Support group and work focused interviews

Has anyone ever been successful in requesting for attendance at work focused interviews to be deferred pending the outcome of an appeal against a decision where a client has been found to have LCW but not LCWRA? Client has learning difficulties and agoraphobia. He was initially found not to have LCW, and is now fixated in the idea that he had to go out to work, causing a substantial decline in his mental health requiring intervention on a home visit basis from the community mental health team. I appealed the decision citing relevant descriptors from Schedules 2 and 3, and regs 29 and 35, supported by pretty strong medical evidence. The decision was quickly changed finding him to have LCW but not LCWRA, and he has a date for his first WFI on 1st March, at a location quite some distance from him.

His brother contacted me today to say that his mental health has declined so much that he is now not going out at all. They attempted to take him out last week in the car, and within a half mile drive he had smashed the car window and they had to return home. He believes that it will not be possible to get him to the interview.

The decision to find him not to have LCWRA needs to be challenged, but I am considering whether appeal or supersession would be the best approach? Given that they have already been sent very supportive evidence and and outline of the relevant descriptors and regulations, but have still found him not to have LCWRA, I am thinking that reporting that the clients mental health has substantially deteriorated since he was informed that he would be required to take part in work related activity may be a better demonstration that reg 35 is satisfied, than simply requesting that the original evidence is looked at again.

And aside from supersession/appeal issue, I’ve never come across a success story of getting the WFI deferred. So it looks like it will be a case of serious distress for the client and possibility of violent outbursts at the JC, or client not being able to attend and needing to argue good cause on each occasion.

If the decline in his mental health is related to the decision to place him in the WRAG and the prospect of attending interviews then that is evidence that the placing of him in this group has caused a serious risk to his health and thus he should satisfy Reg 35.  So therefore I would go for an appeal rather than a supercession.

Also I am surprised that you are having such trouble pursuading the DWP to apply their discretion to waiver his interviews when there is a risk of violent behaviour if he were to attend, I would have thought they would jump at the chance?  Why can they not see that you are doing them a favour by asking for them to be waivered?!?!

sara lewis - 17 February 2012 03:26 PM

Also I am surprised that you are having such trouble pursuading the DWP to apply their discretion to waiver his interviews when there is a risk of violent behaviour if he were to attend, I would have thought they would jump at the chance?  Why can they not see that you are doing them a favour by asking for them to be waivered?!?!

Good point, I will make sure that I emphasise the window smashing incident in the next correspondence I send to them!

Have you got a ‘Vulnerable Customer Lead’ in your jobcentre? I think this is a national initiative, but we have them down here in the contact centre, jobcentre and BDC. They are there to liaise with advisers with thse sort of tricky situations.

Thanks for the tip Steve, I definitely look into that first thing Monday.

If the jobcentre are not willing to defer the WFI, you could ask them if they would be willing to conduct the WFI over the telephone.

I have exactly the same issue with a client who has severe anger issues when dealing with anyone in authority. I am appealing to put him in the support group due to this. He has had 2 appointments for WFIs, however he has told me he has been banned from his local jobcentre for attacks (verbal and threatening behaviour) on staff so i have called them to discuss and have been told on both occasions that he does not have to attend while appealing, although this is discretionary. It depends on whether the JC+ staff have any common sense around this as technically a WFI must be attended until a LCFWRA is established.

I had a similar case as well (client has since been placed in the SG). They agreed to undertake WFI by phone.

Great, thanks.

Hi Krissie , we never have any problems defering WFI on the initial inteview we attend with the client and explain why they should be in the support group , I know we could telephone but not all clients are being issued with decision notice they then recieve a letter inviting them for an interview . The scenario you have i would explain that his agoraphobia would cause him to lash out under duress as he has done with the car window and this could quite easly be a person in a work place or training place if forced to go outdoors under duress .

Colin Hannon
Welfare Benefits Advisor
Helena Partnerships