× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

New stock excuse for not revising?

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 510

Joined: 4 March 2011

The reason for mandatory reconsideration is supposed to be to encourage new evidence to be presented at an early stage, as I understand it.

So I was a little surprised to be informed by the DWP this morning, in response to an ESA revision request including considerable new evidence (relating to a condition present at the date of decision but not disclosed by the client - and this having been clearly explained). Not revised because this:-

“...was not cited as health condition on the previous ESA50 nor at the medical assessment. This illness has therefore not been assessed. As such Mr ... is entitles to make a new claim for ESA using this incapacity. This further information would no affect the original decision.” [sic]

I also had another refusal last week relating to new evidence of the same condition, which was refused because he “has not cited any new health condition or shown any deterioration”. Is MR just going to be a huge trolling exercise?

benefitsadviser
forum member

Sunderland West Advice Project

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 22 June 2010

I agree Tony. Its bad enough when they are giving ESA WCA decisions over the phone and telling people “we are closing your ESA claim as youve failed medical, so you now must claim JSA : here is the new claims number….....”

No mention of appeals or anything. Ive had loads like this

Dirty tricks abound

Tom B (WRAMAS)
forum member

WRAMAS - Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 456

Joined: 7 January 2013

I read through supplementary submission recently where the DM wrote:

“Mr C advises that he suffers from X. This was not disclosed at the assessment. Mr C would be entitled to make a new claim to ESA which would be assessed on his new medical circumstances.”

Only the diagnosis of X was in fact reported in relevant pages of ESA50 and in the med3 certs. DM is somewhat correct however - it was completely absent from ESA85 ...

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3137

Joined: 16 June 2010