Grrrrrrrrrrr as per usual would really appreciate some of the usual learned suspects advice on this one, because the DM doesn't understand me.................

We helped our client put in a Conts ESA claim for the benefit year 2008 and to cut a long story short we were confident she would pass the first test (and has) i.e. specifically relevant to this case paid class 1 NI Conts on earnings of 25 times the lower earnings limit for the tax year(s) (2004/05) 2005/06 (2006/07) (although the DM in their submission thinks its the first test is paid x 50 which will explain the following). Anyway doesn't matter because both tests are satisfied for 2005/06, so we didn't need to worry about 2004/05.

Anyway, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh second test, sorry if this next bit is incoherent and goes on ever and ever.

Next bit!

1, Errrrrrrrrrrrrr DM in written response says for 2006/07 client has to have paid x 50 etc etc, and lower earnings level is £........ and she has only got to half the amount etc etc (client was in receipt of SSP overlapping from pre April 2006 to post April 2006). DM also writes Rep sent in loads of irrelevant medical evidence which they have omitted.

2, We knew she hadn't paid or been credited with enough i.e. x 50 contributions for 2006/07 so we negotiated with the Consultant Psychiatrist and she agreed to do a med 5 backdated from when the ESA claim was made DEC 2008 to MAY 2006 etc etc to cover the gap for that year etc etc (i.e. irrelevant med evidence).

3, Clients Partner rang us saying they had got the med certs and were going to send everything off and we warned them to photocopy med certs which they did, but unfortunately client forgot to complete the backs of the med 5 and the initial med 3. Anyway appeal dragged on so we put in a further submission outlining/re-emphasising case we're making on her behalf and sent loads of other 'irrelevant' med evidence relating to evidence we had obtained for her DLA appeal, feedback letters from CMHT to GP, discharge summaries, section 3 notices being disincontinued relevant to 2006/07 etc etc citing reg 2 (1) (d) SS (Med evidence) regs 1976 as back up persuasive stuff if BDC in question quibbled over her not signing back of med 5 etc etc.

Anyway, DM in appeal papers as already alluded to has either decided to ignore our case or doesn't understand me..................

Question! My gut feeling is to put in an wotsit application asking a Duty Judge to issue directions for DM to make a decision on the 'irrelevant med evidence' i.e. whether to or not to backdate LCW credits from 2008 - 2006 (in case anyone asks the Consultant Psychiatrist who did the med 5 in 2008 was the one who examined client May 2006 and treated ever since), after all thats the Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring case we are making.

Have i missed something obvious, dropped an obvious clanger, any help, advice, guidance, ideas etc etc would be really really appreciated.