WCA descriptors - only lowest point scoring descriptor considered?

I had an ESA decision and an MR recently. In the decision for each activity it only referred to the lowest points scoring descriptor not being met and 0 points being scored. Each activity was listed and the reasons begun ‘The minimum requirement for’ and then went on to consider only the lowest point scoring descriptor and if that was not met did not consider the higher scoring descriptors and 0 points was scored.

On the SSCS1 I mentioned that I was concerned that higher scoring descriptors seem to have been ignored and that I thought they had taken the wrong approach when considering the WCA.

I have just had the appeal papers and they have addressed my concerns. In their submission they have stated that the lowest point descriptor is the hardest to do and that if they can do that one then obviously they can do the higher scoring tasks and therefore score no points. They give the example of mobilising. If some one can manage 200m+ then they obviously can mobilise all the lesser distances. They seem to have forgotten the descriptor about getting up/down 2 steps.

I thought that they were meant to consider all descriptors and select the one for each activity that applies that gives the most points? In some of the functional areas their approach would produce the same outcome but in others it clearly would not. My client has problems with her hands and the point I was making on the SSCS1 was about picking up and moving things. She would not be able to pick up and move a one litre carton of liquid. In the decision they have only considered the descriptor about a large box.

Am I missing something? Are the DWP correct in adopting this method?

It’s just a method adopted by the particular DM in that case - Maybe if you’re doing a few in a day it’s the quickest way through the pile?

If it’s inaccurate - you will be able to demonstrate this.

I have also noticed, and taken issue with, this approach to the upper limb descriptors. Contrary to what the DWP seem to be suggesting, there is no requirement to meet the lowest descriptor before the next one up can be considered. Where the descriptors are qualitatively different, every descriptor should be properly considered separately.

One could make the argument that under reg.19(6) ESA Regs 2008 that there is an implicit need to look at all descriptors related to any particular activity when assessing entitlement.

(6) Where more than one descriptor specified for an activity apply to a claimant, only the descriptor with the highest score in respect of each activity which applies is to be counted.

If they’ve only looked at the lowest scoring descriptor, how can they possibly know whether any of the other descriptors apply?