Support Group appeal - Claimant’s NHS counselling suggested as least demanding WRA in DM submission

I vaguely remember reading something about this somewhere on the discussion forum. I tried Forum search but cannot find anything through the search function (which could be my fault).
Mainly, I was wondering whether this would be acceptable, without the consulting the counselling provider/therapist first? Would this not change the nature of the counsellor - client relationship, or even jeopardise the success of the treatment?
Has anyone any ideas how to deal with this point?

Are you sure the DM is not saying WRA can include counselling and as your client is already attending this they can do this level of WRA so should be in the WRAG. The correct question under IM is the least AND most demanding form of WRA in the clients area. This should be provided in your submission. Is it correct for your area? Is it correct what they state is the most and least demanding even within the papers of the appeal. Is it appropriate- Football Training at Everton FC is one that they list. Is it local-Or locations in the appellant ‘area’ 120 miles away.  Is it correct-Or companies that ceased trading years ago. and if it is not is that relevant to your case? and if so why?

Regulation 3(4)(b)(ii) of the ESA(WRA) Regs tells us that a requirement to undertake WRA must not require a person to undergo medical treatment.

Thanks for the responses. The papers definitely said continue to attend ‘his counselling sessions’, so I will try ‘to argue the reg with not requiring to undergo medical treatment.

And none of the activities suggested by DM in submission as suitable for appellant are listed under the (contracted out) work-related activities on offer by local providers, but seem to be activities that would have to be prescribed by JCP adviser/workcoach (or whatever they are called) instead of sending claimant to a provider.

Will have to spend some time getting reacquainted with IM and look at other caselaw - thanks to wcainfo.net this is a lot easier to access now!

Also worth noting that IM does not only require the SoS to identify the most and least demanding of the WRAC in the claimant’s area - it also requires that the SoS identify which particular WRAC (out of the range available) he considers the appellant could actually participate in without substantial risk - i.e. taking into account the claimant’s limitations.

They never do that bit.

Whatever they are or are not saying, in my view therapeutic counselling in order to help the patient address and cope with ongoing mental health problems is not work related activity.  The fact that it might eventually assist the person return to work at some time in the future is neither here nor there; but that is not its aim.  Its aim is to help the patient get well, in the same way that any other course of treatment is designed to do.

Not to mention that counselling can (temporarily) make a mental health condition worse as traumatic memories are brought to the surface.

As I know from experience, the relationship between counsellor and counselled is completely confidential - as such, incorporating it into WRA, with the expectation that you would be required to confirm that it’s taking place with a JCP work coach regularly, comes awfully close to breaching that confidentialty in my opinion. I didn’t even discuss it with my partner.

AndreaM - 15 February 2017 01:23 PM

.... thanks to wcainfo.net this is a lot easier to access now!

Yay .... cheers Andrea!