LCWRA (UC) refused appeal - “life drawing classes”

DWP appeal submissions usually contain a list of anodyne activities which it asserts amount to work-related activity which the claimant is likely to be asked to do if they are put in the WRAG. I think they have things like “think of 5 jobs” and “write the word ‘work’ on a piece of paper and look at it each evening”. The Tribunal is asked to look at these as illustrative of what the claimant would in fact be asked to do and then that is the benchmark against which a reg 35 risk is judged.

If the Tribunal thinks that “work-related activity” for this particular claimant is likely to amount to nothing more than these sorts of activities, then the suggestion would be that if they are able to get up, get dressed and drive to a life drawing class, tolerate the level of engagement and interaction with others required for the class and focus for long enough to be effective at it, they will probably be able to cope with the sort of WRA which might be imposed.

I find that usually the most important question the Tribunal asks in these cases is - what has the jobcentre actually been asking you to do whilst waiting for this appeal? There needs to be a convincing argument as to why that is detrimental.

That said, there is loads of scope in these appeals to go to UT. We really need some guidance on how FtTs are supposed to deal with reg 35 / para 4, Sch 9 in the context of a “post-work programme” age. There were a few cases in the offing at one point but I am not sure what has come of them.

I still have an UT case stayed behind an UT case looking whether ‘soft skills’ are work-related activity.

I would say that attending an art class could be analogous with WRA.
You’d need to explain why it isn’t for this client.
E.g. support to attend, particular when first started; misses the class when not up to it; doesn’t provoke as much anxiety when activity is not under threat of sanction - that sort of thing.

When I see clients in the WRAG often their work coach hasn’t identified any WRA for them to do.  I use this as evidence that in fact there isn’t any which they can do without risk.

Thank you Helen - the client had missed some classes and his work coach sees him every 3 months and hasn’t pushed him into doing any WRA’s - could be that there are not any. 

Let me know Vonny if you wouldn’t mind, the details of the UT case that has been stayed. 

JojoMitchell - 27 February 2020 04:04 PM

Thank you Helen - the client had missed some classes and his work coach sees him every 3 months and hasn’t pushed him into doing any WRA’s - could be that there are not any. 

Let me know Vonny if you wouldn’t mind, the details of the UT case that has been stayed. 

No problem - direction notice attached

The UT cases referred to in that directions notice were themselves stayed behind a case in which I am the rep. Oral hearing on that was in June last year, but there were a number of additional rounds of subs and witness statements that followed - the last at the end of November last year.

I’ll ask when the UT expects to issue its decision (there was no urgency in my case as it is about ESA and the client had moved to UC with LCWRA very shortly after the ESA appeal being dismissed at FtT).

Thanks past caring