× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

“New style” ESA Work Requirements pending WCA / appeal

Tom Messere
forum member

Big Book of Benefits

Send message

Total Posts: 19

Joined: 8 February 2016

The penny finally dropped as to why DWP were initially insisting that everyone wanting to claim ” New Style” ESA had to do so within an online claim for UC. see http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9904/

“New style” ESA is not just another name for Contributory ESA in “Full Service / What Service?” UC areas or when claimed by an existing Live Service UC claimant rendered poorly. Nor was the reason a take up one to offset the risks involved in separating out contributory from income related benefits. Some may remember the old days of people losing IS (for sickness) claims while awaiting a “sorry not enough stamps” decision from Incapacity Benefit.

No, it’s all in the Work Requirements.

See the Full Service Guidance here: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/universal-credit-full-service-guidance - esp “Health and disabilities hub” - for description of requirements for UC claimants with limited capability awaiting a WCA or an appeal re WCA. And see “New style ESA” for how that mostly applies to New Style ESA claimants too.

Is this actually correct in regs or does it date from early DWP mistaken beliefs unreasonably held that all “New Style ESA claimants would be claiming UC anyway?

Those around in early ESA days may remember the DWP abandoning WFIs before a WCA as rather pointless. Either claimants were only claiming short term with a job to go back to (so a waste of time) . Or theywere still coming to terms with something more long term eg a mental health crisis, a cancer diagnosis etc (so the wrong time - esp when yet to have the input of a passing HP) . So under ESA you are treated as unable to work until the WCA says otherwise

Not so under UC - .  and according to DWP - for “New Style” ESA only claims. The DWP does not corrupt the blue sky preciousness of the new with learning from the past. Here while awaiting your WCA you must:
:
  a) accept a Claimant Commitment

  b) negotiate work requirements ,  from a default position of being in the “all work requirements group” and the “intensive work search regime” - possibly the least appropriate starting group for the newly ill - but based on DWP getting stuck on UC as a replacement for JSA.

Now within that,  a sensible UC work coach may well “switch off” all work requirements, but they might also follow the guidance about the potentially beneficial effects of a little work related activity to take your mind off your WCA :-).  So your work requirements could then be anything between no requirement at all and full jobseeker conditionality, hopefully with some allowances for health issues .

People who are in a “treated as” having limited capability will be referred for WCA immediately rather than at 29 days, so that gives less time for well intentioned misguided work coaches to fail to “do no harm” . But such a concept has disappeared - along with “duty of care” from the brave new UC and “new style” world…

In theory, then, people with special rules claims would still need to attend to accept a Claimant Commitment and be told about exciting job options and to be read sanctions riot acts. I wonder if too much being left to increasingly stretched common sense and the randomness of the por law guardian’s discretion?

Nor, by the way, adds our Good Grief Correspondent,  have DWP thought about prioritising payments for special rules in the way ESA does, safeguarding harmful information re DS1500s from full online view

Probably. then best to check the Regs on “New Style” ESA,  just in case this is another bit of “making it up as you go along” by DWP,  but that seems to be the new motto: “We are all jobseekers now!  Arbeit macht frei !”  :-(

Another area for much hanging on the telephone ? Any thoughts /experiences?

[ Edited: 10 Apr 2017 at 10:18 am by Tom Messere ]
Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Pesonally, I can see my encouraging Social Workers and their ilk to attend these WFIs with their clients. I can see me needing to go to a few as well.

They’re going to have some very high risk people coming through the door once again; when will they learn?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Tom - as i understand it, under new-style ESA you are treated as having LCW during the assessment phase (reg 26 of the ESA Regs 2013) which is what it does say under the new-style ESA guidance within the full service UC guidance -

A Work Capability Assessment (WCA) will need to be completed for new style ESA claimants in exactly the same way as for Universal Credit. For ESA purposes, the claimant may, depending on the circumstances, be treated as
having limited capability for work (and may therefore be entitled to benefit, where appropriate) until the WCA is completed, as long as they provide medical evidence.

But to get UC, without the ESA, you do have all work-related requirements during the assessment phase - there is no ‘treated as’ rule - although, as you say, a work coach may limit or even suspend them.

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

If you are “treated as” for the purposes of receiving assessment rate ESA, are you necessarily exempt from work-search requirements? Previous point on this:
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewreply/49876/

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Good point - I think if you’re on UC as well it’s a bit of an issue - you might need to meet the work-related requirements to get the UC - but if you are on new-style ESA without UC then I think it’s clear that you don’t have work search and work availability requirements - but I welcome any other views…