Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Query on ‘a general principle of law’
So wrong it’s hard to know where to start.
a) there’s no “general principle” as others have said. Also, as others have said, that it appears in a sub is neither here nor there. Whilst we live in a world where the role of a rep is much diminished I think it’s also fair to say that the relevance and centrality of a DWP appeal sub is generally negligible nowadays. It’s pretty much accepted that it has to be there for appellants but beyond that I personally give it a once over for errors and anomolies and then concentrate on presenting the case as is needed.
b) the “principle” as such is nonsense, as has also been said, because there are too many other variables. It’s interesting to note that in the days of Supp. Ben take-up campaigns such principles were often overruled by contemporary evidence showing that 30 year old visiting officer reports were often full of inaccuracies.
Personally, I would disregard this completely.
I recently sent in additional information for a reconsideration from a client’s consultant psychiatrist which was completely ignored by Birmingham on this “general principle of law”. The client had completed the ESA50 without support and had attended an WCA alone. I wrote to explain how they had limited insight into mental health, had clearly needed support and provided a letter from consultant that also raised the concern of insight and seriousness of illness. I still don’t understand how additional medical information, from someone who hadn’t even provided previous information, could fall under this uncited “general principle”. It’s not as if the client was providing the statement, so I’m not sure if the decision maker was referring to the client, myself or the psychiatrist. It doesn’t make sense in any context. If they are talking about myself or the psychiatrist then it devalues the importance of additional information that the DWP always insist claimants never provide them with. Gah!
Anyway, I’ve written back asking them to cite this “principle” and put it into context of the additional medical information provided.
I recently sent in additional information for a reconsideration from a client’s consultant psychiatrist which was completely ignored by Birmingham on this “general principle of law”. The client had completed the ESA50 without support and had attended an WCA alone. I wrote to explain how they had limited insight into mental health, had clearly needed support and provided a letter from consultant that also raised the concern of insight and seriousness of illness. I still don’t understand how additional medical information, from someone who hadn’t even provided previous information, could fall under this uncited “general principle”. It’s not as if the client was providing the statement, so I’m not sure if the decision maker was referring to the client, myself or the psychiatrist. It doesn’t make sense in any context. If they are talking about myself or the psychiatrist then it devalues the importance of additional information that the DWP always insist claimants never provide them with. Gah!
Anyway, I’ve written back asking them to cite this “principle” and put it into context of the additional medical information provided.
Augers well for mandatory reconsideration doesn’t it!!!
Looking on the bright side it’s not looking like the demand for appeals and reps. is going to be lessening thanks to mandatory recon. Had a fascinating conversation with a PO and a DM about this. It genuinely hadn’t occurred to the latter that the process might involve representations from WROs and other advisers. Fatally flawed doesn’t even begin to cover it. I doubt there’s an adviser in the country who can’t see how mandatory recons. are going to play out. History repeats itself. It has to… etc.