u/Alteredchaos

A quiet news week but lots of case law…

High Court case for Somerset resident’s challenge of council tax reduction scheme

A disabled Somerset resident is taking their local authority to court to challenge the way the Council assesses entitlement for council tax reduction for people who receive UC.

Andy Mitchell was moved from legacy benefits to UC and in doing so his CT reduction was slashed from 100% to just 10%. He is arguing that the Council’s scheme unlawfully penalises disabled people and others with additional needs based on the kind of benefits they receive.

Andy is represented by human rights solicitor Carolin Ott and Aurelia Buelens from law firm Leigh Day. Counsel are Tom Royston and Alexa Thompson from Garden Court North Chambers and Jack Castle of Henderson Chambers. The legal team estimate that in Somerset alone, 4,000 disabled people are now having to pay council tax when they had previously been exempt.

Andy’s legal team claim the decision is discriminatory and a "breach of equality".

Speaking outside the Bristol Civil Justice Centre, Mitchell said:

>"I don't have a lot of money each month and it puts further pressure on my income. I can't afford the things I need to cope with life as a disabled person.

>I just feel it's wrong. We were promised by the Department for Work and Pensions our income would be protected and that hasn't been the case at all.

>Disability discrimination is just unacceptable, I'm passionate about that. I want people to be treated fairly."

Somerset Council said in a statement:

>"Recognising the concerns that such claimants have, we are undertaking a fundamental review of our scheme to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, inclusive and affordable, and we will be consulting on the scheme in summer 2026 for implementation in April 2027.

>We also operate a means tested Exceptional Hardship Scheme to support the most vulnerable."

Andy’s challenge follows a High Court victory in a similar case brought by Leigh Day against Trafford Council, in which the court ruled its tax reduction scheme was unlawful.

Like the Trafford case, Andy’s case raises important questions about how local authorities across the country design council tax reduction schemes and the consideration given to vulnerable and disabled people with limited income.

We wish Andy luck and will share the judgment when it’s published.

Significant improvement in DLA (child) new claims processing times

Between 1 August 2025 and 31 March 2026, the DWP cleared around 185,900 Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for children new claims. Of which 68.3% (126,900) were cleared within 45 working days.

In this 8-month period, the percentage of claims cleared within the planned timescales rose from 4.7% to 90.7%.

However, note that the 45-day timeliness standard represents an increase in the previous target.

DLA for children for claims cleared between 1 August 2025 and 31 March 2026 is on gov.uk.

Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold

Universal Credit (date of claim) - Martin Paterson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Claimant had phoned the DWPs UC Helpline in order to claim UC but been told (wrongly) that he had to wait three months in order to make a claim. Seven weeks later, he claimed UC, with the help of a Jobcentre, electronically.

The DWP, focusing on regulation 26 of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, decided that the claimant’s award of UC ran from the date he claimed electronically, not from the date he phoned the UC Helpline. The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) upheld that decision.

The Upper Tribunal found that the FtT erred in law in not making the necessary factual findings to determine whether the claimant had made a valid claim for universal credit by telephone (when he phoned the Respondent’s Helpline), applying regulations 8 and 10 of the above regulations.

In the alternative, even if the FtT was right to find that the claimant only made a valid claim for UC when he claimed electronically with the assistance of a Jobcentre, it erred in law in not making a factual finding as to when the claimant first notified the DWP that he needed such assistance.

Both errors were material, as, on the facts of this case, the relevant factual findings could have resulted in the FtT concluding that the claimant’s claim for UC was made on the (earlier) date on which he telephoned the UC Helpline.

Universal Credit (housing element) - TU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The DWP determined that the claimant was not entitled to the housing element of UC, essentially because they did not have a written tenancy agreement so the DWP considered the agreement was not commercial. That decision was upheld by the FtT.

The appeal was complicated by the claimant’s brain injury and difficulties managing the hearing which we not adequately considered by the Judge.

The UT set-aside the FtT. There is no requirement in law for a tenancy agreement to be in writing, a tenancy agreement may be oral: see, for example, SG v Epping Forest DC (HB) [2011] UKUT 41 (AAC), at paragraphs 47-54. If there is an oral agreement, then whether the agreement is commercial needs to be assessed applying the guidance in R(H) 1/03, at paragraphs 15-21.

A useful confirmation that tenancy agreements can be made verbally and need not be in writing.

Universal Credit (immigration status) - RB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2026]

This appeal concerns the interaction between entitlement to Universal Credit and immigration status following deportation action. The supersession decision fixed 22 May 2020 as the date on which the claimant was treated as a person subject to immigration control under section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. And thus not eligible for UC.

By section 12(8) of the Social Security Act 1998, the First‑tier Tribunal (FtT) was required to determine only whether the DWP was entitled to reach that conclusion from that date. No earlier immigration history, not having been put in issue and not arising from the evidence, required determination.

The DWPs attempt to rely on new Home Office material before the Upper Tribunal failed. Under Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, as applied in the social security jurisdiction, that material could and should have been obtained with reasonable diligence; it was incomplete and did not identify the statutory basis of deportation, whether under s.3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 (conducive deportation) or ss.32–33 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (automatic deportation). It could not establish any clear or uncontentious factual mistake for the purposes of E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044. It was therefore inadmissible.

In determining whether the claimant retained leave beyond 22 May 2020, the Tribunal applied section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, which extends leave only while an appeal could be brought or is pending within section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 104 provides an exhaustive definition of when an appeal remains pending and is confined to the domestic appellate system. On that basis, the appellant’s domestic appeal rights were exhausted on 22 May 2020, and his section 3C leave ended on that date.

The claimant’s application to the European Court of Human Rights could not extend or revive leave under section 3C. That is so for three reasons: (1) proceedings before the ECtHR do not form part of the appellate structure established by the 2002 Act; (2) an ECtHR complaint is an international supervisory mechanism, not a continuation of domestic appellate litigation; and (3) section 3C operates only by reference to the domestic appellate routes expressly defined in statute.

The later human‑rights submissions made after the expiry of leave were further submissions under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. Such submissions do not engage section 3C and cannot revive leave once it has expired.

Accordingly, the claimant’s leave ended on 22 May 2020, and from that date he was a person subject to immigration control without recourse to public funds for the purposes of section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Universal Credit Regulations. The Upper Tribunal confirmed the DWP was entitled to supersede the UC award from that date.

Universal Credit (work capability) - RB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
In this work capability appeal, the FtT erred in law because, having kept the award of 9 points in place in respect of the claimant being unable to get to a familiar place without being accompanied by another person, it failed to provide an adequate explanation for why it considered the claimant could get to the Jobcentre and potential jobs without a substantial risk to his or another person’s health.

The FtT also failed to make findings as to the likely actual availability of the claimant’s father, stepmother and sister to make trips to and from the Jobcentre and job(s) with him.

A very short but sweet UT decision.

Northern Ireland Universal Credit (carer element) – CY-v-Department for Communities (UC) [2026]

The claimant made a claim for UC on 6 September 2019. At the date of claim she declared she was not caring for anyone. On 24 October 2022 the claimant declared to her work coach that she had reduced her working hours from 20 to 15 per week as she was caring for her daughter who had epilepsy.

At this date the claimant was not entitled to make a claim for the carers element of UC as her daughter’s entitlement to PIP had been disallowed from 28 July 2022 and receipt of PIP is a requirement in order to be eligible for the carer’s element of UC.

The PIP decision was appealed and was ultimately successful, with the result that the claimant was eligible for the carer element of UC throughout the relevant period. The issue then arose whether and when adequate notification of the change of circumstances had been made and whether it was within the statutory time limit.

The appeal Tribunal concluded it was not. After setting out the legislation and what should have be been determined, the Commissioner (the NI equivalent of the Upper Tribunal) determined that there was an error in law and set-aside the decision, finding that notifying the work coach of their caring responsibilities was sufficient notification for assessing carer element and that a decision on eligibility should be held pending the disabled person’s PIP claim being decided.

This case is especially useful because it has implications for other areas where UC and disability benefits intersect (e.g. student entitlement).

Remember, NI cases aren’t binding in England & Wales but can be persuasive.

No cut to UC for under-22s until at least the Autumn

In November, DWP secretary Pat McFadden confirmed that the government had not yet decided whether to take forward its proposal that people under the age of 22 would no longer be eligible for the limited capability for work related activity (LCWRA) part of Universal Credit (UC). He told parliament that the department wouldn’t be making any firm decisions until after Alan Milburn publishes his review into young people and unemployment this “summer”.

The DWP commissioned Milburn to carry out an independent investigation to explore why young people are not in employment, education, or training (NEET).

Speaking to parliament on Tuesday 28 April, Timms responded to a question on the plans from Labour MP Ben Coleman.

He told parliament that:

>“There is an urgent need to address the big rise in the number of young people not in work, education or training that took place before the last general election. We think that better support might help young people more than extra cash. Alan Milburn’s review on the NEET problem more broadly will report in September; we will wait until then to decide whether to delay access to the universal credit health element until the age of 22. If we did do that, there would need to be exceptions.”

Read the debate on hansard.parliament.uk.

Thousands of healthcare professionals complete autism awareness training

As Autism Awareness Month draws to a close the DWP has announced that “thousands of healthcare professionals have completed Oliver McGowan training to better support autistic people and those with learning disabilities as they navigate the benefits system.”

The training is named after Oliver McGowan, a young man with autism and a learning disability who died in 2016 after being given antipsychotic medication against his and his family’s wishes. It was established following a campaign by his family to ensure that staff working with autistic people and those with learning disabilities have the knowledge and skills to support them safely.

The training tackles “diagnostic overshadowing” - where symptoms are wrongly attributed to a person’s disability rather than investigated properly - ensuring people receive the right support at the right time.

It also gives staff practical tools to make meaningful reasonable adjustments for people with learning disabilities and autism as they navigate the benefits system. These include:

More time in assessments, reducing anxiety and allowing people to communicate clearly and confidently.
Simpler, clearer communications from Jobcentres, making information accessible to people who may find complex language difficult to process.
Sensory-aware Jobcentre environments, ensuring spaces feel safe and manageable for people who may find busy or loud environments overwhelming.

Minister for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms, said:

>“Oliver McGowan’s story is a powerful reminder of why services must understand the people they serve.

>This training is part of how we achieve that, equipping our staff to treat every autistic person and everyone with a learning disability as an individual, and to provide support that genuinely works for them.

>We’re determined to break down barriers for disabled people, and to put autistic people and those with learning disabilities at the very heart of our decisions and direction.

>I pay tribute to the hard and brave work of the McGowan family in Oliver’s memory.”

In total, 231 active internal DWP healthcare professionals have completed part of the training. 4,168 active external provider healthcare professionals have completed part of the training. “Active” is defined as having an active employment status, excluding those on long-term sickness, parental leave or similar absences.

The training is one part of wider support the DWP is investing into better support people with autism. Separately, an expert academic panel has examined the specific barriers neurodivergent people face in the workplace, with its recommendations under active consideration.

Jon Sparkes, OBE, Chief Executive of learning disability Mencap, said:

>“Increasing benefit assessors’ understanding of learning disability is an important step towards a more accessible and inclusive benefits system. The training they’ve received has the potential to make a real difference in helping them to communicate more clearly, recognise individual needs and make reasonable adjustments.

>People with a learning disability need to be properly understood and receive the level of support that’s right for them to navigate the benefits assessment process.

>This training is already making a difference in health and social care teams, and we hope it will now make another public service more accessible to people with a learning disability so that they can live their lives to the full.”

The press release is on gov.uk.

PIP Timms Review, have your say: PIP call for evidence ends this month

The Co-Chairs of the Timms Review shared an update this week in which they stressed that it is “essential that this Review is informed by a diversity of experiences, evidence, and perspectives” and it included a ‘call for evidence’, which is the first step in the Review’s wider programme of engagement.

Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE, co-chair of the Review, said:

>“PIP is not just a benefit. It is part of how many disabled people live with dignity, independence and choice. That is why this Review must be shaped by people who know the system from the inside.

>We need to hear what works, what does not, who is being missed, and what needs to change.

>This engagement programme matters because good evidence is not only about data. It is about real lives, real barriers and practical recommendations that can make the system fairer and fit for the future.”

The six-part evidence and engagement programme will use different ways to hear from people, including written evidence, local workshops, expert sessions, deliberative events, existing research and new survey work. The programme will comprise:

A Call for Evidence - the steering group’s thinking will be informed by the responses received.
Existing data and research - the steering group will consider existing qualitative and quantitative research from the disability sector, experts, and government, so that its work is grounded in a broad base of evidence.
New quantitative survey research - the steering group has commissioned a representative quantitative survey on topics for which the existing evidence base is limited or further insight is needed, working with the National Centre for Social Research.
Workshop in a box - the steering group will create resources for organisations to run workshops on the Review. These workshops will allow us to capture more in-depth qualitative insights on people’s lived experience of disability and PIP across the UK.
Evidence sessions with experts - the steering group will hear evidence from experts, including people with lived experience of disability and/or relevant professional expertise. The group will consider which experts it wants to engage with and how best to do so, providing an opportunity for deeper, targeted engagement on specific topics.
Deliberative events – later in the year, a series of deliberative events will be held across the UK to test ideas, explore trade-offs, and refine the Review’s recommendations.

The steering group believes that using this mixture of methods is essential to the success of the Timms Review. Giving individuals and organisations a variety of ways to take part will help us to reach more people, hear a wider range of perspectives, and build a stronger evidence base for the Review’s recommendations.

The Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment: Call for Evidence is open to responses until 28 May 2026.

The press release is on gov.uk

More than one in four pensioners are struggling financially

In a new report, ‘Fragile budgets, difficult choices’, Age UK warns about the risks of another year of energy price hikes and inflationary consequences, especially for pensioners living on a low fixed income.

New polling for Age UK shows that among the 3.4 million pensioners (28%) in Great Britain who said they were financially struggling, almost half (47%) 1.6 million said they’ve been struggling for three years or longer, pointing to more persistent financial hardship.

Notably, a fifth (22%) of those struggling, equivalent to 740,000 aged 66+ said they have been struggling financially for more than five years showing an even more persistent financial strain for a large number of pensioners.

In 2022-24, pensioners with the lowest fifth of incomes spent half of their total spending (more than £6,500) on the essentials of energy, food and housing. This is higher than those pensioners on the middle fifth of incomes who spent around 40% on these, and those on the highest incomes who spent around 30%.

Age UK warns that energy remains the dominant source of financial pressure for older households in 2026. Energy affordability continues to shape the financial confidence and wellbeing of pensioners, with one in four (25%) saying they find their energy bills unaffordable – even before the conflict in the Middle East began.

The pressures among older people are not felt equally. Renters, women, younger pensioners, those with disabilities, and pensioners from ethnic minority backgrounds are all disproportionately affected. Among older private renters, 51% pensioners said they were financially struggling, compared with 28% overall. And for pensioners from ethnic minority backgrounds these challenges were likely to be even more common, as poverty rates are higher. 29% of Black pensioners and 21% of Asian pensioners are living in poverty, compared to 12% of white pensioners.

Age UK is calling on the Government to act across income, energy and housing to address the underlying drivers of insecurity in later life, including boosting Pension Credit take‑up, strengthening protections against high energy costs and tackling unaffordable and poor‑quality housing. To protect older people from another tough winter, Age UK urges the Government to act now across three interconnected areas:

Income: Age UK calls for a sustained strategy to tackle the persistently low take-up of Pension Credit and other benefits, stronger protections and careful monitoring of the new Crisis and Resilience Fund to ensure it reaches pensioners in genuine hardship.
Energy: Age UK calls for reform of the Warm Home Discount to extend eligibility to all low-income households, deepen the support it provides, while also optimising and accelerating delivery of the Warm Homes Plan.
Housing: Age UK urges the Government to ensure Local Housing Allowance keeps pace with real rental costs, provide more consistent access to proven funding models and support with housing costs, and develop a long-term strategy to increase the supply of affordable, accessible homes suitable for later life.

Fragile budgets, difficult choices: The cost of living for pensioners in 2026 is on ageuk.org.

DWP names first ‘Jobs Guarantee’ delivery partners

Some of the country’s biggest employment support providers have been chosen to deliver the first phase of the government’s flagship youth unemployment scheme.

The DWP has appointed six organisations as lead delivery partners to run the “jobs guarantee” in six areas ahead of the national rollout.

They will be responsible for matching unemployed young people to suitable jobs, reimbursing employers for wage and onboarding costs and providing wraparound support before and during placements.

The jobs guarantee is one of the government’s key initiatives to tackle stubbornly high youth unemployment. Eligible young people will have access to a fully subsidised six-month paid job through the scheme. They must be aged 18 to 21 and have been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months.

Catch 22 will deliver the scheme in Birmingham and Solihull, Ingeus in the East Midlands, The Growth Company in Greater Manchester, Reed in Partnership in Hertfordshire and Essex, The King’s Trust in central and east Scotland and Itec Training Solutions in South West and South East Wales.

The six areas chosen for phase one were selected because they were identified as having the “highest need”.

DWP expects 1,200 referrals in phase one, although the guidance said referral numbers could increase if capacity allows.

Delivery organisations have until October 2026 to assess and place eligible young people, and job placements in this phase must be completed by April 2027.

Covering the six-month job placement, the government will fund 100 per cent of wage costs at the minimum wage for up to 25 hours per week, plus employer national insurance and minimum pension contributions.

In addition, delivery organisations can claim up to £2,250 per participant for wraparound support and training, £400 for administration and up to £250 for employer onboarding costs.

DWP guidance says the scheme will roll out across England, Scotland and Wales “later” this year. Ministers have said the scheme will provide 55,000 job placements over the next three years.

The scheme is part of the government’s wider youth guarantee, backed by £820 million, to ensure young people can access work, training or education.

Details on the jobs guarantee are on gov.uk.

Young people lost in transition

The share of 18–24-year-olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) has risen from 13% in 2019 to 15% in 2025, leaving almost 900,000 young people navigating a challenging transition between childhood and adulthood in terms of economic status. This rise has made the headlines and the Government agenda, with Alan Milburn’s team set to release findings from a review that is looking into why young people in the UK are disconnected from work.

The Resolution Foundation in their latest report ‘Lost in Transition’ investigates why the UK’s NEET rate has been rising since 2019, and why it has long been higher than in many other countries.

Resolution Foundation argues this recent increase is only part of the story. The UK already had one of the highest NEET rates in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEDC) even before the pandemic.

Just over half of the recent rise reflects a weaker labour market. The rest is driven by a sharp increase in economic inactivity, closely tied to worsening health (especially mental health) and rising incapacity benefit claims among young people. Crucially, youth unemployment itself is not unusually high. More young people are simply disengaging from the labour market altogether.

International comparisons helped their researchers challenge some common assumptions about worklessness among young people. Countries with far lower NEET rates do not necessarily have better health outcomes. Instead, they keep more young people in education – particularly vocational pathways – and combine stricter engagement requirements with more generous, hands-on support than in the UK.

Recently, there have also been several headlines about entry-level jobs disappearing. Many have attributed the rise in economic inactivity among young people to this phenomenon. While this is certainly part of the story, this latest report highlights the barriers in the transition between education and work for young people.

Areas to examine are encouraging young people to stay in education and re-engage after setbacks, whilst setting up a better support system to help them navigate ill (mental) health alongside work. The report makes clear there are no quick fixes.

Lost in transition: An examination of why the UK NEET rate is high and rising is on resolutionfoundation.org.uk.

DWP commences corrections to ESA to UC late managed migration claims

You may remember that back in January that the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers (NAWRA) highlighted an issue where ESA claimants who missed their final migration deadline but subsequently claimed UC were not having the LCWRA element included and were being put through the WCA due to the DWPs failure to apply regulation 21 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014.

While the DWP accepted it was in the wrong, it said it would 'take some time' to fix.

In an update to members this week, NARWA confirmed that the DWP has finally got to a place where they are correcting the cases they are aware of, and they are looking into how they identify and correct all other cases.

The latest DWP statement:

>“We are currently working to put right an error that affected some customers who were receiving income related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). In these cases, customers did not claim Universal Credit before the end of their managed migration grace period and their ESA award was ended. Where this happened, National Insurance credits should have been considered and, where appropriate continued to be awarded, and we recognise that this did not occur.

>We will review the records for those cases we are already aware of. At the same time, we are working through the issue to ensure we fully understand the problem completely and to develop processes that will enable us to identify and put right cases.

>This issue may also affect the amount of Universal Credit paid to customers who later made a claim and already had a valid Work Capability Assessment decision. We will take steps to ensure that any impact on entitlement is identified and corrected where appropriate.”

Thanks to NAWRA for championing this issue.

Housing benefit earned income changes from the Autumn

A long-awaited change to benefits designed to make work pay has been confirmed by the DWP - but claimants will have to wait until late 2026 to see it introduced.

The update came after Darlington MP Lola McEvoy pressed the Government for clarity on when new “earned income disregards” four Housing Benefit (HB) would take effect.

Responding on behalf of the DWP, minister Stephen Timms said the changes are scheduled for rollout from Autumn 2026. He said:

>"These disregards will help smooth the transition between the Universal Credit and Housing Benefit for individuals in Supported Housing and Temporary Accommodation as they move into work or increase their earnings, ensuring work always pays.

>The new disregards will be in place from Autumn 2026. This will require legislative changes and be accompanied by IT changes made to local authority IT systems.”

In preparation for this, we have already begun engagement with stakeholders to ensure that the implementation meets the needs of those affected.

This is accompanied by clear communications to support local authorities, housing providers and third sector organisations to ensure that eligible customers are aware of and able to utilise this change."

The reform, first announced in the Autumn Budget last year, will apply to people receiving Housing Benefit while living in supported housing or temporary accommodation.

In practice, the new rules will allow claimants to keep more of what they earn, reducing the risk of being financially worse off when taking on extra hours or a new job.

Officials say they have already begun working with councils, housing providers and charities to prepare for the shift, alongside plans to communicate the changes clearly to those affected.

The question and answer is on parliament.uk.

Recruitment for Access to Work case managers underway

The DWP has published a job listing for 360 new Executive Officers (read, case managers) within the Access to Work department.

The roles are available across a range of locations: Barnsley BSC, Blackpool Fylde View, Bradford Debt Centre, Dean Clough Office Park, Leeds Quarry House, Preston Palatine House, Stockport Millenium House, Treforest Ty Taf.

The full time salary is £32,137, pro-rata for part time staff.

“We welcome applications from candidates who demonstrate they have the right communication skills to be responsive to the needs of a diverse group of customers, an ability to understand complex information and can make the right decision at the right time.”

Closing date is Thursday 14th May 2026.

The job advert is on gov.uk.

Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold

Housing Benefit (supported accommodation, contrived tenancy) - FYE v Middlesborough City Council and GPZ v Sunderland City Council 2026

This case concerned whether rent liabilities had been created to take advantage of the Housing Benefit scheme. There were 34 appeal cases involving two local authorities, this appeal dealt with the two leading cases.

All the cases involved the issue of whether the claimant’s rent liability was created to take advantage of the Housing Benefit (HB) scheme. In every case, the local authority decided that the liability had been so created (contrived), with the effect that the claimant was not entitled to HB.

Some of the cases also raised the issue whether the claimants were living in ‘exempt accommodation’. In the simplest terms, this means whether they were receiving support in addition to their accommodation. However, the support issue only arises if the claimant’s liability was not created to take advantage of the scheme.

The First-tier Tribunal determined that the tenancies were contrived, as per regulation 9(1)(l) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, and the FtT gave detailed reasons for this decision.

Several grounds were put forward in the appeal to the Upper Tribunal (which make for interesting reading). All of which were unsuccessful.

No material error of law was identified, “the tribunal’s evaluative judgment on contrivance was unassailable given the totality of the factors it took into account”. The FtT decision stands.

And lastly… Routine DWP led work capability reassessments remain suspended in UC and ESA.

📢 Weekly news round up 10.05.26