Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
esa and mr
Does the new high court decision mean that from today if found fit for work on esa you can go straight to submitting an appeal and can be paid pending appeal, or do new regs or an actual useful declaration from Coffey have to happen first?
Here’s the decision -
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1999.html
and the rightsnet summary -
Does the new high court decision mean that from today if found fit for work on esa you can go straight to submitting an appeal and can be paid pending appeal, or do new regs or an actual useful declaration from Coffey have to happen first?
My reading of it is that a claimant who, once they appeal would get ESA pending appeal, can go straight to appeal and does not need MR as reg 3ZA is unlawful (and hence of no effect) when applied to them. The s.12(3A) powers to prescribe situation in which appeal right does not exist until revision considered has not been exercised in respect of that decision (as the attempt to do so was unlawful) and there is an immediate right of appeal.
I think that a claimant wishing to test this would be well advised to file an MR request at same time as they file their appeal (no harm in doing so and protected in case I am wrong) and send in another appeal form once the MR is issued.
Possibility the SSWP will legislate to simply say that ESA is payable whilst MR pending in same circumstances as whilst appeal pending - at that point then reg 3ZA would be lawful again I think.
Have to say well done to this claimant acting in their own name- in a case I had considerable worries about which the judgment shows were not borne out.
Have to say well done to this claimant acting in their own name- in a case I had considerable worries about which the judgment shows were not borne out.
Seconded.
Does the new high court decision mean that from today if found fit for work on esa you can go straight to submitting an appeal and can be paid pending appeal, or do new regs or an actual useful declaration from Coffey have to happen first?
My reading of it is that a claimant who, once they appeal would get ESA pending appeal, can go straight to appeal and does not need MR as reg 3ZA is unlawful (and hence of no effect) when applied to them. The s.12(3A) powers to prescribe situation in which appeal right does not exist until revision considered has not been exercised in respect of that decision (as the attempt to do so was unlawful) and there is an immediate right of appeal.
I think that a claimant wishing to test this would be well advised to file an MR request at same time as they file their appeal (no harm in doing so and protected in case I am wrong) and send in another appeal form once the MR is issued.
Possibility the SSWP will legislate to simply say that ESA is payable whilst MR pending in same circumstances as whilst appeal pending - at that point then reg 3ZA would be lawful again I think.
Have to say well done to this claimant acting in their own name- in a case I had considerable worries about which the judgment shows were not borne out.
Thanks Martin
Can people post if this approach is successful?
With thanks to Michael, the claimant, who has emailed us to say -
Just to let you know DWP will not be appealing R (Connor) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have settled all outstanding matters. So advisers should be able to use my case as settled case law. I hope welfare rights community will take up the baton and apply my case to other benefits. It potentially has wide implications. As far as I am aware this is the first time in a UK court that financial disadvantage has been held to be an incompatible hindrance to one’s article 6 convention right. Although not in the judgement, Justice Swift accepted a submission that the very act of a minister deciding to lay a regulation can be unlawful, if that reg is ECHR incompatible There is also no “manifestly without reasonable foundation’ barrier to A6 unlike A14 that most welfare benefit JRs focus on. Anyway that’s for the welfare rights community to take up
Daphne can you send him our thanks and respect
Daphne can you send him our thanks and respect
Absolutely!
Daphne off today, but I’ll pass your comments on to Michael :)
Does the new high court decision mean that from today if found fit for work on esa you can go straight to submitting an appeal and can be paid pending appeal, or do new regs or an actual useful declaration from Coffey have to happen first?
My reading of it is that a claimant who, once they appeal would get ESA pending appeal, can go straight to appeal and does not need MR as reg 3ZA is unlawful (and hence of no effect) when applied to them. The s.12(3A) powers to prescribe situation in which appeal right does not exist until revision considered has not been exercised in respect of that decision (as the attempt to do so was unlawful) and there is an immediate right of appeal.
I think that a claimant wishing to test this would be well advised to file an MR request at same time as they file their appeal (no harm in doing so and protected in case I am wrong) and send in another appeal form once the MR is issued.
Possibility the SSWP will legislate to simply say that ESA is payable whilst MR pending in same circumstances as whilst appeal pending - at that point then reg 3ZA would be lawful again I think.
Have to say well done to this claimant acting in their own name- in a case I had considerable worries about which the judgment shows were not borne out.
Has anyone tried this approach yet? Any feedback/comments?
Thanks
Matt
The DWP has confirmed - via a note in today’s WCA statistics - that it will no longer require mandatory reconsiderations prior to appeal for ESA claimants who meet the conditions for payment pending appeal -
As a result of a High Court decision in July 2020 (Connor v SSWP), MR has been discontinued for any claimant who, having been found Fit For Work following a WCA would, if they appealed, be paid ESA pending the outcome of that appeal. This is known as Payment Pending Appeal (PPA). Not all claimants qualify, and it applies only to Fit For Work disallowance decisions, not decisions such as disallowance due to Failure to Return a Questionnaire or Failure to Attend a WCA.
From the DWP point of view, just removing the MR text from decision notices will achieve this result, but further action is presumably needed on HMCTS side to stop issues being thrown up with these appeals.
This is good news, but will probably come with several caveats. Does this mean that they will now start a trawl process for all of those individuals who may have lost out on EDPs and SDPs because they were “forced” to claim UC or face having no income but were later found to have LCWRA?
Elliot presumably HMCTS can resolve this at the “which benefit decision are you challenging” stage, though granted there are ESA decisions which will still require MR.
Excellent news. When will this start then ?
New today - ADM Memo 21/20 gives guidance on mandatory reconsiderations and ESA awards pending LCW appeal following Connor High Court judgment.
This looks to be potentially a confusing process for those on NS-ESA topped up with UC. Where both a UC WCA and an ESA WCA decision have been issued, any thoughts on whether a UC MR request is strictly necessary, or can we just rely on UC revising in line with the ESA appeal outcome?