× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Vulnerable clients migrating from IR ESA (LCWRA) to UC expected to provide fit notes and look for work

 1 2 > 

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

Vulnerable clients migrating from IR ESA (LCWRA) to UC expected to provide fit notes and look for work - flagged up on CITA’s fiendface from bureaux across the nation.

Our post contributing to the facefiend thingy with a whole string of posts.

‘We have had a carbon copy of ********‘s example a client with ongoing psychosis. With a long history of self harm, ideation, and violence stemming from his Psychosis (the job centre are playing with fire as well as bullying a very unwell vulnerable client. Despite us pre-empting on the UC journal when the claim was submitted’.

With reg 19 UC (TP) regs 2014 and the fit note reg 40 UC regs 2013’. Client advised he was surrounded by three different employees telling him that didn’t matter.

This had happened a couple of weeks ago with another client with fragile mental health issues, we thought it was a one off. But this actually appears to be pattern across the nation.

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

Just compound the above locally, one of the Dorset CA’s at a meeting yesterday told our colleague that our Dorset JCP has again mandated an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital to attend a job centre.

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumberland County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 489

Joined: 9 February 2012

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 02 October 2024 10:35 AM

Just compound the above locally, one of the Dorset CA’s at a meeting yesterday told our colleague that our Dorset JCP has again mandated an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital to attend a job centre.

Is the Partnership Manager not able to intervene on this?

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

Rosie W - 02 October 2024 12:43 PM
Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 02 October 2024 10:35 AM

Just compound the above locally, one of the Dorset CA’s at a meeting yesterday told our colleague that our Dorset JCP has again mandated an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital to attend a job centre.

Is the Partnership Manager not able to intervene on this?

We wish Rosie. There is no substantive working escalation route in Dorset.

See his previous response on this topic to the CA concerned, the response from the then ACSSL to us when we raised it. Was to refer us back to his email.

Dorset District JCP Partnership manager

‘Hi **********,

That’s a very interesting question. There is no one size fits all solution, as we have to tailor our support to the specific impact on the customer. Sometimes we find individuals have been impacted for one day/night and then others on a much longer term basis. As you can imagine we also have similar issues, and a higher volume, impacted due to physical health and a broad swathe of other circumstance. As such we wouldn’t be looking at a local agreement or protocol purely for mental health facilities.

We, of course, wish to ensure we are fully supportive and would never wish to disadvantage any of our customers. Where it’s identified an individual requires support, when they are within a mental health facility, then please complete the ‘Partner Referral Form’, as attached, and send it to *************, for us to consider a Visiting Offer visit. Where you don’t feel that’s appropriate or necessary then we ask for you to follow our Escalation Route, as also attached.

As always, I’m happy to discuss.

Many thanks

************’

 

 

 

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 391

Joined: 17 June 2010

It does seem to be a nationwide issue. I understand it takes time before the UC system ‘knows’ someone was on ESA & in the support group - but surely JC+ must know there’s a delay & that the info will come through?

The updated guidance to claimants on gov.uk seems to have made absolutely no difference to the actual practice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-credits-and-some-benefits-are-ending-move-to-universal-credit#if-youre-moving-from-employment-and-support-allowance-esa

(Whilst accepted that we only hear when it doesn’t go well).

This isn’t a ‘no one size fits all’ situation, it’s an acknowledging the law & protecting vulnerable people situation.

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumberland County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 489

Joined: 9 February 2012

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 02 October 2024 01:19 PM
Rosie W - 02 October 2024 12:43 PM
Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 02 October 2024 10:35 AM

Just compound the above locally, one of the Dorset CA’s at a meeting yesterday told our colleague that our Dorset JCP has again mandated an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital to attend a job centre.

Is the Partnership Manager not able to intervene on this?

We wish Rosie. There is no substantive working escalation route in Dorset.

See his previous response on this topic to the CA concerned, the response from the then ACSSL to us when we raised it. Was to refer us back to his email.

Dorset District JCP Partnership manager

‘Hi **********,

That’s a very interesting question. There is no one size fits all solution, as we have to tailor our support to the specific impact on the customer. Sometimes we find individuals have been impacted for one day/night and then others on a much longer term basis. As you can imagine we also have similar issues, and a higher volume, impacted due to physical health and a broad swathe of other circumstance. As such we wouldn’t be looking at a local agreement or protocol purely for mental health facilities.

We, of course, wish to ensure we are fully supportive and would never wish to disadvantage any of our customers. Where it’s identified an individual requires support, when they are within a mental health facility, then please complete the ‘Partner Referral Form’, as attached, and send it to *************, for us to consider a Visiting Offer visit. Where you don’t feel that’s appropriate or necessary then we ask for you to follow our Escalation Route, as also attached.

As always, I’m happy to discuss.

Many thanks

************’

 

 

Oh lord, that’s awful. And highlights what I was saying at the UC Engagement Team meeting about corporate appointees (about which they have no clue) and Move to UC - which is that there is no consistency across different Partnership areas and it becomes a postcode lottery for claimants and advisers as to what support is available.

We’ve been reasonably lucky here so far but there are some rather concerning messages coming from the local UC engagement team re migration of ESA claimants.

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

WillH - 02 October 2024 01:43 PM

It does seem to be a nationwide issue. I understand it takes time before the UC system ‘knows’ someone was on ESA & in the support group - but surely JC+ must know there’s a delay & that the info will come through?

The updated guidance to claimants on gov.uk seems to have made absolutely no difference to the actual practice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-credits-and-some-benefits-are-ending-move-to-universal-credit#if-youre-moving-from-employment-and-support-allowance-esa

(Whilst accepted that we only hear when it doesn’t go well).

This isn’t a ‘no one size fits all’ situation, it’s an acknowledging the law & protecting vulnerable people situation.

Will you are absolutely right it is a national Issue (frankly it has never gone well in Dorset - I remember one of our MP’s not exactly renowned for letting rip, angrily responding to a senior Dorset JCP manager, when she said she was not aware of any problems with our clients being mandated to attend another job centre involving journeys taking hours there and back, when we have a job centre in Bridport, they backed down and stopped that practice).

But we have been proactive in pre-empting this on cases we have helped clients with on managed migration from IR ESA i.e. telegraphing the obvious on the journal.

More over, I am reliably informed, the UC build advises IR ESA clients that there is no need to provide fit notes - see updated 23/09/2024 - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/18767/#88846 - as well as your link.

Which makes the job centre behavioural responses so worrying in the main and in certain cases disturbing (playing with fire).

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

Rosie W - 02 October 2024 02:19 PM
Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 02 October 2024 01:19 PM
Rosie W - 02 October 2024 12:43 PM
Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 02 October 2024 10:35 AM

Just compound the above locally, one of the Dorset CA’s at a meeting yesterday told our colleague that our Dorset JCP has again mandated an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital to attend a job centre.

Is the Partnership Manager not able to intervene on this?

We wish Rosie. There is no substantive working escalation route in Dorset.

See his previous response on this topic to the CA concerned, the response from the then ACSSL to us when we raised it. Was to refer us back to his email.

Dorset District JCP Partnership manager

‘Hi **********,

That’s a very interesting question. There is no one size fits all solution, as we have to tailor our support to the specific impact on the customer. Sometimes we find individuals have been impacted for one day/night and then others on a much longer term basis. As you can imagine we also have similar issues, and a higher volume, impacted due to physical health and a broad swathe of other circumstance. As such we wouldn’t be looking at a local agreement or protocol purely for mental health facilities.

We, of course, wish to ensure we are fully supportive and would never wish to disadvantage any of our customers. Where it’s identified an individual requires support, when they are within a mental health facility, then please complete the ‘Partner Referral Form’, as attached, and send it to *************, for us to consider a Visiting Offer visit. Where you don’t feel that’s appropriate or necessary then we ask for you to follow our Escalation Route, as also attached.

As always, I’m happy to discuss.

Many thanks

************’

 

 

 

Oh lord, that’s awful. And highlights what I was saying at the UC Engagement Team meeting about corporate appointees (about which they have no clue) and Move to UC - which is that there is no consistency across different Partnership areas and it becomes a postcode lottery for claimants and advisers as to what support is available.

We’ve been reasonably lucky here so far but there are some rather concerning messages coming from the local UC engagement team re migration of ESA claimants.

Indeed!

unhindered by talent
forum member

Housing First team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 490

Joined: 18 October 2013

We advise the client to put a note in their journal along the lines of:, 

I have been advised by a Welfare Rights Officer from Aberdeenshire Council that I have already been assessed as having Limited Capability for Work/Limited Capability for Work and Work-related Activity, (delete as appropriate) and Regulation 19 of the Universal Credit Transitional Provisions Regulations 2014 applies.

As such, my LCW/RA status under ESA should transfer to the Universal Credit claim without the need for a new Work Capability Assessment and the LCW/RA element should be paid from the first UC payment.

This has been confirmed by Director General Neil Couling.

I have been advised that I should not have to supply a fit note for this; instead Universal Credit Service Centre should use a MGP1 process to action the LCW/RA element in my UC claim.


We know that the SoS can re-assess at any time, however the client should not have to provide fresh fit notes and, so far, this has been effective though we have had to escalate a couple of cases for the message to be acted upon.

 

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

Fresh post on this today on CITA’s Fiendface attracting lots of same here’s from Gloucs, Dorset, Sussex, North East etc and descriptions of job centre staff rank and file interactions with this vulnerable tranche of clients.

 

 

Maverick
forum member

Citizens Advice Camden

Send message

Total Posts: 30

Joined: 21 September 2017

On demanding psych hospitals inpts attend anything at all am going to jump straight to ‘request visiting officer ‘.
Have had to do this with different hat on more times than can count.
Mostly in London.

If nothing else it highlights the absurdity of the situation - detained pts aren’t going to get some mythical ward nurse or care co-ordinator to pop down the job centre with them on their 30 min a fortnight escorted leave….or be well enough in the weeks post discharge to attend JCP ( much NHS guidance on risks after discharge)

Those with florid symptoms and deteriorating mental health not admitted - who don’t get access to MH worried well services- aren’t usually going to find JCPs safe and supportive spaces.
Have helped put in journal for some that the claimant will need a full risk assessment and safety plan to deal with the triggering and unsafe nature of such appointments.
And referred DWP to their own safeguarding guidance.

It also screams discriminatory practice. With a lot of stats for FoIs of the future.

If JCPs are going to be that belligerent towards other’s vulnerabilities I for one want to see that work coach or assessor go in to a secure ward .
See if they can then work out themselves that severe mental health conditions are just that and no, a psych ward is not some sort of day spa for benefit scroungers….

J Bathie
forum member

Adviser, Money Advice Unit, Herts CC

Send message

Total Posts: 39

Joined: 9 January 2015

On the issue of requirement to provide unnecessary fit notes, I suspect a key issue here is the direct consequence of JCP staff having been placed in a position they are not equipped or supposed to deal with.

Now they are the face-to-face contact for a suddenly vast range of claimants outside *just* job seekers, they find themselves (asked or otherwise) “advising” on benefit entitlement, and “explaining” the rules whether it’s missing elements or eligibility criteria for something.

We all know how well THAT has gone in the past.

Prior to MM we saw ill clients either new to UC or becoming unwell whilst on it never advised to get a fit note to trigger the WCA, and/or the WCA never being triggered once the fit note WAS provided.

If internal messaging to Work Coaches has been circulated/strengthened to stress: consider if claimant needs to get a fit note to start the WCA, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s being misinterpreted by work coaches to “everyone who is ill needs a fit note.”

And claimants are rarely able to push back successfully, however much we prepare them - and of course JCP staff don’t like to admit in public they might be wrong. 

I don’t doubt these reports of negative experiences is probably also feeding in to the ridiculously high numbers of people NOT migrating at all. (every third client now seems to have read something bad on a forum).

 

 

 

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1098

Joined: 9 January 2017

Maverick - 10 October 2024 02:16 PM

On demanding psych hospitals inpts attend anything at all am going to jump straight to ‘request visiting officer ‘.
Have had to do this with different hat on more times than can count.
Mostly in London.

If nothing else it highlights the absurdity of the situation - detained pts aren’t going to get some mythical ward nurse or care co-ordinator to pop down the job centre with them on their 30 min a fortnight escorted leave….or be well enough in the weeks post discharge to attend JCP ( much NHS guidance on risks after discharge)

Those with florid symptoms and deteriorating mental health not admitted - who don’t get access to MH worried well services- aren’t usually going to find JCPs safe and supportive spaces.
Have helped put in journal for some that the claimant will need a full risk assessment and safety plan to deal with the triggering and unsafe nature of such appointments.
And referred DWP to their own safeguarding guidance.

It also screams discriminatory practice. With a lot of stats for FoIs of the future.

If JCPs are going to be that belligerent towards other’s vulnerabilities I for one want to see that work coach or assessor go in to a secure ward .
See if they can then work out themselves that severe mental health conditions are just that and no, a psych ward is not some sort of day spa for benefit scroungers….

Thanks for the response Maverick, aside from the lack of humanity and a practice akin to coercive abuse, which beggars belief.

There is the issue of competence and leadership and poor use of resources within the dept. Before we even get in to the waste of NHS resources. Haven’t we had enough Errol Graham’s and Jody Whitings…......

There appears to be no attempt to remedy this with simple workable adjustments.

If a little basic rural CA, lets face it, you don’t get any more basic than us. We are predominantly volunteers with no prior experience of advocacy. Miles and miles away from any 2nd tier advice agencies and law centres.

Can come up with ideas for the above, whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. Why can’t Caxton House.

Identity - NHS inpatients - see guidance regarding biographical checks with 3rd parties or organisations - https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2023-0791/080._Identity_verification_V19.0.pdf

Claimant commitment exceptions - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/16

Work related requirements ‘circumstances in which requirements must not be imposed’ - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/99

Extracts from my feedback to colleagues after we met regional and district bigwigs in March after they were forced to meet us after the debacle in Dorset went national earlier this year.

‘It was pretty much business as usual i.e. imbued and embedded in that prevailing punitive resistant parent culture, if seen to deviate from their expectations’.

‘The overview reminded me of/analogous to a protagonist in a coercive relationship. Saying since etc etc happened, we are going to change for the better and it will never happen again etc etc. But we will maintain the status quo at the same time.
Hospital inpatients - see above’.

‘Escalation - see above. Essentially you must use the failed escalation route before going higher’.

‘A CA presence at the job centre - comes up every time - very keen to embed us in. But has implications for all of us in terms of being a community advocacy resource, being seen to have client’s best interests at the fore, and maintaining the trust of clients. But also a under performing unresponsive Dorset JCP’.

 

 

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3669

Joined: 14 March 2014

This has been raised with DWP via a number of sources and we are awaiting responses which they say will come at our next stakeholder meeting in 2 weeks on 29th October. In meantime, do please let me know if you’re finding any examples of fitnote being asked for, or conditionality applied to claimants with LCWRA.

Thanks

Lfletcher
forum member

Lancashire County Council - WRS

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 11 January 2022

I’ve sent 3 examples off the cpag today. Fingers crossed they sort this out ASAP. Huge issue

Jess Strode
forum member

Judicial Review Project | Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 62

Joined: 8 January 2019

Daphne - 15 October 2024 02:32 PM

This has been raised with DWP via a number of sources and we are awaiting responses which they say will come at our next stakeholder meeting in 2 weeks on 29th October. In meantime, do please let me know if you’re finding any examples of fitnote being asked for, or conditionality applied to claimants with LCWRA.

Thanks

CPAG raised this with DWP too and understand they are working to develop a systematic ‘fix’ to prevent claimants being subject to inappropriate work conditionality in their first assessment period where they were in the ESA support group when they claimed UC. While this ‘fix’ is being finalised and implemented, DWP have asked CPAG to pass on the details of any claimants we know of who are subject to inappropriate conditionality so they can intervene and remove those work requirements.

In each case CPAG have sent over so far (about 6 including the ones above mentioned) conditionality has been turned off promptly.

If you have any UC claimants in their 1st assessment period, who were in the ESA support group and are now subject to inappropriate UC conditionality, please, with your client’s permission, and as well as letting Daphne know, share their details with CPAG and we will pass them on to the DWP. DWP have asked for claimants’ names, addresses and DoBs, or NINos.

Please send these to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Note, CPAG are not currently in correspondence with DWP about claimants with LCW rather than LCWRA.