Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: ESA Support Group Descriptors

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    He's probably talking about a new law that came in this week.

    You can, in fact have to, now claim IR ESA (or IR JSA, or Housing Benefit) instead of UC again - IF you have the SDP, or had it in the month before the new claim and still qualify.

    (eg. If you had ESA with SDP and were found FFW then you could, in fact would have to, claim IR JSA instead of UC, if it's within a month of the ESA claim being closed).

    This was brough in on 16th January to prevent the Natural Migration to UC of those with SDP.
    He gave me this info during December, but I never had the SDP. It may have been a misunderstanding but I’ll get it clarified when I next speak to the DWP.

  2. #12
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    7,814
    Reading your post again I think what he was saying was that you could add your partner to your existing CB ESA by adding an IR ESA entitlement.

    This would be a change/addition to your existing CB ESA claim rather than a new claim, so would not need to be UC.

    (Although it is quite unusual for a phone jockey to know that, and tell you that instead of pushing you to UC).
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  3. #13
    Sadly, by that point we had already claimed UC and that’s when he said it. Especially when I told him our UC award was zero because unlike the old system if you were owed statutory holiday and final pay up until your claim, it wouldn’t count as you weren’t working. We claimed UC on one date and four days later he got paid all his accrued holiday.

  4. #14
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    7,814
    That's one of the problems with UC, once you have started the UC claim you can't go back.

    Once you have clicked that 'Submit' button you have claimed UC - unless you haven't.

    Both us as claimants and the DWP have a double standard about that:

    On the one hand the DWP say it's when you click the button.
    But when it suits them they say it's not until you have been down to the JC+ for your initial interview and provided your ID.

    On the other hand you want your claim to start as soon as possible, ie. when you click the button to claim, so your entitlement to money starts as soon as possible.
    But then for whatever reason you might want to withdraw your claim, so you say it's not fully made before your JC+ interview.

    So it's also us that is asking for a double standard to apply, not just the DWP.

    It's something that is going to take a court ruling before it will get pinned down to one or the other, and once it is both us and the DWP will have to conform.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    Interesting one.

    You can only have an MR once for each decision, if your are not happy with that one MR then you appeal.
    (Whereas the DWP can take a new look as many times as they want to, you can ask then to look again but it won't be an MR so they don't have to).

    They would probably argue that they have made a correction, which is not a new decision so couldn't have a MR.

    Howerver you could ask for an 'Anytime' Revision, or an 'Anytime' Supersession a slightly different thing.
    This AgeUK factsheet explains the differences between MR, Revision, and Supersession:
    https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalasset...isions_fcs.pdf

    Of course if they now say that they made an error and the points are spread rather than being 15 points for Sch.2, 13(a) then that's a new bucket of frogs.
    The UT ruling above would not apply at all if that is the case.

    If they didn't award Sch.2, 13(a) then Sch.3, 11 wouldn't apply either.
    But are they now just saying that to avoid awarding SG? How would you prove that if they did?

    If you accept what they are saying and just try to challenge the points there is no guarantee that you would get 13(a), and thus the SG descriptor 11, reinstated.

    Just getting more points would not change the WRAG decision, you can have as many points as are possible it's still only WRAG.

    I think that you definitely need the paperwork, including the letter admitting their error, then take it to a good welfare advisor (one who has a legal team) to get help if you are going to be challenging this.

    If you accept that the points are 'spread out' then you accept the WRAG decision.
    I would say that you need to show that they did indeed originally award all 15 points for 13(a) and have later tried to change that to your detriment.
    That's going to be very hard to prove, but you might get a sympathetic judge.

    PS. Be careful with that old CPAG Handbook, they are on ebay for a reason - they are out of date and the original owner has bought an up to date one.
    If using an older one then you have to double check that the part you are interested in is still up to date, laws change and new case law is made.
    So, I thought it only fair to provide an update as to where I am with this whole thing.

    Again, I still can't give too much detail as I haven't had a final response to my complaint but I've agreed to extend the amount of time so that it can all be investigated fully.

    My MR has been put on hold but not withdrawn. I was able to get an Anytime Revision, but no decision from that has been made as of yet. There is very strict criteria to meet for an Anytime Revision initiated by a claimant. I explained that I wasn't contesting the allocation of points and their distribution but my request for an Anytime Revision is based solely on Official Error; specifically an error in law.

    After my file was sent back to the original decision making centre (from the MR team it was allocated to), I was told they weren't going to change the decision and that it stood. I asked several times have they changed the allocation/distribution of points and on each occasion I was told no. I then sent them the case law and other supporting evidence in my favour. The new Decision Maker decided that they couldn't make a decision and forwarded my case on to the DWP Legal Team (LT) two/three weeks ago.

    Needless to say, after not hearing anything I was reassured by my complaint handler, that had I been completely wrong the LT would have emailed back straight away with a definitive no.

    Today, I received a call and was informed that LT agreed with my legal argument and that I was right (well your link to the case law - thanks again!).

    So far, no decision on a revision has been made because as they pointed out the distribution of points from the HCP were different and they now need to work out why it was distributed/allocated in the way it was. I did mention that them going against the LT and making an Anytime Revision to redistribute the points allocation would be seen by many as the DWP back peddling but to my detriment.

    Like MR and appeals, Anytime Revisions can carry both risks and benefits. HOWEVER, I see this as half a victory so far without using a local advice centre as of yet with the DWP admitting on paper (my decision letter) they have made a mistake in law.

    Now I just have to wait to see whether they will honour the 15 points allocated to 13a and put me in the Support Group (that much I do know they will do if they don't change the allocation). If they don't and go with the original distribution/allocation of points from the medical report then I can continue with my MR and provide further medical evidence and follow the normal route like most claimants turned down for the Support Group. I will also add it to my maladministration complaint too because either way it has been found and proven that they have seriously screwed up.

Similar Threads

  1. writing complaint letter to dwp (Moved from esa support group to work related group
    By redarado in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-01-2016, 06:52 PM
  2. Esa support group descriptors
    By ANXIOUS63 in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-10-2012, 11:10 PM
  3. Esa support group descriptors
    By ANXIOUS63 in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 11:05 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •