WRAG to SG re-assessments-Role of JCP Personal Adviser

We are seeing many clients who have been told by their Personal Advisers at the local jobcentres to enlist our assistance in requesting re-assessments for move from WRAG to SG. In a couple of instances, the PA has actually rung us to make a formal referral, explaining that in their opinion the claimant was not capable of WRAG, and could we request re-assessment. On one of these calls I asked whether JCP PAs didn’t have the authority to make a referral for re-assessment themselves, at which point the conversation became somewhat frosty!

As far as I was aware, the SSWP has the option under Reg 30 (ESA regs) to re-assess a claim. So I am interested to know why Jobcentres are unwilling to use the powers available to them and are, in effect, asking us to do their work for them.

Has anyone else experienced anything similar? all comments welcome.

yes - this is a regular occurance with JCP and providers - there have been previous treads on this issue. It is an interesting question as to why JCP can’t / won’t refer a case back to a DM to consider revising / superseeding the award. Its not unknown for claimants to be referred for advice on this when (a) they clearly have no grounds for SG (b) to challenge a previous ESA decision outside the absolute time limit.

We have the same here. It’s a farcical situation whereby JC think tenant should be in SG but have to refer to us to ask them to do it! We also have advisers from the Work Programme Provider referring people for the same reason. Presumably they are all under pressure to get people off their books but it’s the system that they are part of that deemed them fit for work in the first place.

The irony is when the they go for another medical months later they will probably be found fit for work at worst or stay in WRAG at best.

Has someone ever tried to measure the work generated by JC+?

It’s just the same here- a very regular occurrence. We’ve not done a mapping exercise to measure how much work JCP (and local WFA provider) generates but we really should. It’s finding the time…...

Perhaps this can be raised at national stakeholder meetings?

This is clearly a situation that persists across the country and has done for a long time. I can understand why DWP/provider staff don’t refer the question internally (presumably there is no process for actually doing this given it was a DWP decision in first place - and assume staff would be strongly discouraged from doing so by management if there were). We would love to bill DWP for the work we do on each ‘referral’.

It is (yet another) example of the problems with the WCA and DWP administration!

Good point Peter - will email operational stakeholders now and post here when I have a response…

Thanks Daphne- much appreciated.

Sadly I have destroyed the paperwork now but I have seen evidence fo an advisor referring a WRAG claimant back for consideration of SG entry and they got on there on the say of the PA that made the referral. It was someone at Dudley JC that made the referral.

It was a few years back mind but I managed to persuade our local JCP staff to do the same.

It is also a common scenario here, unfortunately the JC+ adviser doesn’t seem to have any specific information about why they think the claimant should be in the Support group (eg Sch 3 or Reg 35) so it leaves the claimant with a rather vague idea about the whole matter - quite reasonably they take the view that if JC+ say they should be in the SG then the whole matter is a foregone conclusion

I can appreciate that the JC+ staff are often just doing their best for a claimant who is clearly unable to do WR activity but it would be very helpful if they were more specific - perhaps writing it on the action plan, which would negate the long lists of providers that have recently come out with any appeal looking at Reg.35.  It would also be good if they were more willing to trigger a reassesment themselves.

Having said that the latest episode of this has resulted in an appeal where the Tribunal has not only been asked to refuse the appeal for the SG but also to remove points from Sch 2 and thereby take the claimant off ESA altogether

In one of my cases, the JCP advisor actually rang me to make the referral, explaining that she could see that the client was clearly going to struggle with WRA. I asked if she could provide a brief letter explaining her concerns. Advisor then went to ask her manager, and returned with a much icier tone and an absolute refusal to provide anything in writing.

It appears we are up against the dreaded “internal guidance” once again!

Hi

We recently obtained some JCP Operational Guidance for ESA claimants where the following is stated:

Claimant Fails to Participate in a Mandatory Interview
[...]
38. Exceptionally, there may be cases where a claimant is placed in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) by the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) process and there is a genuine doubt about the decision. If, despite attempting to meet the claimant’s individual needs, doubts persist about the claimant’s ability to participate in the mandatory interview and there is evidence for reconsideration of the decision, phone the Labour Market Decision Maker (LM DM) to discuss whether they agree to seeking a review of the WCA outcome. The Adviser must be able to provide the LM DM with evidence of engaging with the claimant to support any such request.
39. The LM DM decides, on the evidence available, whether to revisit the decision. Where the LM DM has been asked to consider seeking a review of the WCA outcome decision, the Adviser might decide to defer the mandatory interview to a later date to allow the review process to take place.

This is from the following chapter:
05 Jobcentre Plus Offer
08 Failure to Attend/Failure to Participate in a Work-Focused Interview and Failure to Undertake Work-Related Activity

This guidance would not be of help to the referrals you are getting from Work Programme Providers but might be helpful for the contact you are getting directly from the JCP advisors?

We get a lot of clients coming to see us as well, having been sent by their Advisor. On a couple of occasions, the supersession request has ended up with the client being removed from ESA altogether! In the most recent case, I gave the client a letter to give to her PA requesting details of the provision in our area and why he feels the client can’t cope with this. Funnily enough, I don’t expect a reply!!

I have had several referrals from JC+ for old decisions to place learning disabled clients in WRAG. Each time, I make sure I tell DWP that Jobcentre’s opinion is that the client should be in Support group just so they know their own staff are picking up on wrong decisions.

Another one this week! Client referred to us for assistance in requesting a re-assessment as is struggling to comply with WRA due to significant worsening of health conditions. Client was told by her personal adviser that they do not have the authority to request a re-assessment.

When will they do their job properly as provided for in the regulations, and stop lying to claimants?

Did you get a response from operational stakeholders, Daphne?

I haven’t Benny - they’re not quick! But you have prompted me to send a chasing email and request a response asap. Will post as soon as I hear.