× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

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

Reg 35(2)(b) and NS v SSWP (ESA) 2014 UKUT 0149 (AAC) - counterpoint?

 < 1 2

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Peter Turville - 08 August 2014 03:51 PM

from UtT website - cases pending before a panel of three judges:

CE/3453/2013
Regulation 35 – is it compatible for the claimant to satisfy descriptor 16(c) in Schedule 2 but not regulation 35 and should the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have made the tribunal aware of the full nature of the Work Programme to which the claimant would be subject (it was more prolonged and involved more sustained involvement than the tribunal believed)

Not our case so don’t know if it directly addresses the issue.

Yes it does. One of the issues is what WRA actually consists of and the panel seemed happy that it was a bit more than a phone call once a fortnight.

It’s useful in the situation Sev illustrates to roll out Section 13(7) of the WRA 2012; as discussed in Judge Mark’s “Kafkaesque” decision JS (and Judge Jacobs’ later reply in NS) that Billy mentioned. A lot of FtTs think you can do WRA over the phone but they’re conflating WFIs with WRA; WRA is more rigourous than simple WFIs every couple of weeks.

I’m itching to get the decision in 3453/13 as I can feel a bit of a drubbing for DWP on the horizon. The Citation will be McK v SSWP but trust me it will be up here as soon as possible.