Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Postal address for ESA3
We have yet another where the client has always been on old style ESA, no income related top up to date due to savings. No UC claim ever made (we are corporate appointee so entirely sure of this). Savings now below the limit, ESA absolutely insistent has to be UC, to the extent of sending out a letter to say so.
So we’ve completed an ESA3 but don’t seem to have an address to send it to.
Any ideas? We’re in Northumberland.
We have yet another where the client has always been on old style ESA, no income related top up to date due to savings. No UC claim ever made (we are corporate appointee so entirely sure of this). Savings now below the limit, ESA absolutely insistent has to be UC, to the extent of sending out a letter to say so.
So we’ve completed an ESA3 but don’t seem to have an address to send it to.
Any ideas? We’re in Northumberland.
What was your previous BC, I ask because our local old style, legacy, heritage ESA letters point to Chippenham. So we post stuff using a free post ESA address to Chippenham.
I might have imagined this but bizarrely they go direct to the relevant office. Great at the PIP MR stage.
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15183/
We have yet another where the client has always been on old style ESA, no income related top up to date due to savings. No UC claim ever made (we are corporate appointee so entirely sure of this). Savings now below the limit, ESA absolutely insistent has to be UC, to the extent of sending out a letter to say so.
So we’ve completed an ESA3 but don’t seem to have an address to send it to.
Any ideas? We’re in Northumberland.
What was your previous BC, I ask because our local old style, legacy, heritage ESA letters point to Chippenham. So we post stuff using a free post ESA address to Chippenham.
I might have imagined this but bizarrely they go direct to the relevant office. Great at the PIP MR stage.
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15183/
It was Stockton for existing claims and Sunderland for new. We’ll try Stockton. Seems quite likely we’ll just get told to claim UC again but at least that will give us something that looks like a decision.
Surely they would be plain wrong to say it needed to be UC? The well-established point is that contribution-based ESA and income-based ESA are one benefit. I’ve had no problems at all about them accepting that for a client who split with her partner (huge problems with getting any backdating, but none with the on-going benefit) and this sounds a similar case. Think there might be a decision somewhere as well (Judge Wright?) but it shouldn’t even need to go to that.
Surely they would be plain wrong to say it needed to be UC? The well-established point is that contribution-based ESA and income-based ESA are one benefit. I’ve had no problems at all about them accepting that for a client who split with her partner (huge problems with getting any backdating, but none with the on-going benefit) and this sounds a similar case. Think there might be a decision somewhere as well (Judge Wright?) but it shouldn’t even need to go to that.
Yes, it’s definitely wrong. Seems to be happening more frequently - as always I wonder how many claimants without access to advice will just end up claiming UC. And without an SDP so no compensation element.
I hope it is ignorance rather than design.