Potential ESA sanction due to non-attendance of work-focussed interview

My colleague at Phoenix Norcas has had experience of dealing with such matters in that the client was advised to obtain another sick note stating that the existing condition had worsened and that on the particular day in question the client was unable to attend the work focussed interview. This sick note then gets attached to the ‘Good Cause’ letter from the JCP with a written explanation to this effect.

I’ve just had a client who was sanction after missing an app’t which didn’t exist (admin mix up due to change in adviser at the training centre). Sanction was put in place at end of Jan, letters from DWP did not explain why and client went round in circles with ESA, training provider and local Job Centre before coming to us for help.

I spoke to ESA several times who seemed powerless to end the sanction without the WP09 forms from the training provider. The training provider insisted they had submitted them (twice, after persistence on our part to re-do them) but ESA still said they’d not been received.
This went on for several more weeks and even as an experienced adviser I was getting nowhere.

Client phoned her MP and it was sorted within 2 days and all backpay paid immediately. Still no explanation from DWP though. I just hope the MP’s office are good at social policy and raise this further to stop this from keep happening.

My client was living on the WRAG component of £28 for 12 weeks while this was going on.

Obtaining a domicillary hearing for her appeal is likely to be problematic too. Hasn’t TS recently announced a blanket suspension of domicillary hearings even in cases where a DH had already been agreed?

Re the WFI, I think I would formally write to whoever she is due to see again explaining it is not possible for her to attend, that she has an ongoing SG appeal and requesting either a deferral of further interviews or a continuation of telephone interviews. Ideally include evidence (presumably you’ve submitted some for the ongoing appeal) with the letter. If she then gets sanctioned you’ll just have to go down the MR road but I would definitely be referring the issue to her MP as well at that point.

Thanks very much for all your advice.

see DMG memo 2/14 to deal with the fall out if it gets that far.

Their insisting on an appointment at their office may represent a failure to make reasonable adjustments and thus fall foul of S20 & 149 of the Equality Act.

A strongly worded first letter before action and a phone call to Civil Legal Advice on 0845 345 4 345 would be in order if it were my client. Setting up the Legal Help claim can be a PITA but if you’ve not got a solicitor behind you it might ring hollow. CLA will deal with a third party so long as you’ve got your client sat next to you.

I had very similar case and they backed down once they realised we were serious about taking them to court.

DManville - 24 April 2014 12:22 PM

see DMG memo 2/14 to deal with the fall out if it gets that far.

Their insisting on an appointment at their office may represent a failure to make reasonable adjustments and thus fall foul of S20 & 149 of the Equality Act.

A strongly worded first letter before action and a phone call to Civil Legal Advice on 0845 345 4 345 would be in order if it were my client. Setting up the Legal Help claim can be a PITA but if you’ve not got a solicitor behind you it might ring hollow. CLA will deal with a third party so long as you’ve got your client sat next to you.

I had very similar case and they backed down once they realised we were serious about taking them to court.

Equality Act was the first thing that came into my head too! Reasonable adjustments HAVE to be made or considered in the workplace, but presumably the DWP have yet to be challenged on it themselves.

Geri-G - 25 April 2014 02:16 PM

Equality Act was the first thing that came into my head too! Reasonable adjustments HAVE to be made or considered in the workplace, but presumably the DWP have yet to be challenged on it themselves.

I belive there is case law in the pipeline if they don’t back down and adopt a more reasoned approach.

and don’t forget this too