× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

ESA Permitted Work- PW1 form question.

Nan
forum member

Generalist team - Hammersmith & Fulham CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 155

Joined: 8 July 2010

Hi all,

In part 3 of the form it is asking about the organisation who will be providing the ongoing support and supervision or work. Does this have to be someone from an organisation which organises work for people with disabilities? Or can it be a social worker or a support worker etc who is supporting client?

The support worker would have to sign part 3 so I need to know if a social worker/support worker could sign as according to the PW1 they would have to provide ongoing support in the workplace which I don’t know if they could.

I didn’t realise permitted work was so strict regarding this. Is their any organisations to refer clients who want to do permitted work to? Or can the DWP help with this? I couldn’t find anything about this elsewhere.

Thanks,

HFCA

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Part 3 only needs to be filled in if it is supported permitted work. For regular permitted work - which will be most people - you don’t need to complete that bit. From the first page of the PW1 -

Read this questionnaire carefully and make sure you fill in:
l Parts 1 and 2 – these must be filled in by everyone
l Part 3 – only needs to be filled in if you are doing supported
permitted work. Your support worker or the person supervising you
will fill this part in for you
l Part 4 – you must sign and date this section before you send it to
Jobcentre Plus.

Nan
forum member

Generalist team - Hammersmith & Fulham CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 155

Joined: 8 July 2010

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply- sorry I should have spotted that!

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

No worries - easily done :)

Barbara Knight
forum member

Leorn Welfare Rights Training Services, Derby

Send message

Total Posts: 78

Joined: 8 April 2011

Hopefully haven’t got this wrong, but concluded if the 52 week limit for Permitted work had gone (April 17) so had the need for ‘supported work’?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

I think supported permitted work doesn’t have the 16 hours limit (although it does have the earnings limit of 16 times NMW) - I’m guessing maybe supported work doesn’t have to be paid at the minimum wage?

see reg 39 of ESA Regs 2013 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/379/pdfs/uksi_20130379_300916_en.pdf and reg 45 of ESA Regs 2008 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/pdfs/uksi_20080794_300916_en.pdf-

Barbara Knight
forum member

Leorn Welfare Rights Training Services, Derby

Send message

Total Posts: 78

Joined: 8 April 2011

I was basing my view on pg. 1011 cpag 16/17, will go and look at the regs!

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 868

Joined: 22 August 2013

Daphne - 19 April 2017 04:27 PM

I think supported permitted work doesn’t have the 16 hours limit (although it does have the earnings limit of 16 times NMW) - I’m guessing maybe supported work doesn’t have to be paid at the minimum wage?

see reg 39 of ESA Regs 2013 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/379/pdfs/uksi_20130379_300916_en.pdf and reg 45 of ESA Regs 2008 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/pdfs/uksi_20080794_300916_en.pdf-

we had this once before.  think someone on the lower age nmw range could work 16 hours and not hit the earnings limit at that tiime….unsure if thats changed.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

I have had a client whose permitted work entitled her to SSP. Not knowing that SSP overlaps with ESA and thinking that her SSP did not need to be reported as it was below the SPW earnings limit, she incurred a substantial overpayment over 6 months. Something to be aware of.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 868

Joined: 22 August 2013

unhindered by talent - 10 May 2017 11:57 AM

I have had a client whose permitted work entitled her to SSP. Not knowing that SSP overlaps with ESA and thinking that her SSP did not need to be reported as it was below the SPW earnings limit, she incurred a substantial overpayment over 6 months. Something to be aware of.

ive never seen that one before.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

I think it’s because PW limit is now higher then LEL.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 868

Joined: 22 August 2013

unhindered by talent - 10 May 2017 12:15 PM

I think it’s because PW limit is now higher then LEL.

and at 28 weeks that would break the persons LCFW would it not?  meaning no wrag potentially if they re-claimed and a new assessment phase?

what a time to be alive.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

Exactly. Client has to make a fresh claim for ESA and, because she has been working and has returned to work, she may struggle to a) get a fit note from GP and b) pass the WCA

Sangeeta1
forum member

Support Services, Cystic Fibrosis Trust, London

Send message

Total Posts: 21

Joined: 18 February 2016

unhindered by talent - 10 May 2017 11:57 AM

I have had a client whose permitted work entitled her to SSP. Not knowing that SSP overlaps with ESA and thinking that her SSP did not need to be reported as it was below the SPW earnings limit, she incurred a substantial overpayment over 6 months. Something to be aware of.

I have someone in this situation. ESA have said to her she will have to pay back the ESA.

My thinking is that SSP should not have been paid to her as she was not entitled to it.

A period of entitlement cannot arise if-

at some time in the 85 days before the date on which your period of entitlement would have begun you were entitled to employment and support allowance (ESA) or, in some circumstances, you would have been entitled. For this to apply, you must have claimed ESA (or made a claim for another benefit that was treated as a claim for ESA). If you have limited capability for work, you may qualify for ESA instead of SSP. s153(3) and Sch 11 SSCBA 1992; reg 3 SSP Regs

So if she’s not entitled to be paid SSP, why should ESA be stopped?

If someone is on permitted work, and then can’t work, they should not receive any SSP, as the work (and pay) was an exception within the ESA rules. Should Employers check with DWP/HMRC before paying SSP?

Please let me know if there are any tactics I could use.

 

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

Well spotted! Both I, my colleagues and ESA missed this. My client has been paying back ESA for nearly a year now and ended up making a new claim for IRESA, losing her CBESA.  I am now wondering if it’s too late to reverse this.

Surely an error of law would enable her CBESA to be reinstated, the debt to ESA written off and the only debt would be to her employer for SSP. Still not good but £500 less than a CBESA overpayment?