ESA tribunals & Mental Health

Peter Turville - 23 May 2013 08:05 AM

The ESA113 is used nationally, but not as a matter of routine. Trouble is the questions on it (like the equivalent for DLA/AA/PIP) are to general too illicite info. specific to the claimant - and thats also assuming GPs etc are familiar with its purpose and the descriptors, ATOS take any notice of the reply and DM’s understand any of the evidence gathered!

What do advisers do - understand the descriptors and seek evidence that addresses those relevant to the clamaint and their condition(s). If we can do it (at far less expense to the taxpayer than the DWP/ATOS process) why can’t they? Answers to Mark Hogan by a method of communication of your choice.

The CPNs and Psychiatrists here in Wolverhampton have never heard of an ESA113.

good article in guardian about judgment -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/22/fitness-work-tests-mental-health-unfair

DManville - 23 May 2013 10:25 AM

Peter Turville - 23 May 2013 08:05 AM

The ESA113 is used nationally, but not as a matter of routine. Trouble is the questions on it (like the equivalent for DLA/AA/PIP) are to general too illicite info. specific to the claimant - and thats also assuming GPs etc are familiar with its purpose and the descriptors, ATOS take any notice of the reply and DM’s understand any of the evidence gathered!

What do advisers do - understand the descriptors and seek evidence that addresses those relevant to the clamaint and their condition(s). If we can do it (at far less expense to the taxpayer than the DWP/ATOS process) why can’t they? Answers to Mark Hogan by a method of communication of your choice.

The CPNs and Psychiatrists here in Wolverhampton have never heard of an ESA113.

In my experience it is very rare for ATOS to send them to CPNs etc - normally only to GP and occassionaly a consultant - just another example of the failure of the WCA process - even when DWP/ATOS do seek to obtain additional evidence they don’t always contact the claimant’s most appropriate health care professional!

Same here. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen one sent to anyone other than a GP. And that very rarely now.

All bodes ill for PIP too doesn’t it?

Yeah. One of those hollow laugh moments.

Something that really gets my goat is the standard comments in ESA85’s in relation to the expected mien of claimants with mental health issues- I don’t have one to hand at present but its something along the lines of ‘no rocking present, no evidence of suicidal ideation, able to make eye contact’ or words to that effect. It’s included every time. Like everyone with a mental health condition compulsively rocks in manner of ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’ and brandishes implement with which to cut wrists (because clearly if you don’t there’s nowt wrong with you). It irritates the pants off me.

Firmly inclined to the view that a large can of worms has just opened here. The argument re: Equality Act is a pretty decent point but it’s a mistake to think of it in terms of mental health in isolation or indeed the WCA process alone.

It strikes me that there is applicability across any disability where a reasonable adjustment might be required. Does anyone see ESA 50s being offered in large print or other formats as a matter of routine or in a way accessible to the blind or partially-sighted? The list is possibly quite long.

Then there’s the thorny issue of tribunals. Anyone ever had large print appeal papers? Bet that’s fun.

Let’s hope it runs and runs.

1964, funnily enough I have an upcoming appeal where the hcp has recorded that the claimant did compulsively rock back and forth during the wca. Didn’t make any odds to the outcome though!

... and we have a client with significant MH problems who rocks incessantly.  No mention of this at all in the ESA85.  Tribunal should be interesting.

ros - 22 May 2013 12:42 PM

i’ve looked on UT site - doesn’t seem to be published on there yet…

Up there now…

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3792

EDIT: never seen ‘(INT)’ in a file name on the UT site. Interim, maybe? Would seem deeply odd to put it up if so… Bright sparks please feel free to advise.

Jon

cheers jon ... here’s 2638 too

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3791

Priceless!

I shouldn’t chuckle but I am..

He doesn’t live in the Bates Motel by any chance?

In response to the judgment the DWP stated:

“The percentage of people with mental health conditions who go into the support group for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) has more than tripled since 2010”.

What does this say about the incompetence of the people who devised the WCA and those who endured it from late 2008 onwards? And the WCA is still wrong as evidenced by what thousands of people know only too well, including the UT judges. 

The DWP policy-makers repeatedly and arrogantly ignored what mental health experts told them. The fact is that the WCA frequently causes people with mental health problems to deteriorate. There have been suicides and suicide attempts. There is a significant and unquantified financial cost to the NHS. Carers suffer, Agencies are overwhelmed with clients. GPs and other health professionals are put under pressure to produce letters. Thousands of extra appeals have needlessly taken place. 

Predictably, the WCA is yet another botched product of British state stupidity and has almost nothing to do with getting people back to work. If just half the resources already wasted had been allocated to innovative local support schemes (designed at a local level), there would be far more people on the path to independence and some form of employment.

Is it any wonder that the Welsh and Scots want to break away from Westminster and the anonymous senior civil servants who waste billions and get away with it time and time again without any accountability?

Just my personal opinion of course :-)

Jon Shaw - 23 May 2013 07:48 PM

ros - 22 May 2013 12:42 PM

i’ve looked on UT site - doesn’t seem to be published on there yet…

Up there now…

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3792

EDIT: never seen ‘(INT)’ in a file name on the UT site. Interim, maybe? Would seem deeply odd to put it up if so… Bright sparks please feel free to advise.

Jon

Likely interim, I read in the reports that they’d not disposed of proceedings preferring to let the Sec State report back in with what remedies he’d come up with.

I suspect with will be a big bag with some bricks in the bottom…

Has anyone seen the “filework guidelines” referred to in the decision?

Edit… Found them!

Edit again… the document attached is the 2012 version whereas the UT looked at the 2010 version. There are notable and important discrepancies between the two!

The requirement for “Dr Only” assessments leads us to appendix G but appendix G is the glossary. I’d kill to read that “Dr Only” list…

last edit

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/list_of_dr_only_conditions/new

kerching!