The Department for Work and Pensions has made the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I. 2026/6). The instrument was made on 6 January 2026, laid before Parliament on 8 January 2026 and comes into force on 29 January 2026. It extends to England, Wales and Scotland. Stephen Timms signed the regulations as Minister of State for Work and Pensions.
The instrument amends regulation 44 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 to address cases where a migration notice is issued shortly before legacy benefits are abolished. For claimants on income‑based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income‑related Employment and Support Allowance or Income Support, and for Housing Benefit‑only cases, the Secretary of State may now set the “deadline day” in the notice as the appointed abolition day for the relevant benefit under section 33 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
In practice, the change creates a tailored exception to the usual rule that migration deadlines must be at least three months after the notice is issued. Where abolition is imminent, the deadline may be fixed to the appointed day so that managed migration and any associated transitional protection can still operate as intended rather than being overtaken by switch‑off dates.
The regulations make clear that where a person receives Housing Benefit alongside another legacy benefit, the applicable deadline follows the appointed day for the other legacy benefit rather than Housing Benefit. This maintains a single, coherent deadline for the household when more than one legacy benefit is in payment.
“Appointed day” is defined by reference to commencement orders made under section 150(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and, for these purposes, is not dependent on a claim for Universal Credit being made. The definition disregards the two‑week run‑on arrangements so that the deadline is tied to the actual abolition day, not any temporary continuation period.
For practitioners, the policy effect is straightforward. Managed migration letters issued close to abolition can name the abolition day as the deadline, preserving access to transitional protection under the 2014 Regulations for those who claim by that date. This avoids a cliff‑edge caused by the three‑month minimum where the legacy benefit would otherwise have ended before the deadline and claimants could have lost eligibility for a transitional element.
The instrument also inserts a new regulation 63A into the 2014 Regulations to resolve a specific disadvantage affecting some claimants whose earlier Universal Credit claim was refused because their identity could not be verified. Where those claimants subsequently receive notification and make a further claim within one month, the Secretary of State may treat them as having remained entitled to the relevant legacy award at the key dates used to determine transitional protection.
The deeming provisions in regulation 63A cover three groups. First, people who made a qualifying claim that failed on identity grounds but continued on old‑style ESA can be treated as entitled to that ESA on the date of the subsequent claim, restoring access to transitional protection calculations. Second, those who continued on Income Support, income‑based JSA or income‑related ESA that included a Severe Disability Premium can be treated as entitled to that premium in the month before the Universal Credit award. Third, where the continued legacy award included an enhanced disability premium, a disability premium or a disabled child premium, they can be treated as having been entitled to those amounts in the month before the Universal Credit award. This ensures the transitional element reflects the correct pre‑migration position for disabled adults and children.
The regulations confirm that the Social Security Advisory Committee agreed that referral was not required under section 173(1)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. For the migration‑deadline change, the Secretary of State consulted organisations representing the authorities concerned under section 176(1)(a) of the 1992 Act. No full impact assessment has been produced, with the Department stating no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors.
Operationally, advisers and local authorities should expect migration notices that cite the appointed day as the deadline where abolition is close. The interaction with two‑week run‑on payments remains unchanged; the appointed day is set without reference to those temporary extensions. For clients who previously failed identity checks, the new one‑month window following DWP notification is now critical to secure the deeming needed for transitional protection.
Overall, the amendments tighten the managed migration timetable and repair known gaps in transitional protection for a narrow group of claimants. The intent is administrative clarity: one deadline anchored to the statutory switch‑off date, and a defined route to restore protection where an earlier claim failed solely for identity verification reasons.