Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: ESA Re-assessment queries

  1. #31
    Thought I'd finished this thread but something just cropped up. I've just received my right of access request details and I can see from that I have zero points for the assessment. in 2017 I had fifteen but they were all for consciousness and I wasn't even asked about that this time. I know that support group doesn't rely on points scoring but I'm just a bit concerned at going from fifteen to zero and whether that may be used against me come the next re-asessment

  2. #32
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,407
    My original ESA assessment was the same.

    I also only score points for unconciousness and the DWP gave zero, the tribunal upped that to 15 before they had even seen me. I've not had any problem with reassessments since then.
    The DWP at the time had decided that it had to be 'sudden onset' ie. just collapse unconcious with no warning, which is not what the legislation says at all and why the tribunal quickly overruled them and gave 15.

    Unfortunately there is no Support Group descriptor at all for unconciousness, the ony way to get SG for the likes of Eplipsy, Narcolepsy, Diabetic coma, etc. is on the special rule about 'Risk of Harm', which can be done but is very difficult to get.
    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. #33
    Thank you, yes, I remember you saying there was no Support Group descriptor for consciousness. My concern is that because the assessment didn't cover consciousness (when the assessor said he was finished I asked him about it and he said he'd seen enough and didn't need to ask any more questions) then obviously no points were recorded. So that while I was placed in the Support Group I also have a combined score of zero from both health professional and decision maker. I'm worried that when I go for my next re-assessment if they find I'm no longer eligible for Support Group that I may be assessed as fit for work (which I'm highly unlikely to be) as the assessor will be a looking at a score of zero from this assessment rather than one of 15 in 2017.

  4. #34
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,407
    You have to remember that Support Group is nothing to do with points.

    Points are only for WRAG, once you have 15 points then you have WRAG and getting any more points is overkill.

    SG has different descriptors that don't score points.
    Match just one out of the 16 SG descriptors and you are awarded SG.
    (Which is why the assessor didn't need to ask anymore questions).

    TBH if you have SG for unconciousess then it's probably as I said above about the 'special' regulations regarding 'Risk of harm'.
    Which would be Reg.35 to give you Support Group.

    Reg.35 says that you should be awarded SG if it could be seriously 'harmful' to yourself or others if you were made to do Work Related Activities.
    Last edited by nukecad; 21-01-20 at 20:21.
    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. #35
    It's not Reg 35 I've 'qualified' under, it's reg 34. I understand everything you're saying about points for WRAG & one descriptor only needed for SG. My concern is that with there being no need to discuss consciousness then the points 'scored' in 2017 have automatically disappeared (you can't achieve a score on something not asked or tested)and whether at re-assessment if I'm considered to no longer be eligible for SG whether it would affect me from being eligible for WRAG if the assessor is looking at a previous score of zero and not the 2017 one of fifteen. I'm sure if the assessor had examined consciousness then I would have been awarded fifteen points again.

    The award states WRT LCW says
    "Having considered the available evidence the Decision Maker has decided that (me) has scored 0 points from the appropriate descriptors contained in schedule 2 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations and therefore has limited capability for work (LCW)

    The Decision Maker has proceeded to consider whether (me) has Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA). Having further examined the available evidence the Decision Maker has decided that one or more of the descriptors contained in schedule 3 of the ESA regulations apply to (me), he therefore has LCWRA under regulation 34"


    This is what's confusing me. How the second paragraph applies in light of zero points for the first. Is this normal wording? I would have assumed you need to have a score of fifteen first before being considered for SG.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by scotleag View Post
    It's not Reg 35 I've 'qualified' under, it's reg 34. I understand everything you're saying about points for WRAG & one descriptor only needed for SG. My concern is that with there being no need to discuss consciousness then the points 'scored' in 2017 have automatically disappeared (you can't achieve a score on something not asked or tested)and whether at re-assessment if I'm considered to no longer be eligible for SG whether it would affect me from being eligible for WRAG if the assessor is looking at a previous score of zero and not the 2017 one of fifteen. I'm sure if the assessor had examined consciousness then I would have been awarded fifteen points again.

    The award states WRT LCW says
    "Having considered the available evidence the Decision Maker has decided that (me) has scored 0 points from the appropriate descriptors contained in schedule 2 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations and therefore has limited capability for work (LCW)

    The Decision Maker has proceeded to consider whether (me) has Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA). Having further examined the available evidence the Decision Maker has decided that one or more of the descriptors contained in schedule 3 of the ESA regulations apply to (me), he therefore has LCWRA under regulation 34"


    This is what's confusing me. How the second paragraph applies in light of zero points for the first. Is this normal wording? I would have assumed you need to have a score of fifteen first before being considered for SG.
    It sounds familiar to my last ESA assessment report, where the assessor, advised i be put in the WRAG , but i met the criteria for the SG, the DM superseded this and award the SG under reg 34, I scored 15 points in the same descriptor, Even though my WCA was Audio recorded ,and carried out in my home, one of my medical conditions that would have helped passport me on to PIP (mobility) was ignored basically the put stage 4 O/A of my Knee down as MSK problems generalising it

  7. #37
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,407
    That wording is nonsense.
    has scored 0 points..... and therefore has limited capability for work (LCW)
    If you have scored zero points then it's impossible by law for the DM to find: "therefore has limited capability for work (LCW)".
    Unless he has applied Regulation 29, which is similar to Reg.35 and says there would be a risk of harm if you were made to work.

    TBH I would ignore that completely, as it stands it simply doesn't make any sense.
    It looks like there may be something missing about Reg.29.

    On to the next bit-
    Reg 34(1) says:
    34.—(1) For the purposes of Part 1 of the Act, where, by reason of a claimant’s
    physical or mental condition, at least one of the descriptors set out in Schedule 3
    applies to the claimant, the claimant has limited capability for work-related activity
    and the limitation must be such that it is not reasonable to require that claimant
    to undertake such activity.
    He doesn't say just which of the Sched.3 descriptors he has applied though, which he should have done realy.
    Which makes me think that it may well have been Reg.35 instead of Sched.3 and he's just used the wrong wording again.

    Overall I would still say that it's most likely he has used both regulations 29 and 35, but not explained that properly on the decision letter. (or even used the wrong letter template).

    I would have assumed you need to have a score of fifteen first before being considered for SG.
    It doesn't work like that, the two parts of the assessment are entirely seperate even though done at the same time.
    There is no need to have any points at all before being considered for the Support Group descriptors.
    Indeed if it's obvious that you do meet a SG descriptor then they won't consider the points scoring descriptors at all, it would just be a waste of time.
    If it's obvious that you should be in SG then there is no need to consider WRAG - SG trumps WRAG every time.
    Where it's obvious that SG applies and so there is no need to assess points then it will always be a zero points score because no points were assessed.

    They actually do an extra step (to save time if they can) than what the standard wording on the decision letter says.
    1. They first see from the ESA50 and other evidence you send if its obvious that you should have SG, or if Reg.35 applies. If so then they award SG and don't even consider points (so zero points).
    2. If it's not obvious from the evidence then they will do the points scoring bit for WRAG, and assess if Reg.29 applies.
    3. And then after they have done the points scoring, whether you get 15 points or not, they will look at the SG, and reg.35, again in more detail.


    I think it is simply that wording on the decision letter that is wrong and so is confusing you.
    Their standard phrases often seem designed to confuse people, and when they use the wrong ones, and/or type them wrongly they get even more confusuing.
    Last edited by nukecad; 22-01-20 at 04:35.
    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.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    That wording is nonsense.

    If you have scored zero points then it's impossible by law for the DM to find: "therefore has limited capability for work (LCW)".
    Unless he has applied Regulation 29, which is similar to Reg.35 and says there would be a risk of harm if you were made to work.

    TBH I would ignore that completely, as it stands it simply doesn't make any sense.
    That's exactly what I thought. No sense at all. Yet that's exactly what it says.

    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    It looks like there may be something missing about Reg.29.
    There is no mention of either reg 29 or 35 anywhere in the report. The only regs mentioned are 19 & 34 of Social Security (ESA) regs 2008, 8b of Social Security (credits) Regs 1975 & Welfare Reform Act 2007, sections 1, 2 and schedule 2 (ESA IR). BTW the first page of the report has an X beside 'initial referral' but it's a re-referral and that's quite clear from the text where it says things like CONTINUES to be entitled...

    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    On to the next bit-
    Reg 34(1) says:
    He doesn't say just which of the Sched.3 descriptors he has applied though, which he should have done realy.
    Which makes me think that it may well have been Reg.35 instead of Sched.3 and he's just used the wrong wording again.

    Overall I would still say that it's most likely he has used both regulations 29 and 35, but not explained that properly on the decision letter. (or even used the wrong letter template).
    Yes, there's no mention of any particular descriptors anywhere though from my own knowledge of myself it has to be one or more from descriptors 1-5 inclusive with none of them from 6 onwards being applicable


    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    It doesn't work like that, the two parts of the assessment are entirely seperate even though done at the same time.
    There is no need to have any points at all before being considered for the Support Group descriptors.
    Indeed if it's obvious that you do meet a SG descriptor then they won't consider the points scoring descriptors at all, it would just be a waste of time.
    If it's obvious that you should be in SG then there is no need to consider WRAG - SG trumps WRAG every time.
    Where it's obvious that SG applies and so there is no need to assess points then it will always be a zero points score because no points were assessed.


    They actually do an extra step (to save time if they can) than what the standard wording on the decision letter says.
    1. They first see from the ESA50 and other evidence you send if its obvious that you should have SG, or if Reg.35 applies. If so then they award SG and don't even consider points (so zero points).
    2. If it's not obvious from the evidence then they will do the points scoring bit for WRAG, and assess if Reg.29 applies.
    3. And then after they have done the points scoring, whether you get 15 points or not, they will look at the SG, and reg.35, again in more detail.


    I think it is simply that wording on the decision letter that is wrong and so is confusing you.
    Their standard phrases often seem designed to confuse people, and when they use the wrong ones, and/or type them wrongly they get even more confusuing.
    I've bolded up this part of your post as it seems to me this is the appropriate bit. The HP has not included any descriptor scores on his report - of which I have two copies - one I asked for after the assessment and the other (identical) received alongside the DWP correspondence via a SAR. Although according to the DWP correspondence the HP has awarded no points in any of the areas which cannot be correct because, as previously mentioned the HP said there was no need to discuss consciousness.

    The HP seems to have submitted two medical reports both dated the same day. The first, eight pages, is on the assessment. Then there's a second report of two pages consisting of advice, prognosis and justification for advice. The advice is I meet the criteria for LCWRA "as they have severe functional disability" but mentions no specific SG descriptors. He also says (somewhat unlikely I think) that work could be considered within twelve months.

    You're probably right with these last two sentences. I know that the decision based on the HP advice is the correct one (even if it came as a bit of a surprise to me). It's this thought that in a year's time the next re-assessment HP is going to look at this and start from the basis of zero points.

  9. #39
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    8,407
    As said I'd simply ignore that letter, other than stating they have awarded SG it seems incomplete/wrong and so useless.

    And I wouldn't worry about it.
    The HP at your next reassessment will not see any of that at all, they only get your new ESA50 and any evidence you send with it (or send to them later before the assessment).

    This is why you should treat every reassessment as brand new, and send any relevant medical and other evidence again.
    The HP does not have access to anything that you sent for a previous assessment.

    The only information HPs get from the DWP about previous awards is if you were awarded LCW (WRAG) or LCWRA (Support Group) at your last assessment, no more than that.

    Remember that they are (supposed to be) assessing you as you are at the time of each assessment, not assessing how you were a year or two ago.
    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.

  10. #40
    Thanks. yes, it's quite clear and specific from the HP report that I was recommended for SG. Surprised though about previous assessments. The HP told me he had seen mine. Though I agree with you n the importance of taking things from scratch

Similar Threads

  1. ESA3 (Incap to ESA) general queries
    By Cathycat in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-18, 15:41
  2. Esa assessment terminated......on assessment rate now for nearly a year...help!!!
    By ultan in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-17, 17:58
  3. No assessment PIP but ESA Assessment
    By Jackie66 in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-11-16, 12:14
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-04-13, 00:03
  5. ESA awarded (WRAG) some queries, please help
    By michelle44 in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-12-12, 03:56

Posting Permissions

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