tribunal reasons and WCA reassessment date

Tribunals are now making a recommendation of when the claimant should be reassessed - for example “The tribunal recommends that the Department reassesses within 12 months”. We understand the maximum period they can recommend is 36 months.

ESA manager at our local BC advise that they are awaiting guidance on whether the recommended period runs from the date of the DM decision or tribunal decision. Obviously if it is the former and the recommendation is 12 months given the appeal delays 12 months could mean next week (so no change in practice to ‘immediate’ issue of new ESA50 following tribunal!).

As you are also aware tribunals now include a standard phrase explaining their decision. We are advised the five options are:

The tribunal received cogent oral evidence
Different conclusion substantially same facts
cogent documentary evidence
missapplied relevant law
report contained signifficant error

Update / confirmation of the above info welcome!

I’ve only seen ‘cogent oral evidence’ so far.

Quite how the tribunal can be told that their is a “maximum period” they can put as a reccommendation for reassessment on their decision notice escapes me.

I am sure that the fiercely independent tribunal judiciary will eventually manage to find a claimant it thinks should not be reassessed for a period of longer than 3 years….

We were discussing this in our office.

Tribunals are able to say different things with the timescale. I have seen ‘do not reassess within period X’ and reassess ‘within period X’. To me these indicate different things and the ‘reassess within’ gives greater descretion to the DWP.

ESA practice to know has been to reassess asap, so I think we must monitor when people are being called back as we may be able to then advise the tribunal service what it means in practice when they say ‘reassess within’ etc.

I suspect different tribunals will have differing interpretations of what they are asking from the DWP when they state a timescale.

I have no idea why it is not working like DLA. For example, WRAG is awarded until xx/xx/xxxx. So an ESA50 would be sent out on that date. That would have made sense to me.

Martin - I believe that a DM can only grant an award of ESA for a maximum period of 3 years - in any circumstances so that would tie in with tribunals being unable to advise a longer period.

see previous thread below - ‘What actually stops tribunals indicating time limit before re-assessment in ESA cases?’

All awards of ESA are indefinite (like most benefits - DLA is the exception). There is no power that limits an award to 3 yrs. This is purely an internal DWP admin process - as I recall it was DWPs original intention that, at least in in support group cases, it would be a max of 5 yrs before they referred to atos for a reassessment.

Tribunals have no statutory power / duty to make a reassessment recommendation to DWP. It would be interesting to know how this informal arrangement between DWP and HMCTS has come into being.

I agree with Peter.  There’s nothing in the law which limits an ESA award to a fixed period and a decision to re-assess is discretionary.  All a Tribunal can do is offer a view on re-assessment.

I have been told by various DWP staff in different offices that the maximum 3 year period is only because their computer system allows a maximum 3 years…in which case, why doesn’t someone get the computer to stop doing this?  Surely it can’t be that difficult.

Not to mention the fact that some peoples condition will never change. Someone who is blind, for example, will be placed in the support group. Do the DWP think that their sight will somehow miraculously recover 3 years down the line. What an absurd state of affairs. Think of the money, time and Bureaucracy saved if just a bit of common sense is applied.

Yes, but there’s always the possibility that the descriptors will be tightened up during the relevant period (so not only will said client not make the SG next time, they won’t attract any points at all).

1964 - you couldn’t be suggesting to Mr Grayling that if his attempts to blame everyone else - judges, advice workers, claimants, doctors, (Harrington next?) etc - for having the wrong attitude to the poor quality of WCA decisions and large number of successful appeals etc that the govt. might change the goalposts instead?

As if that nice Mr Grayling would do such a thing. Cynic? Me??

and why would that be any different? - many claimants score 0 points now and are placed in the support group on appeal - but again I might be a touch cynical too.

Was there ever any news/updates/decions/clarifcations on when the Tribunal recommended dates for reassessment start from?

(ie the decision date or the date of the tribunal)

Attended a Tribunal on Monday at which it was recomended “the Department does not reassess the appellant for at least 10 years”.

Our client has multiple physical and mental health problems and is unlikely to work again but we shall see…..............