Erosion of UC transitional element when a claimant with a carer element is awarded a LCWRA element (MJ lookalike case)

You can use this template if the following apply:

• your client transferred to UC under the managed migration process and a transitional element was included in their UC award
• your client had their UC award superseded to include an LCWRA element in their UC maximum amount with effect from their second or subsequent UC assessment period
• your client had a carer element included in their UC award, and their entitlement to the carer element ended as a consequence of the LCWRA element being included in their award
• at the time the award was superseded, the amount of the transitional element included in your client's UC maximum amount was more than the difference between the amount of the carer element and the amount of the LCWRA element
• your client's transitional element was eroded by the full amount of the LCWRA element rather than by the difference between the amounts of the carer element and the LCWRA element
• the DWP's supersession decision (ie, the decision to award a LCWRA element, end the award of the carer element and reduce the amount of the transitional element), was made before 29 January 2025 (the date of the SSWP v MJ decision) and relates to a period prior to that date
• the DWP has not applied the decision in MJ from the date of the MJ decision onwards

You can adapt this this template if:

• it's a transitional SDP element that has been eroded in these circumstances, rather than a transitional element
• at the time of the supersession decision, the amount of your client's transitional element was greater than the difference between the amount of the LCWRA element and the carer element, but was less than the full amount of the LCWRA element (the template assumes your client's transitional element was at least equivalent to the amount of the LCWRA element)

The legal arguments in this template include:

1. The case to which the appeal relates is an 'MJ lookalike' that is, the claimant is in the same situation as that of MJ in the case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MJ [2025] UKUT 35 (AAC)
2. The Secretary of State (SSWP) has not, at mandatory reconsideration stage, revised the decision in order to apply SSWP v MJ because of the anti-test case rule in s.27 Social Security Act 1998 (SSA)
3. The appeal is against the decision which superseded the award to include an LCWRA element, remove the carer element, and erode the transitional element - not against the refusal to revise the decision (R(IS) 15/04; R(IB) 2/04)
4. The decision under appeal was made before the Upper Tribunal's decision in SSWP v MJ, so the conditions in which s.27 SSA applies were not met at the time of the decision under appeal (in particular, because it is not a case where "after the date of the [MJ decision] a decision falls to be made by the [SSWP] in accordance with that determination" (s.27(1)(b) SSA))
5. s.27 SSA did not apply to the original decision under appeal
6. As a result, when considering the appeal against a decision superseding an award, where that supersession decision was made prior to the decision in SSWP v MJ, the tribunal - which stands in the shoes of the original decision maker and can make any decision which was open to that decision maker - is not bound by the anti-test case rule
7. Such an approach is consistent with the aim of s.27 and the other sections of the SSA.
8. The tribunal must apply SSWP v MJ so that the transitional element erodes only by the difference between the carer and LCWRA elements

Information about your client

• name
• address
• tribunal reference number

Background facts:

• the date your client was issued with a managed migration notice
• the date your client claimed UC
• the date your client submitted the appeal
• the date your client requested a revision of the decision (ie, requested a mandatory reconsideration)

Information about the decision(s):

• the date of the DWP's decision to award UC
• the date the DWP determined that your client had LCWRA
• the date that your client's UC award was superseded to include the LCWRA element, remove the carer element, and erode the transitional element (this is the date of the decision to change the award)
• the effective date of that supersession decision (the date from which the award was amended)
• the amount of your client's UC in the assessment period before the supersession decision
• the amount of your client's UC in the assessment period from which the supersession decision took effect
• the amount by which the transitional element was reduced as a result of the supersession decision (this should be equal to the amount of the LCWRA element, if not then review whether this template is appropriate)
• the date on which the DWP refused to revise the decision (this is the date the mandatory reconsideration notice was issued)