[Reblogged from Wordthings of Jon blog, with thanks]
There’s a paradox in the way Employment & Support Allowance was built. It affects 5,000 of the 2.5 million ESA claimants. Very few people know about it, and even fewer care. I’m one of those 5,000 people. This group includes people with degenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s dementia, or people with static but permanent conditions like my untreatable neurogenetic sleep disorder. The BBC confirmed what those of us who keep an eye on welfare have known for a while; that the Government is considering eliminating part of ESA and forcing those people to claim JSA. For us 5,000, this is a perfect storm of awfulness.
How does ESA work?
After the medical assessment (‘Work Capability Assessment’, WCA), people are assigned to one of three groups, the Work-Related Activity Group (WRAG), Support Group or they are found ‘fit for work’. Officially, and contrary to the concerted campaign of disinformation by the Government and media for the last five years, to get into the WRAG or Support Group, you must be medically incapable of any work. The difference is whether you are capable of work-related activity, like ‘writing a CV’. The WRAG comes with mandated ‘work related activity’ which is to ostensibly ‘prepare people for employment’.
The Paradox
There are 5,000 of us with permanent disabilities in the WRAG, classified as being “unable to work in the longer term”. We are in the position of being told we need to ‘prepare for employment’ while the Government itself says we are very unlikely to be able to work in anything resembling a reasonable timeframe. Personally, I have been in the WRAG for 5 years, since September 2010 and am currently undergoing my 8th WCA*. My condition has only gotten worse.
That people can be told “you need to get ready to work” while being told “you can’t work” by the same person defies logic.
The Change
Today, the BBC confirmed that the Government is considering eliminating the WRAG of ESA and moving us all to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). This is (understatement) a very bad idea, for a few reasons.
1: It is not legal to claim JSA while you can’t work , but if you’re in the WRAG, you cannot work. These people are going to be left with no legal source of income.
2: The WCA itself is crap and inaccurate and is biased against the poorest and most disabled areas of the country, as I’ve discussed previously [clickable link]. In these areas, you are more likely to be found fit for work or to go into the WRAG. Removing 30% of these people’s income is simply yet another attack on the poorest and most disadvantaged areas of the UK.
3: Even if the legislation was changed so these people became eligible for JSA, there is no way they could cope with the extra conditionality. People with mental illness, particularly, are already massively struggling and failing to meet the relatively lax conditionality of ESA.
“You must work, but you cannot work”.
There are 5,000 of us in the WRAG of ESA with the prognosis that we will be “unable to work in the longer term”. If (when?) this change goes through, we will be in the position of being permanently disabled to the point we, by the Government’s own admission, cannot work. They will then punish us for not being able to work by removing the income they’ve already cut by 30%.
We are an oversight. Given that we are only 0.2% of the ESA case-load, it seems beyond doubt that the situation of people who are unable to work in the longer term going into the WRAG was not intended, but we are too few to make enough noise to fix this on our own. We’re too few for the media to care about.
The charities that originally did the FoI request to show how many of us there were called for exemptions to this for their pet condition, shafting the rest of us without these conditions which are notable for the sympathy they elicit and their public awareness.
I’ve been fighting this on in my own way, including all 5,000 people. I’ve wrote to my MP and the media. I’m working on getting an official policy on this into my own Party, but I and the 4,999 others need help carrying all these torches. This whole policy must be opposed, but when that fight is over, the 5,000 still need your help.
Can anyone tell me if the cts have the right to decide what group you should be in, or is this the sole responsibility of the depth–wrap or support
Hello Nigel,
The courts can decide everything concerning the decision of any appeal. They can remove or add a status given.
IE:
Refused ESA WRAG by DWP. Accepted WRAG by HMCTs.
Accepted WRAG DWP. HMCTs Removed WRAG and placed into Suport group.
It can go either way. The courts have the right to find in favour of the DWP. or vice versa.
I hope this helps.
Won my appeal this month after a bitter fight with DWP who declared me FTW 2015 went into the WRAG after submitting new evidence to HMCTs Jan 16. Fought on to appeal and won SG with reg 35. Did not satisfy any schedule 3 descriptors.
Contribution based ESA 365 day rule ran out on the same day as my appeal. Today I was paid the IR payment. Made a complaint to ESA payments and will be paid the correct monies pronto.
DWP were made aware of this but failed to pay the correct amount of benefit to me. Even though they sent a letter of my awards to payments I would get last week.
Do not give up. Fight these Nazi corrupt Tory baa stools.
No.CE/1652/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Judge Mark
Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an appeal with the permission of a District Tribunal Judge from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 9 January 2013 allowing an appeal from a decision of a decision maker superseding an award of ESA following a medical examination. The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled ESA with the work related component because, although he failed to score points under schedule 2 to the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 (the 2008 Regulations), regulation 29 of those Regulations applied. The essence of this appeal is that the claimant contends that in addition, by virtue of regulation 35 of those Regulations, the tribunal should have found that he had limited capability for work-related activity.
The claimant was born in October 1951. At 25 April 2012, the date of the decision of the decision maker, he was therefore over 60 years old. He suffered from bronchiectasis, a chronic lung condition which left him prone to chest infections which, according to his GP’s letter 8 May 2012, if they continued at the rate they had occurred over the previous 18 months would result in his overall lung function deteriorating and his condition becoming more symptomatic. The GP’s advice was that he had benefited from being away from work, and if he returned to work his condition could deteriorate.
The tribunal accepted that evidence and found that there would be a substantial risk to the claimant’s health if he were found capable of work and that he was therefore to be treated as having limited capability for work by virtue of regulation 29(2)(b) of the 2008 Regulations. There is a similar provision in regulation 35(2) of those Regulations, which reads:
“(2) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work-related activity as determined in accordance with regulation 34(1) is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if –
(a) the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement; and
(b) by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity.”
The tribunal considered this as follows:
“The Tribunal considered what work related activity the appellant might be expected to carry out. There is an absence in the Regulations of a definition of a work related activity. However, the Tribunal did not consider that there would be a substantial risk to the appellant’s health caused by work related activity because that is likely to be a matter of attending interviews to consider his situation and what work he might be able to do. Furthermore if the appellant at a particular time were asked to attend for work related activity whilst suffering from a chest infection would be able to rearrange such activity [sic]. As a result the Tribunal did not consider that the appellant satisfied Regulation 35.”
Permission to appeal was given because guidance was sought from the Upper Tribunal with regard to the interrelation of regulations 29 and 35 of the 2008 Regulations.
Regulation 29 requires a person to be treated as having limited capability for work in certain specified circumstances. One of them is in substantially the same terms as regulation 35(2) except that the issue to be addressed by the decision maker or tribunal is the risk arising if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work.
It is self-evident that the consequences of being found not to have limited capability for work are not the same as being found not to have limited capability for work-related activity. A person who is found not to have limited capability for work is likely to need to obtain jobseeker’s allowance if he or she is in need of benefits and must then take the steps necessary to seek work. This can of itself have adverse consequences on the health of a claimant, particularly those with mental health problems (see IJ v SSWP, [2010] UKUT 408 (AAC) and CF v SSWP [2012] UKUT 29 (AAC). There are also the consequences to be considered if work is obtained, as discussed by the Court of Appeal in Charlton v SSWP, [2009] EWCA Civ 42.
It is plain that a person who is in poor health and unduly prone to infections may be at extra risk of infection in the workplace. It was consideration of that risk which led the tribunal in the present case to conclude that the claimant should be treated as having limited capability for work.
With regard to the risk to health of being found not to have limited capability for work-related activity, it is also necessary for the tribunal to consider the consequences of such a finding in the individual case. The tribunal in the present case observed that this is not made easier by the absence of any definition of work-related activity. In fact there is a very broad definition which in this case is of assistance as appears below. .
The legislation
In order to consider the consequences of not being found to have limited capability for work-related activity, it is necessary to consider the statutory and regulatory provisions for somebody in that position.
The statutory provisions are contained in sections 9 to 16A of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (the 2007 Act), although section 16A, relating to hardship payments, only came into force on 26 November 2012. So far as that section is concerned, it illustrates that previously there will have been cases of hardship where the reduced amount payable by way of ESA where a person was not treated as incapable of work-related activity, and any risk of that hardship affecting a claimant’s health had to be taken into account under regulation 35(2). Such cases will be less frequent in the light of the amendment to the 2007 Act and to the 2008 Regulations but will, no doubt, still occur.
With regard to the provisions in force at the time of the decision under appeal to the tribunal, section 9(1) of the 2007 Act provides that “whether a person’s capability for work-related activity is limited by his physical or mental condition, and if it is, whether the limitation is such that it is not reasonable to require him to undertake such activity shall be determined in accordance with regulations.” The remaining provisions of section 9 set out the provisions which can be included in the regulations. Section 11 provides for regulations in respect of work-related health-focused assessments by approved health care professionals of persons entitled to ESA but who are not in the support group. The support group is defined in section 24(4) as those who have, or are treated as having, limited capability for work-related activity. Regulations had been made for such assessments but the assessments were suspended in July 2010 and the regulations themselves were later repealed with effect from 1 June 2011.
Section 12(1) provides for regulations concerning work-focused interviews, defined in section 12(7) as interviews by the Secretary of State conducted for such purposes connected with getting the person interviewed into work, or keeping him in work, as may be prescribed.
It is only when one comes to section 13 that one arrives at work-related activity. Section 13(1) provides as follows:
“Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on a person who is subject to a requirement imposed under section 12(1) a requirement to undertake work-related activity in accordance with regulations as a condition of continuing to be entitled to the full amount payable to him in respect of an employment and support allowance apart from the regulations.”
Work-related activity is defined in section 13(7) in relation to any person as “activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so”. At the date of the decision under appeal there was no further definition, but section 13(8) expressly includes as an activity work experience or a work placement. I observe that even with this express inclusion, the activity must be one which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so, so that if a person is patently not going to be able to obtain work at any stage, it is difficult to see how they could be required to carry out work-related activities. So too, where somebody is already in a suitable apprenticeship or other unpaid work with a view to gaining work experience, the Secretary of State may sometimes find it difficult to show that requiring them to give up that work and undertake other work makes it more likely that they will obtain work or be able to do so.
What is also plain is that the initial work-focused interview cannot be a work-related activity, as work-related activities can only be required after that initial interview has occurred or been required. The work-focused health assessment would also appear to be separate from the work-related activities both because it is dealt with separately and because it is an assessment and would not appear of itself to make it more likely that a claimant will obtain or remain in work or make that more likely.
Section 14 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State in prescribed circumstances to provide a person who is required to take part in a work-focused interview under section 12(1) with an action plan. Section 14(3) includes provision for action plans for persons who are required to take part in work-related activity to contain particulars of the necessary activities. The requirement for an action plan does not therefore mean that a person with an action plan necessarily has to take part in work-related activities, any more than a person who undergoes a work-focused interview has to take part in work-related activity afterwards.
Section 15 of the 2007 Act empowers the Secretary of State in prescribed circumstances to give directions as to what is and what is not to be regarded as a work-related activity. Any such direction must be reasonable, must be included in a written action plan and may be varied or revoked subsequently. Finally, section 16 provides for the Secretary of State to contract out the conduct of interviews, the provision of action plans and the giving of directions under sections 12, 14 and 15 of the Act.
Provisions as to work-focused interviews are contained in regulations 54 to 62 of the 2008 Regulations. Not everybody can be required to take part in a work-focused interview. I note that regulation 59 provides for the deferral of such an interview if it would not, at the time it was due to take place, have been of assistance to the claimant or if it was not appropriate in the circumstances. What is clear is that the tribunal was in error in treating such interviews as work-related activity.
Work-related activities are now dealt with by the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2011 (the 2011 Regulations). Under regulation 3, the Secretary of State may require certain persons to undertake work-related activity as a condition of continuing to be entitled to the full amount of ESA payable to him. In order for it to apply to the claimant in this case he must have been required to take part in, or have taken part in, one or more work-focused interviews pursuant to regulation 54 of the 2008 Regulations. Regulation 3(4) provides that the requirement must be reasonable having regard to the claimant’s circumstances and must not require him to apply for a job or undertake work or undergo medical treatment. It must also, in my judgment, be, in the words of section 13 of the 2007 Act an “activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so”.
There are therefore two preconditions before any work-related activity can be called for. First there must have been a requirement for the claimant to attend a work-focused interview. The Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether to impose such a requirement. Secondly, following such a requirement being imposed the Secretary of State has a further discretion as to whether to require the claimant to undertake such activity.
If and when those preconditions are satisfied, regulation 5 of the 2011 Regulations provides that the Secretary of State must notify the claimant of the requirement to undertake work-related activity by including the requirement in a written action plan given to the claimant. This must specify the work-related activity which he has to undertake. The requirement can be disapplied by regulation 6 if it would be unreasonable to require it at a particular time, and regulation 7 provides for a claimant to seek reconsideration of the action plan.
The case law
There are a number of recent decisions of the Upper Tribunal requiring the Secretary of State to provide sufficient information about work-related activity for the claimant to present a case and for the tribunal to make an informed decision. In many cases, without establishing the range of work-related activity there is nothing against which to assess the regulation 35(2) risk (see AH v SSWP, [2013] UKUT 118 (AAC) (Judge Jacobs); CE/3477/2012 (Judge Wright); MT v SSWP, [2013] 545 (AAC) (Judge Gray); and my own decision in AP v SSWP, [2013] 553 (AAC)). There are considerable difficulties in many of those cases in obtaining adequate information from the Secretary of State in that (1) it is often the case on an otherwise successful appeal that the Secretary of State is relying on an assessment of the claimant’s problems very different from those found by the tribunal; (2) work-focused interviews may not take place until after the appeal process has completed; and (3) until such an interview is required or has occurred, the Secretary of State cannot require the claimant to undertake any work-related activity – he is under no obligation to prepare an action plan and it may be premature to prepare such a plan, although this should not prevent him from providing the tribunal, as part of the appeal process, with the best evidence he can where regulation 35 is likely to be in issue as to the sort of work-related activity he, or his contractor, has in mind for the claimant.
Where the decision maker has decided that the claimant is entitled to ESA, the decision maker has been under a duty to consider regulation 35 and can be expected to provide reasons for the decision and the evidence on which it was based, although even in those cases the decision maker may have taken a different view of the claimant’s health problems from those found by the tribunal. Where, as here, the decision under appeal is that a claimant is not entitled to ESA at all, there will have been no need for the decision maker to consider regulation 35, and there can have been no work-focused interview.
In AP v SSWP, I drew attention to the duty of the Secretary of State under regulation 2(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008 to assist the tribunal in furthering the overriding objective and to assist the tribunal generally and under rule 24 of those rules to provide copies of all relevant documents in the possession of the decision maker. However, with the contracting out of interviews and decisions on action plans, the relevant documents may not be with the decision maker and it may be necessary for the tribunal to give directions to the Secretary of State to produce documents, or provide evidence relevant to regulation 35 issues either before the hearing or when their relevance becomes apparent during it. In appropriate cases a tribunal can determine that the claimant is entitled to ESA and give brief reasons for that decision and adjourn the question whether regulation 35(2) applies with directions for further evidence.
As pointed out by Judge Jacobs in AH v SSWP, [2013] UKUT 118 (AAC), at paragraph 31, however, there are cases where it is apparent that regulation 35(2) cannot apply.
Conclusion
In my judgment this is a case where it is apparent that regulation 35(2) cannot assist the claimant. On the basis of the tribunal’s finding as to his health problems, there would seem to be no real possibility of his resuming work and it is difficult to see how any interview could come within the definition of work-focused interview in section 12(7) of the 2007 Act since, due to his ill health, there would seem to be no prospect of his getting into work. For the same reason, there would not seem to be any work-related activity that the claimant could be required to do, in that, because of his health problems, there would be no activity which would make it even arguably more likely that he would be able to obtain work.
It follows that, on the basis of the tribunal’s findings of fact, there are no work-focused interviews or work-related activities that the Secretary of State could lawfully require the claimant to attend or undertake and that, in the absence of any other issue, there is no risk to his health as a result of not being found to have limited capability for work-related activity. Accordingly he does not fall within regulation 35(2).
I also note that the effect of regulation 54(2) and (3) is that the claimant could only have been required to take part in a work-focused interview so long as he had not reached the age at which a woman of the same age would attain pensionable age. The claimant reached that age on 6 March 2013. I do not know whether he has been asked to attend a work-focused interview since the date of the tribunal’s decision, or, if so, when that was. Nor do I know the practice as to work-focused interviews or the time scale within which they normally take place with a claimant of his age. In the present case, of course, he could not have been required to attend any such interview before his successful appeal to the tribunal on 9 January 2013 and could not be required to undertake work-related activities, even if there were such activities that applied to him, after 6 March 2013. While that may not affect the legal position, which must be looked at as at the date of the decision of the Secretary of State, for practical purposes such issues are now academic.
(signed) Michael Mark
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
I have been on ESA and WRAG for many years. A few months ago they sent me along to a group and one of the things was to complete a CV. I have had mental health problems all my live and I have been struggling to receive the right treatment. However, I found to my horror that the job centre had erased everything I had done work wise throughout the 15 years that I have been off work this time around. That stymied my attempt at a CV as they had sent me to other groups and don’t keep any record beyond the last 6 months.
They want people like me to find a job but do nothing to help us.
I’m not sure I understand what’s happening with ESA Is it only new claims?, or Will it be inactive once I have another capability assessment?
I’m really stressed by this
It only applies for new claimants and it doesn’t come in straight away, the information I have is it doesn’t start till April 2018. We will be putting a full statement on what the changes mean for disabled people within a few days, as soon as it is ready.
This is one of the weirder things for me — I think I’m one of the 5,000, i was on wrac for 2 years but then i was moved from the activity groups where I checked in monthly and wrote cv’s and stff to just seeing a person at the job centre every 6-8 months who asks if i’m doing anything differently. When I asked why, they said the limit for it was 2 years so i’d be doing this from now on. so it’s a ridiculous system.
Does anyone know if you are in the ESA work related group if you are I’ll and can’t go to the appointment and have a doctors note can the stop your ESA money lyn
Best thing you can do is contact them before the appointment (DWP and/or Work programme provider) and let them know you have a medical appointment you must attend, say you have a Doctors letter – try to get your appointment with them re-arranged
i was in the support group before i got sanctioned for 9 months because my local DHSS office lied about me not filling in a change of address form when i moved home last year and after i started getting benefits again i was moved to the WRAG for some unknown reason but after following the guide below i was recently moved back to the support group hopefully this guide will be able to help some of you . it will also help if you can get a letter from your doctor saying you are unable to attend the assessment because of the way your condition/health affects you.
https://www.nawra.org.uk/Documents/Cardiff_Mar_10/Fit%20for%20Purpose%20%20A%20Guide%20to%20Completing%20the%20ESA50.pdf
sorry i forgot to add this form is slightly different from the capability for work assessment form but most of it is exactly the same and all the descriptors needed are the same as well
dose this mean I have go through what I did in 2012 when atos said I was fit for work and haad to appeal wich took 12 mounths wich I won to get esa I was on jsa but had to get a sick note every 4 weeks from my gp till my case was heard and won and I got esa at a price I have to attend the rbli royal ligion britsh legion industries e mail http://www.rbli.co.uk I have to go or they will stop my money wich is infact esa £20 less than I was getting before they then send me on a corse s run by a company called go train wich if you don’t go again your money will be stoped ive now got to do a new cv to prepare me for work the first question is the type of work im looking for is but im not he doctor says im unfit for work my heath has got worse 2 years a go I had my small right toe and some of the bone taken out of my right foot as I had a bone infction I cant stand for long and need a stick to walk with plus I have celitus in my left foot wich swells with in an hour of me being awake and ive type 2 db I take 24 pills a day to help me and im fit to work in there eyes god help us all
If they’re willing to do away with the WRAG, surely it would only be a matter of time before they do away with the Support Group? Which I am part of. I truly feel for anyone in the WRAG too. It’s quite blatant that cutting benefits essentially means going through the process of eliminating each support type, beginning with the most vulnerable (because you know, sick people are all lazy and do it on purpose and won’t fight back). Obviously they’re going to start with the “easiest”, because if you can attend the WRAG, you’re going to go on job seeker’s allowance at some point anyway. Obviously, it’s not the case, but we all know that’s how they’ll get around it…”since these people are supposed to get back to work in x amount of time,bla bla”. The major problem with that is, just like the article states, one cannot claim job seeker’s allowance, if one is not fit enough to flexibly look for work and take on any old thing.
And from what I’ve heard about many of the WRAG, they’re pretty dire and essentially a means to bully people back into work. In fact, I know of someone who was brought to tears in one of those groups and ended up having a panic attack, because mister high and mighty made out that certain someone was just a lazy nothing. The irony is, the more pressure they put onto sick people (whether it be a physical, biological or psychological complaint), the sick people get more sick from the pressure and thus need the benefit for longer. I really don’t see how that’s such a difficult concept to grasp one’s mind around.
Another little thought for Tories…how about they focus on corporate tax evasion, instead of chasing after people that are in a vulnerable situation through no fault of their own. Pretty sure they’d find a lot of ‘lost’ money that way.
That ‘little thought’ about corporate tax evasion is not a little thought. It should be one of our main tools in pointing out the hypocrisy of this insanely inhumane system. PS I know you were being sarcastic, I just wanted to make an extra point 🙂
It’s the nasty party and Smith is truly nasty and a 24 carat scumbag. ..THE FIGHT GOES ON
Sandra.
I had a accident at work in 1991 and done my back in its got worse and affects my hands and feet to i was on income support and incapaty benefit they took me off that about four years ago and i went on esa on 30th may 2015 i got married my husband works full time so now they have took me of esa complety and i was on disablity living allowance and now i have had a letter that they want to take me of this and i gotta apply for pip but my dla was for life im dreading filling in form just encase i dont get it so if i dont what am i ment to live on just my husbands wages been told gotta pay full rent and full ctax im so stressed out
They’re not talking about cutting WRAG and forcing people onto JSA, just lowering the amount people get through WRAG to the same level as JSA.
We’ll see what they announce on Wednesday
Indeed we will.
you will get accurate up to date info by email if u go to benefit and work who are based in scandinavia so the uk govt cant shut them down like they did when black triangle were trying to help claimants. they give very good info and have helped a lot and you dont have to be a member to get info. by the way membership is not too pricey and worth it. good luck
Is this the real reason for Universal Credit? Change the names of all the benefits so none of us are sure of what we are getting so won’t know how much we are entitled to!! This government have been brainwashing us for years and throw so much at us that they think we won’t notice these sanctions until it’s too late
So this latest attack on those who fall into the group referred to by David Cameron 5 years ago on the Andrew Marr Show “The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society.” FAILED!
Welfare reforms were touted to reduce the amount of Benefit Fraud (0.7% according to the DWP) now they are attacking the 5,000 in the mid-range between disabled and “Normal”. Hang on 5,000/2,500,000×100=0.2% so an even smaller amount.
This government is morally corrupt, they attack the vulnerable whilst doing nothing to claw back the tax avoided by the fat cats of business.
What can I do to help? I’m one of the 5,000
Hello Nicola
There are a wide variety of ways in which you (and anyone else reading this ) can help DPAC,
Every single act that people take, from signing a petition to tweeting our messages – right up to storming the doors of the Commons Chamber – every single act however big or small, makes a difference, and it all adds up to one big whole.
Here are some ideas on how you can help DPAC
if you are not already a member, you could consider joining – email mail@dpac.uk.net for details
there are local DPAC groups all over the country – there is a list here of local dpac groups and how to contact them
If you can, come out with us on protests, everyone is welcome – check out the DPAC blog for details, but there is no problem if you can’t protest,
If you are on social media twitter and or facebook – tweet out to raise awareness. We have regular twitter protests (advertised on the blog)- all welcome to join it
You can write to your own MP and local press, letters in the local press do get read
Sign petitions – although many petitions don’t make much of an impact – occasionally they do make a big impression so its worth spending a bit of time signing those you agree with
If you have any more specific ideas in ways that you can help DPAC – we can use just about any skills, experience and ability that people have to offer, then please get in touch via email mail@dpac.uk.net
DPAC runs off the volunteer efforts of its members and supporters – so if you would like to help we’d like to hear from you.
They thinking to kill us all
ESA has long been a farce, primarily because it was designed to be claimed on a short term basis, with little thought about the minority of people who are still in receipt of it after the 13 week assessment phase. WRAG throws up a number of anomalies, such as the one outlined here. However, unless I’ve read the policy document about changes to ESA wrongly, it doesn’t say people in WRAG should be moved onto JSA. Instead, it proposes the rate for ESA WRAG is brought into line with that of JSA, a cut of nearly £30 per week, on the basis this additional payment incentivises people to stay ill. Obviously £103.00 provides such a jet setting lifestyle that once in receipt of it no one ever wants to work again. So, the document acknowledges that WRAG should still exist but proposes incentivising people on low incomes by making them even poorer whilst incentivising the rich by giving them more.
Well said Sasha – typical Tory government attacking on the most vulnerable in society whilst the rich grabbers get away with it.
£80 + cut in benefits
——————————–
now aged 60 WORKED FOR 35 YRS paid tax N I
last employment Tesco 18 years Retired on medical grounds in 2005 with a small ill health pension £60pw
Incapacity benefit aprocx £104 till
Asessed By ATOS 2012 HEALED scored Zero points
no reconsideration 11 months waiting for tribunal Scored 15 points 1 further month on reduced benefit believe approx £84
then I R ESA now recieve £21 pw
———-
atend jobcentre once every 6 months only once ever tried to get me to do anything some form of course to improve my mental focus or oher such rubish
told them they could sign me up but due to my disability dont expect me to attend , told them would have to fund to fund taxi for myself and partner ( dont go very far by myself and the jobcentree is an hours bus away )and would need to do a risk asesment ( impossible as they hold no data on a ” units ” medical history and are unable to input into the system i know i tried providing mine ——————————
i did try to get them to reconsider but its like banging your head against a brick wall
———————————————————–
Subject Reconsideration in-order to be put into the Support Group
———————————————————————————————-
Having won my apeal i now find myself in the ” WRAG ”
I believe if the DM had investigated the data used at the Tribunal then it would be clear i should be in the Support group
Having several Muscoskeletal conditions all asociated with chronic pain
all classed as debilitating and degenerative with no expectation of improvement
Fused Spine with degenerative disc disease at all levels of the lumbar a#spine along with plate irregularity “scheuermanns ” disease
Scheuermann’s disease is notorious for causing lower and mid-level back and neck pain, which can be severe and disabling. The sufferer may feel pain at the apex of the curve, which can be aggravated by physical activity and by periods of standing or sitting;
this can have a significantly detrimental effect to their lives as their level of activity is curbed by their condition
Hip “Perthes Disease
Common symptoms include hip, knee (hip pathology can refer pain to a normal knee), or groin pain, exacerbated by hip/leg movement, especially internal hip rotation (twisting the leg toward the center of the body). The pain is moderate to severe, at times rendering the patient unable to stand. There is a reduced range of motion at the hip joint, and there is a painful or antalgic gait. There may be atrophy of thigh muscles from disuse and an inequality of leg length. In some cases, some activity can cause severe irritation or inflammation of the damaged area including standing, walking, running, kneeling, or stooping repeatedly for an extended period of time. In cases exhibiting severe femoral osteonecrosis, pain is usually a chronic, throbbing sensation exacerbated by activity
Also have refered pain and problems with the other leg due to altered walking patterns
Arthritis and cartlidge
Have developed problems in both kneecaps over the last year which are not helped by any increased mobility
that apart i believe that the following regulation should be taken into consideration
—————————
The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008
Exceptional circumstances Regulation 29
29. (1) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work as determined in accordance with the limited capability for work assessment is to be treated as having limited capability for work if paragraph (2) applies to the claimant.
(2) This paragraph applies if—
(b)the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement and, by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work.
would i suffer further cuts ?
re -asessed put into support group october
won extra £88pw notified wedensday yipee
lost extra £75 rent and council tax notified thursday
hi you need to go to CAB and check this is right. It doesn’t sound as if it is