Claiming UC while doing ESA mandatory recon

Hello and belated Happy new year,

Can I just check I am on the right track here -

Client gets turned down for IR ESA due to failed WCA.

Mandatory recon submitted.

Client claims UC (full service) to get some sort of income until appeal is lodged and ESA basic rate is payable again.

Client is now ‘locked out’ of ESA and locked in to the UC system and even if their appeal for ESA is successful they can’t claim ESA ever again?

Therefore if client can manage on 0 income during recon period it is better for them to not claim UC? Especially if they would be eligible for SDP

Cheers! 

I’m afraid you are correct.  Once a claim for UC has been paid, then your client will be unable to go back onto ESA even if their mandatory reconsideration/appeal is successful.  If they win their MR/appeal, they will be paid the component (plus any relevant premiums) up until the date that their UC award started and they will get the additional component on UC.  This is however assuming that the additional component is awarded from pre April 2017 for the WRAG.

And as you mentioned, there are no disability premiums under UC.

Your analysis is right, but its not as simple as saying “its better for them not to claim UC”. There are a number of factors to consider.

The main one, which points towards sticking on legacy benefits, is often the premiums. If you’re getting SDP, the will be lost on the transfer to UC so there’s a strong incentive to stick it out.

However there are other factors to consider - one is that claiming UC and putting in fit notes means that you get another WCA without needing to prove a change of circs - so claiming UC can sometimes lead to getting put into a group quicker than winning an appeal.

Another point to consider is that if a claimant loses their appeal, or gets forced onto UC for some other reason (e.g. if they’re planning to move house into a full service area), then they’re going to have two nil income periods - one when they wait for the MR and one when they first claim UC. In some cases, it might be better to “rip off the plaster” as it were.

I’d say that in practice, its usually best to stay on legacy - but you really have to look at each case as it comes.

It doesn’t matter if they lose their appeal (apart from being disappointing, sad etc) from an ESA income POV.

Their ESA (basic rate) is backdated to the date it stopped once the FTT accepts their appeal and then continues until it is decided (assuming they do not claim UC) so they do not have a period of nil income during MR—it is eventually paid.

If they claim UC in the mean time they would still have the ESA entitlement from the time it stopped to the time they claimed UC once the FTT accepts the appeal. Fiddly and likely to get lost but I can’t see why it wouldn’t still be there

The abolition of the 7 waiting days and the two-week HB overlap makes the choice more finely balanced I think. Rent arrears are no longer inevitable.

I recognise that its backdated - but its still 4-6 weeks of living on air. If your boss said “I’m not going to pay you this month, but I’ll pay double next month”, you probably wouldn’t be happy with that.

My point really is just that there isn’t always an automatic right answer.

Elliot Kent - 12 January 2018 08:59 AM

I recognise that its backdated - but its still 4-6 weeks of living on air. If your boss said “I’m not going to pay you this month, but I’ll pay double next month”, you probably wouldn’t be happy with that.

My point really is just that there isn’t always an automatic right answer.

I agree Elliot that there really isn’t a one size fits all answer on this one.  Too many variables and ultimately every client’s situation is different and where one can manage for the period before getting ESA assessment again, there are many who cannot.

One point to mention however is that a client should still get HB and CTS based on nil income whilst the ESA has stopped.  Not ideal but many of our clients are mainly worried about their rent accounts so when reassured that HB will still be paid find that they are able to survive with support from friends/family and foodbanks.

Thank you everybody. Appreciate the clarification and further relevant points

hope its ok to jump onto this thread as its a related issue ... has anyone had any cases where appeal made for ESA, which was allowed, claimed UC in the interim and now find clmnts back on ESA? I did not think this could happen?  and the problem is our HB department are (correctly in my view) saying that they cant pay, but clmnts are being told to claim UC for housing costs (and keep ESA IR which cant happen). If clmnts make a new claim for HB, this would trigger a switch anyway, and if they claim UC for housing costs, this will end ESA. Just seems yet a further example of the chaos of UC. We have DWP looking at specific cases but just wondered if anyone else had experienced this and what was the outcome (or have I misunderstood anything) happy to be wrong in these circumstances, would be great if ESA could be reinstated

We had a client whose ESA restarted when she won her appeal—but her UC carried on…................Quite a lot of money before it was spotted.

You could check that that is not what is happening here