Three severely disabled people have won a High Court challenge against the UK Government over "significant" drops in their incomes after they were moved on to the Universal Credit benefits system.
The trio, who cannot be named for legal reasons, brought a claim against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) arguing that payments covering their transition from old legacy benefits to the newer system were unlawful and discriminatory.
Last year, the court heard that two of the people in the case - a man in his 50s known as TP with a terminal illness and AR, another man in his 40s who suffers from bipolar disorder - were required to make a new Universal Credi t claim after moving to new homes in different local authority areas.
This "trigger event" meant the pair faced a "cliff-edge reduction of income" from the loss of their severe disability premium (SDP) and enhanced disability premium (EDP) - support available under the pre-existing 'legacy benefits' regime.
Under the transition from older benefits to Universal Credit, the two men receive £120 per month in top-up payments, but their overall loss is more than £170 per month, their barrister Zoe Leventhal told the court in written arguments.
A third adult, a woman in her 30s who is profoundly deaf and living with fibromyalgia, is also bringing a claim on behalf of her deaf son. She was required to move on to Universal Credit after her partner moved in, leading to losses of more than £400 per month.
In a related case in 2018, the High Court ruled that those receiving additional SDP and EDP were unlawfully discriminated against when transferred to Universal Credit after moving to a different local housing authority area and receiving less money.
The court heard that the UK Government introduced monthly top-up payments of £80, but these were successfully challenged leading to an increase in the transitional payments to £120 per month for single recipients.
In this case, the High Court heard that while the "cliff-edge" effect of losing SDP had been addressed, these transitional payments did not cover the loss of EDP.
In a judgment on January 21, Mr Justice Holgate ruled in favour of the three claimants.
He said: "I am not satisfied on the material before the court that the broad aims of promoting phased transition, curtailing public expenditure or administrative efficiency required the denial of transitional relief against the loss of EDP for SDP natural migrants [to the Universal Credit scheme].
"Quite apart from that, I reach the firm conclusion that a fair balance has not been struck between the severity of the effects of the measure under challenge upon members of the SDP natural migrants group and the contribution that that measure makes to the achievement of the defendant's aims."
In his ruling, Mr Justice Holgate also said he was "wholly unimpressed" by the idea a temporary £20-a-week uplift given due to the Covid-19 pandemic helped justify the difference in treatment.
He continued: "Both TP and AR explain in their witness statements that the uplift has only just covered the additional costs that they have had to incur because of Covid. That is hardly surprising. No doubt public money was expended in this way for that very reason."
After Friday's ruling, TP said: "The past six years have been immensely stressful as I have struggled to get by on a lower income.
"I just hope that the DWP will put all of this right as soon as possible so that those of us who have been badly affected by this unfair policy can get on with our lives."
AR said: "It should never have been the case that disabled people entitled to the severe and enhanced disability premiums were suddenly deprived of the equivalent sum when they found themselves transferred on to Universal Credit.
"The policy has caused me and others serious hardship and I am glad that the court has seen the sense in our argument."
To keep up to date with the latest benefits news join our Money Saving Scotland Facebook group here, follow Record Money on Twitter here, or subscribe to our twice weekly newsletter here.
