Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
ESA Award Letters - Ambiguity on whether award is Contribution Based or Income Related and impact on migration
Hi
I’ve seen some cases cases where ESA award letters have been very unclear about whether the award is CB or IR.
One scenario - ESA award letter states: “the payment of your ESA is based on your NI records” and then goes on to say “which gives a total income related amount of £xxx {the full amount}”. I advised this client about migration, his ESA ending, 2-week run-on etc. Upon transfer it turns out that his ESA is contribution based, so the advice I gave was not correct, despite the letter clearly stating that the full award was IR.
Another scenario - ESA award letter states “the payment of your ESA is based on your NI records” and then goes on to say that the FULL amount in income related. In this case, the full award was indeed IR.
Scenario 3 - as above with the letter stating that the award is based on NI records and then goes on to say that the entire award is IR. It turns our that he has CB ESA topped up with some premiums (which are IR).
My point is that the award letters don’t seem to tell us which part of the award (if any) is CB, and this makes it very hard to properly advise on what will happen when they migrate to UC.
Has anyone else seen this, or does anyone have any thoughts?
Thanks
Martin
Unfortunately this has been the case since ESA began.
Yes, see these all the time. I make a point to double check in cases where the distinction is important. But saying that, even if you phone DWP on their frontline numbers you might be misinformed…
ESA letters are and always have been poorly laid out, abysmally worded and thoroughly misleading. That’s part of what caused the great underpayments scandal about ten years ago, as made notorious by this very site.
Just this week I dealt with a letter setting out Support Group ESA:
Living Expenses £0.00
Support Group £40.60
Which gives a total income-related amount £40.60
Your income-related amount is £40.60-£0.00 so you would have got £40.60
However because you are entitled to [CESA] we will pay you £117.60
Pure ******* nonsense. It shows (only at the end) it’s CESA but not how that figure is reached, and makes no coherent attempt to assess IRESA. in fact it mangles IRESA so no-one can tell what is going on.
I wrote to ESA years ago, suggesting a clearer format.
No reply.
Ever.
Plus, I don’t think the person who ‘signs’ the letters actually exists.
My client had a letter the same this Week. £0 for living expenses. Clearly something gone wrong with the uprating letters
you would think these would be easy enough to set out in a template.
applicable amount
income
what your due and what type(s) it is
but like others I am seeing plenty of letters that just dont make any sense even to me.
had one in the last week or so where it looked to me like the claimant had been on ib..moved to esa conts only…appointee didnt get/return the forms that were sent following the caselaw on the migration cases…but that was purely from the facts I had as the letter made no sense.
appointee called them of course and was told no they couldnt get the sdp/ir amounts added now and had to claim uc instead.
I’ve had another couple of cases where the ESA letter states that the entire award is income-related, and it turns out not to be the case. The ESA helpline says “if that’s what it says on the letter then it is income-related”... but it turns out it’s contribution based.
It makes it so hard to properly advise about transfers to UC,
Does anybody have a contact at DWP who could look at this?
The problem you have with such letters is that ministerial interference often looms large.
“I want it to say this and I want that paragraph there.”
Few dare to say “...but minister that now makes no sense at all.”
How about this one:
‘Your new income-related amount will be: £150. This is due to: An age change’
Client is about to turn pension age…
I’ve had another couple of cases where the ESA letter states that the entire award is income-related, and it turns out not to be the case. The ESA helpline says “if that’s what it says on the letter then it is income-related”... but it turns out it’s contribution based.
It makes it so hard to properly advise about transfers to UC,Does anybody have a contact at DWP who could look at this?
I can certainly raise it via stakeholder forum :)
I’ve had another couple of cases where the ESA letter states that the entire award is income-related, and it turns out not to be the case. The ESA helpline says “if that’s what it says on the letter then it is income-related”... but it turns out it’s contribution based.
It makes it so hard to properly advise about transfers to UC,Does anybody have a contact at DWP who could look at this?
I can certainly raise it via stakeholder forum :)
This was raised in parliament a few years back. The quality of ESA notices; or rather lack of it, was raised by the select committee or SSAC; probably the select iirc.
There was a decision letter sent to one of my MH clients at Wolvo stating he was only entitled to the PA at a rate about 3 or 4 years prior when he’d first claimed; the apparent reduction in benefit, from couple rate with SDP down to probably £71 a week caused him to panic leading to a relapse and landed him on the wards. The committee requested examples and we sent the offending letter in. The inquiry by the committee was well timed…
The trainee social worker who was involved was rather impressed we managed to get the letter mentioned in the house…
It was a news story on here at the time.
plus la change
Unfortunately this has been the case since ESA began.
In the early days of ESA I recall that some sort of computer glitch meant that it sent out some letters that said at the top the person was entitled to ESA and at the bottom it said they weren’t. What surprised me was how few people noticed which could be to do with claimants not reading letters anyway or it could be to do with ESA letters being so ambiguous and confusing that they didn’t expect to be able to understand it!
This is the reply received!
We are currently working on ESA letters generated automatically by the computer system. We have recently improved the content on reporting a change, making it clearer and we have a further improvement planned for the notifications that specify reporting a change of circumstances. We will be looking at other ESA letter content seeking to remove ambiguity and make letters clearer for customers. We welcome your feedback and be assured we will consider it as we work through ESA letter content.
I am responding to say a clear statement as to whether contributory or income-related or both is a basic requirement…
This is the reply received!
We are currently working on ESA letters generated automatically by the computer system. We have recently improved the content on reporting a change, making it clearer and we have a further improvement planned for the notifications that specify reporting a change of circumstances. We will be looking at other ESA letter content seeking to remove ambiguity and make letters clearer for customers. We welcome your feedback and be assured we will consider it as we work through ESA letter content.
I am responding to say a clear statement as to whether contributory or income-related or both is a basic requirement…
I would just like to remind the DWP that ESA started in October 2008….......................................................!
To be fair, the legal structure of ESA makes this difficult. If ESA(c) counted as income for ESA(ir), it would be much easier to display a single integrated calculation: either ESA(c) only, or ESA(c) topped up by ESA(ir), or ESA(ir) only.
For all practical purposes that is how it works, but it’s not how the legislation expresses it: according to the law, ESA(c) and ESA(ir) are simultaneously calculated independently of one another, but if there is entitlement to ESA(c) then the ESA(ir) isn’t paid to that extent. This is why the letters are so confusing.
To be fair, the legal structure of ESA makes this difficult. If ESA(c) counted as income for ESA(ir), it would be much easier to display a single integrated calculation: either ESA(c) only, or ESA(c) topped up by ESA(ir), or ESA(ir) only.
For all practical purposes that is how it works, but it’s not how the legislation expresses it: according to the law, ESA(c) and ESA(ir) are simultaneously calculated independently of one another, but if there is entitlement to ESA(c) then the ESA(ir) isn’t paid to that extent. This is why the letters are so confusing.
Things like that cause confusion for humans, but it’s a 5 minute coding problem… Well, the basic logic of it anyway - I assume there’s poor communication between DWP systems (even closely related ones). A punchcard computer could handle this logic, if only there was any…
EDIT: They do recruiting drives etc for coders - but I assume the all get assigned to “important” things like AI and other shiny things, not fixing simple letters that impact lots of people in an everyday kind of way.