New claim, new sicknote?

Is it correct that a med3 submitted in support of a previous claim can not be relied upon during a subsequent claim?

Client found fit for work, appeals. In September, the FTT dismisses the appeal. Cl puts in a new claim, with a backdating request to the date of hearing. The previous sick note obtained during the appeal runs to end of October, the new one starts in November.

We rang to enquire about a short term advance, and the DWP advise us they they are aware of the previous med3 on their system, but it is associated with the previous claim and so can not be used to cover the backdate period on the new claim. Therefore the claim can not be started and a STBA can not even be considered. Is there anything to support this?

It may be relatively trivial (for non-sick people, at least) to get another copy of the sick note from the surgery, just wondered what the rule they are applying might be.

(It was longer than 6 months since the last determination of LCW. I don’t know how many months the previous sick note covered)

The DMG states that a person is able to self certify for the first 7 days of a new claim even if it starts within 12 weeks of the old award ending. The old award in the present case is likely to be the ESA received pending appeal.

The tribunal’s decision upholding the DM’s decision that the person does not have LCW, in effect, also ends the ESA that the person was receiving pending the appeal.  However, it is not conclusive for the new claim. Eg,

(i) Fails WCA 10/1/13.
(ii) Appeals and is awarded ESA pending appeal from 11/1/13. 
(iii) Last sicknote GP issues is for period 1/8/13 - 30/10/13.
(iv) Tribunal on 26/9/13 dismisses appeal
(iv) The award in (ii) above ends on 29/9/13 (ie, first day of the benefit week in which DM receives notification of tribunal’s decision - see Reg 147A(5A) ESA Regs)
(v) Client re-claims ESA on 1/11/13 asking for claim to be backdated to 30/9/13.

The decision (as upheld by tribunal) that the person did not have LCW is “final” for the period upto 10/1/13.  They are also treated from 29/9/13 as not having LCW under Reg 147A ESA Regs.  If the person makes a new claim from 30/9/13 the sick note issued at (iii) is still valid for the period 30/9/13- 30/10/13 in my view.  The DWP tacitly accept that by being prepared to accept a new sick note starting after 29/9/13.  So why does it have to be a new sick note? 

The above self certification rule should assist them for first 7 days at least.  The Short term benefit advance guidance states that the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt which I’d argue should mean, in the context of ESA, that the advance is paid for days 8-14 even where there is no existing sick note.  But there is an existing sick note in your client’s case which makes the case for a STBA even stronger I would have thought. 

In the above example, if the client asks for the new ESA claim to be backdated to the date of the “hearing”, ie 26/9/13, (which is what your client appears to have done) then technically the start of the new claim would fall within the old award (which ends on 29/9/13).  That wouldn’t be possible because of the principle of finality (you cannot have two awards covering the same period).  In this case the award of ESA pending appeal would prevent a new claim starting any earlier than 30/9/13.  But the DM should treat the backdate request accompanying the new claim in those circs as a request for a backdate to the earliest date legally possible, ie 30/9/13, and accept the existing sick note as valid given it covers that date.

Edit: to insert dates into example that fit with your case.

As I am sure we all suspect, the “requirement” for a new sicknote is yet another way of placing administrative hurdles in the way of new claims for ESA following unsuccessful appeals. One suspects the number of claimants who do not question this sort of spurious nonsense far outweigh those who do. Result! for the DWP.

We regularly see clients who have been advised by JCP that they cannot make a new claim within 6 months of the Tribunal decision rather than the original decision under appeal. Same sort of thing-cuts down the number of new claims so keeps the bean-counters happy.

Thank you both, I suspected the only basis for this was “the computer says so”. And the self-certification point is a good one.