UC and disabled workers

Do you mean those in work who are off on long term sickness, e.g those on SSP who can claim UC too?

I meant people who would have qualified for Working Tax Credit which has a Disabled Worker Element and a Severe Disability Element, linked to receipt of DLA/PIP and being disadvantaged in the workplace.  So people actually working and not if sick.

I guess a person unable to work and on SSP or after the SSP period would more easily be referred for WCA because they are submitting med certs.

Although apparently there are still delays.

Neil Couling has responded saying -

(1) if claimant has declared (a) in work, (b) earning = or above monthly earnings threshold, (c) with an illness or disability affecting their ability to stay in work, and (d) in receipt of DLA, PIP, AFIP or AA they will be offered a work capability assessment.

(2). They do not have to ask for it, it is automatically generated, with a “to do” that invites the WCA.  So there’s no need for messaging.  Although this does rely on claimant identifying their circumstances correctly.  Risk of them downplaying impact of illness/disability?

However, experiences on twitter seem to be saying that isn’t happening - people in work are not offered a WCA - if people have examples they could put up here we could direct Neil Couling to the thread and maybe get some improvements put in place

Just an update on this.
I asked Neil Couling on twitter on 5 August:
1. Is this without them needing to submit a ‘fitnote’. 2. Are you looking to make the wording clearer so people know that WCA is the route to extra UC?

He has not replied.  But I have a reply to an individual case from the Complaints Team that the screens are being looked at as a priority.

I know from a number of cases that I am dealing with that if you declare a health condition but do not submit a ‘fitnote’ then no action is taken.

I have asked, in relation to one of my cases, what action should be taken to prompt a claimant who has declared a health condition that affects their ability to work to submit a ‘fit note’ and what explanation is given to the claimant that the additional support in UC actually depends on the WCA (even though they are working).

I have cited their ‘safeguarding’ duties, but their response is that people can check the ‘calculation’ of UC on ‘entitled to’ and it is not their responsibility to identify this.  This is clearly wrong, but if anyone has anything concrete to support this I would be v interested.

Lastly, I know for a fact that lack of knowledge of how disabled workers are assessed in UC runs right through the organisation, as there are examples on UC journals from service centre and work coaches telling people they are working so cannot also be ‘on the health journey’ (grrrr at that terminology).  I also have a case where it is evident that even senior officials in the DWP did not know this.

Any other case examples?

Sarah-B - 26 September 2019 08:53 AM

Any other case examples?

Someone with fluctuating but at times severe mental ill health. Detained under the MHA, email med10, call to UC to try and argue for the WCA and get “but he’s still got his wages coming in”. As it was >16x NMW; higher than the threshold, they insisted they couldn’t do the WCA.

A 6 month long med3 later and they issued the ESA50; exceptional circumstances/substantial risk were swiftly accepted.

This is the kind of illogical corner this rule has painted clients into by relying on the WCA and not recognising disability benefits..  It’s perfectly sensible to assume that people having been found by a medical assessment to be incapable of work are incapable of work - not just a particular type of work but, as we are always being reminded - all kinds of work. .  It doesn’t make much sense to apply an incentive of the Work Allowance to encourage people who have been found incapable of work to work. In any case it is illogical.

I would imagine such an incentive would actual encourage activity dangerous to ones health. It differs both from the Tax Credits Disability Element which was based on disability elements and was perfectly logical:  many people with a disability can work.  It also differs from the old concept of “therapeutic work” which specifically recognises that some people cannot work in general but can pursue limited therapeutic work without losing their benefits.

Ruth

Ruth Knox - 02 October 2019 01:15 PM

  It doesn’t make much sense to apply an incentive of the Work Allowance to encourage people who have been found incapable of work to work. In any case it is illogical.

I would imagine such an incentive would actual encourage activity dangerous to ones health. It differs both from the Tax Credits Disability Element which was based on disability elements and was perfectly logical:  many people with a disability can work.  It also differs from the old concept of “therapeutic work” which specifically recognises that some people cannot work in general but can pursue limited therapeutic work without losing their benefits.

Ruth

In a joint claim the work allowance is of benefit to the non disabled partner, and recognises that in a situation where one of a couple is disabled the work allowance gives a little extra help due to the fact that one party is unable to work.

Tax credits had the rather perverse rule that if the disabled party only got standard rate PIP, the disability element and reduced hour qualification to 16 (rather than standard 30) was only available to the disabled person working, not the partner and thus did not recognise the extra financial (and time) pressures that the couple had with one person shouldering both the work and caring responsibilities.

Agree that the ‘work allowance’ is illogical - it was designed as a work incentive, but has had to be co-opted as a way to provide additional financial support to disabled workers in absence of a disabled workers element.

DWP have provided the ‘Spotlight’ guidance for staff on the issue of WCA for people in employment.