

  28. This was essential viewing:

    Andrew Coates

    October 25, 2021 at 8:45 pm

    • Mr Coates, this was filmed in my home town, though it’s not the skl I work at. There are approx 3 children IN EVERY CLASS, living like this, in most skls. We too give out food parcels, and our kids got vouchers to spend for this half term. Our family workers recently chased up a bed for a kid, as the one supplied in his temporary accommodation was broken. During lockdown we ran out of tablets and laptop’s to lend out so great was demand. And like the programme, some of the parents are in work, insecure, fast food or taxi driving. The kids in our skl don’t play doctors and nurses they play chicken and chip shops! And it’s just horrible that these poor kids are in this situation. ..
      I went through the system as a single parent, and it was bloody tough, but compared to now we had it easy….


      October 26, 2021 at 6:57 pm

  29. superted

    October 25, 2021 at 10:29 pm

    • Make no mistake the scruffy oaf means it!


      October 26, 2021 at 9:05 am

  30. superted

    October 25, 2021 at 10:31 pm

  31. I saw Joanna Lumley on BBC Breakfast this morning talking about introducing ration books and food stamps to encourage people to consume less because she thinks that we’re all consuming too much. Hasn’t she heard of food poverty and foodbanks, or poverty in general? Millions of people in this country can’t afford to consume too much, many of us have to choose between heating and eating. Make homemade soup instead of buying a takeaway, she suggests. I haven’t got the ingredients to make soup and I can’t afford to buy takeaways. I’m going to get through the rest of the week on toast ffs.


    October 26, 2021 at 8:35 am

    • Come on now Trev, you know if you conflate the two, like benefit amounts the public will only see this as a marker so they can eat more than they would be expected to if they were cutting back.


      October 26, 2021 at 8:49 am

      • I think it’s dangerous talk. I don’t think Ms.Lumley was even thinking of the poor, she was probably talking to the affluent middle classes and those in work on good wages, but if any government did introduce food stamps or rationing do you think they would apply that to the workers or affluent middle class? Of course they wouldn’t, it would be the poor, those on Benefits. Tory MP Alec Shelbrook has been lobbying for this for years.


        October 26, 2021 at 9:50 am

    • Contactless Ration Books.

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 26, 2021 at 12:27 pm

      • You have now used your weekly quota of apps. The world has fallen apart. You must live in a small world when you can’t cope without apps.

        Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

        October 26, 2021 at 12:29 pm

      • I think she was talking about food waste from an environmental point of view and it’s true that “we” as a Society are very wasteful but I personally don’t waste anything. The supermarkets waste tons of food as a way they operate, to have so many products permanently on offer means logistically that loads will be wasted and they would rather waste it than give it away. But when you’re living on peanuts you can’t afford to waste anything.


        October 26, 2021 at 12:41 pm

    • @trev- But Trev, if you work in a foodbank as you do, surely they ought to see that their volunteers are supplied with basic food items as well ?

      Jeff Smith

      October 26, 2021 at 1:10 pm

      • I’m not registered for food parcels Jeff so I don’t like to ask, but yeah the Manager would let me have something if I was desperate. There’s usually some buns and biscuits for the volunteers in the kitchen for breaks, and sometimes a loaf going spare if it’s a fresh one and it’s Friday so won’t keep over the weekend for eg. But by Friday I’ll be ok cos get my JSA Fri.


        October 26, 2021 at 1:45 pm

    • @trev: That seems a bit tone deaf for her ? I remember when she basically got pensions for the Gurkhas.

      George M

      October 26, 2021 at 1:15 pm

      • Maybe she means well George, I don’t know, but I think it’s a danger that people in Gov. conflate the two, i.e. Food stamps /rations and food poverty, it’s easy for some Rightwing extremists like Alec Shelbrooke or Rees Mogg to claim that food poverty is down to people not budgeting properly or spending their Benefits on booze/fags so let’s give them food stamps instead, when it was originally proposed (by Joanna Lovely) as an environmental thing.


        October 26, 2021 at 1:40 pm

      • Its obvious our government of the day are comparing us to other countries in that we dont walk 40 miles for dirty water or living on a potato a day between 4 people.

        Add in the fact they honestly believe the old benefit system afforded a life such no one needs to work and we have a melting pot that expresses a desire to downscale benefits.


        October 27, 2021 at 8:11 am

  32. The husbands are now leaving their wives. We need a new bigger freezer to put these 24 frozen Turkeys in I just bought. Also we need a new husband. The Husband works all hours for the wife to over spend keeping up with the Jones’s. Oh yeah we also need 50 litres of gravy & a bigger house to live in.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 26, 2021 at 12:34 pm

  33. Kent councillors reveal they have ‘sweepstake’ on Universal Credit complaints



    October 26, 2021 at 3:02 pm

    • Kent Conservative councillor apologises after colleagues make ‘insensitive’ bet on £20 Universal Credit cut

      Paul Bartlett told a Kent County Council committee meeting local Conservatives had organised a “sweepstake” over when Labour would mention the recent £20 cut to Universal Credit.

      Karen Constantine, Labour councillor for Ramsgate, was speaking at Kent County Council’s Health Scrutiny and Overview Committee on 16 September when she heard “groaning, guffawing and chuckling” from her Conservative colleagues.

      A recording of the meeting shows Cllr Constantine say: “I wonder what this committee’s thoughts were on the £20 cut to Universal Credit, which is going to force a lot of families into poverty.”

      But she is then interrupted and adds: “I can hear my colleagues groaning, but this is about prevention being better than cure.”

      Tory councillor Paul Bartlett, who chairs the committee, then replies by saying that the Conservatives had made a bet on when Labour would bring up the benefit cut.

      “The reason you heard collective groans was because some colleagues have lost the sweepstake as to when Universal Credit would be mentioned at this meeting,” he says.


      Councillor Bartlett told Sky News in a statement: “I very much regret the comment that I made during the meeting and apologise that the choice of words was insensitive.

      “I would like to stress that I have the utmost sympathy for anyone struggling financially and that my comment was not, in any way, made in order to offend or upset anyone.

      “The comment about Universal Credit was made in response to Cllr Constantine raising the issue of health outcomes for those on lower incomes – something that the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee strives to address in everything we do.”


      Andrew Coates

      October 26, 2021 at 6:21 pm

      • Labour have yet to confirm if they will reinstate the £20 if/when elected, though they have said they will “scrap” Universal Credit by altering some of the finer detail and renaming it something else. So that’s clear then.


        October 26, 2021 at 6:31 pm

      • Andrew Coates

        October 26, 2021 at 7:07 pm

      • Some councils’??


        October 26, 2021 at 8:33 pm

  34. superted

    October 26, 2021 at 6:20 pm

  35. Well I’ve just been put on the Restart Programme. No choice. Compulsory. In Cornwall Seetec Pluss have the Restart Programme contract but their local centres have Reed in Partnership addresses. What’s going on? Do these private “providers” sub-contract with each other, e.g., have Seetec Pluss sub-contracted Reed in Partnership to deliver the Restart Programme for them? What’s the point of that? The “centre” is located in a council owned “community hub” and so must be space rented from the town council. If Reed are doing it all why have Seetec named as the providers? Very confusing. I’m getting some really bad vibes about this but am going into it with an open mind and intend to try to be positive and not get annoyed when people decades younger than me tell me stupid things about getting a job which we both know are unhelpful, untruthful and largely meaningless.


    October 27, 2021 at 8:58 am

    • you will be asked to sign for the induction pack and the action plan you can refuse as buy law you are not required to sign anything via 3rd party private company’s for profit.

      they can not register a start without them being signed and you can refuse to use there portals/web sites as per term and conditions of use same as any site.

      seetec might be the main provider but they sub contract out the work to local providers.

      they can only mandate you attend on said date and time for induction it only becomes mandatory once you sign there contracts.


      October 27, 2021 at 9:11 am

      • Thanks for that, ted. Until I see what’s been put on the action plan I can’t really decide 100% what to do.


        October 27, 2021 at 1:10 pm

      • the contract is the induction pack and contains there terms and conditions and data sharing policy if you sign this and not the action plan it could result in a sanction doubt being raised.

        the provider needs both to be signed to register a start with the dwp prap payment system and get there delivery fee.

        they can mandate you attend but thats about it they cant force you to sign anything buy law and dwp own rules and regs also state this as fact.

        restart is not like any other work programme as the will be sending off your cv to employers for you so you will have to hand that over along with phone number email address and bank account number if you want the bus fair back.

        so if they get you a interview for a cleaning job and you refuse to take it if offered the job then you will get sanctioned because they want there job outcome payment as stats at 16 hrs per week the quality of job does not matter.

        they will also force you to apply for jobs on there web portals and do there crap online courses and will track you 247 via these web servers so expet problems if you dont spend enough time on them say for the 35hr job search ect.

        buy signing these contracts you are now the property of the corporation and are classed as a profit unit.


        October 27, 2021 at 1:33 pm

      • I won’t be signing anything that allows anybody I don’t know and have a personal relationship with to share my data with other parties without my explicit permission that for sure. And as far as I know the law is on my side as far as that goes.


        October 27, 2021 at 1:42 pm

    • Bad luck Ro, I feel for you. But I know it probably won’t be long before they get me too. The way look at all these horrible schemes and courses is that at least it passes time away, every week that goes by is a week closer to Retirement. That’s the only thought that keeps me sane.


      October 27, 2021 at 10:09 am

      • @trev- I wonder how many people, having seen Superted’s posts on this, will go for the not-signing option
        on these workfare schemes ? And what about the multiple sanction problem ? Someone doesn’t sign, they get sanctioned. Then a few weeks or months later they get referred again, and sanctioned again ?

        Jeff Smith

        October 27, 2021 at 12:44 pm

      • I suppose it’s ok for those who are sufficiently thick-skinned to put up with the inevitable face-to-face confrontation but for those of us who prefer a quiet life it’s easier to keep your head down below firing line and give the outward impression of compliance whilst inwardly counting down the days to Retirement. I suppose it’s about stress management when it comes down to it either way.


        October 27, 2021 at 12:52 pm

      • @Jeff

        How can you be sanctioned for not signing a document there is no legal obligation to sign. superted has made it clear he is not refusing to participate in said programmes or attend any mandatory appointments nor is he advising others to refuse, he is only advising people they have a legal right to decline to sign provider paperwork.

        jj joop

        October 27, 2021 at 1:14 pm

      • Jeff Smith

        Were you not here when superted went through the ringer on this very topic and broadcasted to one and all what was happening and what the outcome was ?

        Did you not witness the Reilly and Wilson case that led to government enacting a retrospective regulation just to stop the floogates of people sanctioned over it getting an appeal ?


        Its real all right, very real.

        If a claimant understands the legal mechanism of DWPs intent and these schemes, the work coach can be left with no DOUBT to raise.
        If a work coach has such a doubt then prior to continuing there action would be the best time to satisfy that doubt with a senior employee like a manager. DWP have to be careful here as conspiracy comes into play.

        When DWP sends you to a provider, while your agreement to attend said provider introduction with DWP is contractual, this is legally termed an An invitation to treat on the part of the third party (provider).

        An invitation to treat is not made with the intention that it is to be binding as soon as the person to whom it is
        addressed communicates his assent to its terms (again with regards to provider).

        If a claimant fails to attend said invitation to treat with said third party then the claimant is in breach of contract with DWP as a legally binding contract with said provider is yet to be formed.

        This is why the claimant should always attend the provider introduction.

        Now once at said provider introduction, said provider will make an offer. Now the offer can be made prior to said introduction (via website) meaning said claimant moves to the meat and potatoes of the meeting of parties.

        Once we are past the offer we move to the agreement providing the offer is mutually beneficial in the eyes of the law.

        NOTE: At the stage prior to agreement said provider is still a third party to said claimant.

        This is a fact because a third party CANNOT legally process data to the same class of party and so must become a SECOND PARTY with the data subject.
        This means until they do they cant deal with the likes of companies with regards to sending out a CV, work experience, get funding from a stream outside of DWP as just a few examples.

        The provider needs to enter into a legally binding contract with said claimant (data subject).

        The law says agreements may be avoided when, in a very general sense, a person’s free will was impaired (duress).
        With particular regard to DWP but not with standing said provider the law also states a person must be informed.

        DWP CANNOT get involved with the contract offer with said provider meaning as far as a claimants legal contractual obligation goes with DWP at this point, it has been met.

        A claimant has to attend only said introduction but only upon the successful legal binding of an agreement can DWP further enlarge said mandated requirements there after.


        October 28, 2021 at 11:08 am

    • @Ro

      Let everyone here know what you intend to do, i.e. exercise your right not to sign their action plan and other forms, etc. And do let us know whether you will attend in person, online or by phone, etc. Can I ask whether you are on UC or legacy JSA? Cheers!

      As for the provider, I am guessing Reed already have offices established in your area so it’s probably cheaper for Seetec to sub-out the contract to Reed. In Cambridge, the Shaw Trust have the WHP contract but they have subbed it out to a local pimp – the Papworth Trust as they have a long established presence in the city already. These pimpo-parasites are all in bed with each other.

      jj joop

      October 27, 2021 at 12:24 pm

      • I’m receiving universal credit and in a couple of weeks have been booked to have a preliminary conference call with my work coach and a representative from Seetec Pluss to arrange an appointment to visit them, in person, to speak to someone at their premises. (Reed in Partnership’s rented premises that is.) At that appointment I gather that I should be assessed to see what obstacles etc., are hampering my “journey” back to work and cobble together an “action plan” listing various activities I agree to do to expedite said “journey”.

        As long as the commitments listed on the “action plan” aren’t too ridiculous, difficult or unreasonable I’ll probably just sign-up as asked and soldier on until I get a job or the scheme ends. My understanding is that I will only be expected to attend the “centre” once or twice a month, and maybe do some “courses” and such like online, but suppose that the restart programme will be more demanding than that later on as Seetec Pluss try to push people into any kind of work to meet their quotas well enough to receive “performance related” payments from the DWP. I won’t be using the Seetec Portal and have my worksearch activities monitored by Seetec Pluss online already having refused to log such things using the UC journal. I would never submit to that kind of creepily intrusive “Big Brother” type of scrutiny and surveillance while the law enables me to refuse and I can’t understand why so many people accept DWP prying like this when, at the moment at least, they don’t have to and don’t have to explain themselves or give any reasons why.

        As much as I admire superted for making a principled stand against the DWP, I have to admit to being less resilient than that personally and think the best way to handle things is to keep my head down and to play along while making strenuous efforts to avoid the worst that such a scheme might have to inflict. So doing pointless dumb arsed “courses” would be bearable whereas unpaid work experience and/or forced workfare is never going to be if I have anything to say or can do to avoid it. Basically I’m going to try to play them subtly as much as they try overtly to play me and see how I get on.

        It’s not like being sent to the gulag when all is said and done and I’m more bored than bothered.



        October 27, 2021 at 1:40 pm

      • https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restart-provider-guidance

        read it all then come back 😉


        also read the tc of use.

        (d) Each of the provisions of these Terms of Use operates separately. If any court or competent authority decides that any provision is illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the other provisions will remain in full force and effect, and such provision will be replaced with a valid and enforceable provision which achieves to the greatest extent possible the same effect as would have been achieved by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision.


        October 27, 2021 at 1:48 pm

      • @Ro

        I understand your lack of resilience believe you me. It’s perfectly normal to feel this way given the situation we are all in. But you should be aware that initially the provider will apply a light-touch when you first sign up. They will make love to you, so to speak. But like all romances it will sour quickly. Before you know it you will find yourself trapped in a very intense and high-pressured environment. And you will end up being compelled, i.e. forced into applying for the kind of low paid, shitbag, zero hour contract jobs you would not normally entertain. And that’s when they’ll have you by the short-and-curlys.

        jj joop

        October 27, 2021 at 2:15 pm

      • @Ro

        And another thing. About the three-way conference call. If you don’t want to take part in that, you don’t have to. Who the hell told the DWP they could share your phone number with the provider, anyway. Email your work coach right away and tell him/her that the DWP do not have your consent to share your email address and phone number with anyone without your written consent. But that’s up to you.

        jj joop

        October 27, 2021 at 2:20 pm

      • @ j j joop

        The conference call doesn’t come directly from the provider but from and through the Jobcentre. Basically my work coach calls me from the Jobcentre and the provider joins the conversation via her line at the Jobcentre to arrange an appointment. As I’ve already accepted this commitment digitally via my Journal I have obliged myself to take part in it now. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. I feel no fear.


        October 27, 2021 at 4:04 pm

      • just say you are willing to participate but you wont be entering in to any contracts with any 3rd party company’s.

        and no personnel data will be shared or processed buy said company’s via telephone email face to face or via a web site.

        and then there fucked! 😉


        October 27, 2021 at 4:09 pm

      • @Ro

        Well anyway, let us know how you get on.

        jj joop

        October 27, 2021 at 4:28 pm

      • @jj joop – Well they might call it ‘raising a doubt’ but in essence it’s a sanction. Your money stops. I remember we have someone at my local JC they wanted to go on the 6 month Community Programme.
        He refused and there was a bit of of a scene. They sanctioned him, then a few weeks later they offered him the chance to do it again. He refused again, and they sanctioned him again. So they can offer you the same thing multiple times, and if you keep refusing they will keep sanctioning or raising a doubt.

        Jeff Smith

        October 27, 2021 at 5:16 pm

      • jeff if they mandate you attend a providers office you must attend and no getting out of it as will raise a doubt that you failed to attend for induction.

        what they can not do is mandate you to sign anything and only attend on said date and time.

        the only way this game works is if you use there own rules and regs against them.

        providers need there contracts signed to register a start and have only 4 weeks to do so, so if you refuse to sign then they wont let you participate and you have a right under law not to give them any personnel data or them to process it.

        action plans only become mandatory when you have signed on the dotted line..


        October 27, 2021 at 5:26 pm

    • Just “commit” some “unacceptable customer behaviour”, using your phone to record inside the jobcentre is a good one as it’s not criminal. If you need a crash course in the law regarding filming in a public place you can watch some of the videos from the silly “auditors” on youtube. If you choose to wait until the police arrive just remain calm and polite and you’ll be fine. You may wish to explain the situation to the police (staff became threatening and you were concerned for your safety etc) or you may decide to just leave when (if) the police arrive.

      This should result in you being banned from attending the jobcentre (usually 3 months for a first “offence” and 6 months for every subsequent “offence”) for “unacceptable customer behaviour”. This might all sound a bit scary but it’s really not, you will receive a letter from “Government Legal Department” (this has exactly as much clout as a letter from the TV license folk).

      None of this has any impact on your lawful entitlement to whatever you are currently claiming (no sanctions etc), you will effectively become a “postal claimant”. In my experience you will not be sent on any third party courses etc or hear from the jobcentre much at all (last time I heard from the jobcentre was Oct 2019).


      October 27, 2021 at 2:37 pm

  36. Button & Pen Phobia. I will have to go for a WCA Medical. That will be difficult at the best of times. They need to find out if I have a mild button & pen phobia or a strong button & pen phobia. It is so bad it is disabling the DWP.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 27, 2021 at 10:01 am

    • @Stepping Razor Sound System – And the DWP have still not introduced a policy for helping people who suffer from Ergophobia.

      Jeff Smith

      October 27, 2021 at 5:25 pm

    • trev

      October 27, 2021 at 6:03 pm

  37. The chancellor is expected to change the so-called “taper rate” for claimants in work – a move which would let them keep more of their wages.

    But the £20 a week cut is still expected to go ahead – and charities warn that tweaking the taper will not help the poorest.

    Under plans reported by The Sun newspaper Mr Sunak would change the taper rate from 63p to 60p – a change which would still fall short of some Tory MPs’ demands to cut it to 55p.

    But while 5.5m families are to be hit by the £1,040 a year, £20 a week cut, just 1.7m families will benefit from tweaking the taper by 3p.

    And it would help families who do benefit by an average just £5.60 a week, according to calculations by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation – well short of reversing the headline cut.

    And even those in work may not benefit from the change – as around 400,000 working families do not earn enough to be impacted by the taper.

    The taper rate is the amount of Universal Credit payments people lose as they earn more above a certain amount, known as the work allowance.


    Andrew Coates

    October 27, 2021 at 10:17 am

  38. Basic Income Earth Network



    October 27, 2021 at 10:24 am

  39. So they can waste 37 Billion !! on Test &Trace disaster, but they can’t keep the £20 uplift on Universal Credit. Typical Tory double standards.

    George M

    October 27, 2021 at 1:00 pm

  40. More vetting system within Universal credit after the budget.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 27, 2021 at 2:45 pm

  41. 5 reasons Universal Credit change in Budget will still leave millions worse off

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a boost to the taper rate and the Universal Credit work allowance in his 2021 Autumn Budget speech – but it comes weeks after he slashed the benefit by £20 a week, and more than half of claimants won’t see a penny



    October 27, 2021 at 3:52 pm

  42. superted

    October 27, 2021 at 4:02 pm

  43. That’s what Universal credit was designed for a vetting system. Some people are worthy & some people are not worthy.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    October 27, 2021 at 4:07 pm

    • Our DWP Decision Maker will be your judge & jury if you are worthy. That is also the DWP Appeal System Vetted.

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      October 27, 2021 at 4:10 pm

      • To decide if you have the right to appeal called mandatory reconsideration. Vetting system of the worthy & not so worthy.

        Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

        October 27, 2021 at 4:12 pm

      • Sort the wheat from the chaff, weed out the undeserving poor, then feed those people to animals (Boris let slip their Plan B)


        October 27, 2021 at 4:18 pm

      • Should an employee of the DWP really have the right decide whether a sanction handed out by another employee of the DWP is legitimate or not? Where’s the independence that guarantees fair consideration of all of the facts in that? It’s like the police investigating the police or hospital staff investigating the conduct of its own medical staff.


        October 31, 2021 at 10:04 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: