Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Tax years used for contributions tests
Client’s ESA-C claim rejected due to insufficient NICs - she asked for her claim to be backdated to 7 Dec 2015. Had she only asked for backdating to 1 Jan 2016, she would have satisfied the NIC tests.
In advisers’ experience, would it be better to request MR of this recent decision but to ask for backdating to only be looked at from 1 Jan 2016, or to submit a new claim now requesting backdate to 1 Jan 2016 - whilst we’re still just able to within 3 months. The 2nd option seems better to us, but would she need to show new/worsening condition? I know no WCA has been carried out, but does this warrant a ‘determination’?
Many thanks
Client’s ESA-C claim rejected due to insufficient NICs - she asked for her claim to be backdated to 7 Dec 2015. Had she only asked for backdating to 1 Jan 2016, she would have satisfied the NIC tests.
In advisers’ experience, would it be better to request MR of this recent decision but to ask for backdating to only be looked at from 1 Jan 2016, or to submit a new claim now requesting backdate to 1 Jan 2016 - whilst we’re still just able to within 3 months. The 2nd option seems better to us, but would she need to show new/worsening condition? I know no WCA has been carried out, but does this warrant a ‘determination’?
Many thanks
would it not be after the 5th of january? (thats off the top of my head).
is an easier route not to escalate as surely the decision maker should have checked when due from based on the actual date of claim and then looked at backdating?
As per Steven, it seems like an oversight and would probably be resolved with a phonecall to a reasonable DM. If you make a claim in (say) January but ask for it to be treated as if it was a claim made in November, the DM can’t just decide you weren’t entitled on the nominal date of claim in November and then close his eyes to the rest of it. Surely he needs to consider if your claim discloses any entitlement whatsoever.
As far as your second question goes - the rule only applies to LCW determinations so if your client did claim again, there would be no need to show a change in condition.
And I want to say that the current benefit year started on Sunday 3rd January?
As per Steven, it seems like an oversight and would probably be resolved with a phonecall to a reasonable DM. If you make a claim in (say) January but ask for it to be treated as if it was a claim made in November, the DM can’t just decide you weren’t entitled on the nominal date of claim in November and then close his eyes to the rest of it. Surely he needs to consider if your claim discloses any entitlement whatsoever.
As far as your second question goes - the rule only applies to LCW determinations so if your client did claim again, there would be no need to show a change in condition.
And I want to say that the current benefit year started on Sunday 3rd January?
fair play to anyone that remembers the full in and outs of the date thing without looking it up. i know it changes depending on what day of the week it falls etc but thats one i look up when i really have to.
Excellent - thanks for the replies. We shall try our luck on the phone first of all before resorting to an MR.
I suspect that the DWP stance will be as in this post, i.e. a claim form has to be taken at face value:
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/8878/
Although that is a particularly silly example, I am a bit uneasy about the idea that DMs should be of their own initiative deciding to amend claims to make them more advantageous for the claimant, as they see fit. In the current example, what if the claimant had wanted to check if they had sufficient NICs for a 2015 claim, but did not want to make a contributory 2016 claim at all, because they knew they would be wanting to rely on those NICs for a 2017 claim instead?
That said, if the claimant specifically requests that they want to amend their claim before a ‘final’ decision is made, I don’t see what ties the DM’s hands to stop that.