Our unit is starting to get a steady stream of ESA appeals after a slow start and we've noticed that unlike ICB appeals the ESA don't contain a list of the WCA descriptors. Questioned this with local DWP appeals and have been informed that this omission comes from DWP management and is supposedly the result of national discussion between DWP, Tribunals Service and Welfare Rights organisations.

Can't believe any Welfare Rights organisation would see this as a positive move. Our view is this is totally unfair to the client. It denies them the opportunity to view in detail the entitlement conditions-especially where client doesn't have a rep.

Anyone creating a stink on this. Been told DWP use a national appeal template for ESA and there is no space for descriptors on this.

I've noticed that as well, although some ICB appeal submissions missed out the PCA descriptors - I just thought ESA prep was getting lazy -

I agree no one in their right mind would agree to exclude these.

might start requesting them from ESA appeal section when appeal is submitted or submission is issued

" I request that a full list of descriptors is contained in the submission, without which the Secretary of State is depriving the claiment full and complete details of the appealed decision and on the entitlement criteria"

Will give them something else to do or not.

We are getting the descriptors, included as an appendix to the submission. Maybe some policies are more national than others.

The DWP appeals officer I spoke to said they questioned the omission of the descriptors but were told the Tribunals Service were up for it. She added that not all judges/chairs were happy with it and were issuing directions for the descriptors to be added. She also said they had been informed to only include in the appeal submissions that information relating to the grounds for appeal. So, if you know nothing of the entitlement conditions and limit the grounds for appeal then you're no wiser from the appeal submission when you get there.

A bloody big con!

I find it hard to understand how the Tribunals Service could agree to this as the appellant has no idea how or why the test can be passed/failed. A lot was made some years ago when "decision making and appeals" reforms were brought in about giving full explanations to benefit claimants about why decisions were made. In truth, as difficult as it may be for some claimants to understand lengthy tracts of legislation, there is no other way (in my view) other than to detail exactly what the law says. It may be in an appendix to a submission, but I think it should always be there. Some submissions I have seen refer people to the local library to see the law used, which is a blatant cop out.

The submission (and here I look at it from the lay person's view) should be straightforward to understand, and could be written in simpler terms all round. However, there should still be the facility to actually see the law under which the case is being judged, so to speak, in the papers that will be used at the hearing