Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Very retrospective ESA
Cl claimed C-ESA November 2017, received a few payments then no more. It appears that Cl submitted sick notes by handing them into Job Centre when he received a reminder letter, so either a sick note was lost by JC or reminder was not sent/ received.
Cl has sick notes covering whole period from 2017 to date but as he wasn’t told what he should do with them after the apparent closure of his claim he has kept them.
Would there subsequently have been a decision to close the claim due to failure to provide evidence or is this something that is in any way capable of being retrospectively resurrected?
I may be clutching at straws here but this is a Cl who would benefit from a LCWRA reclaim based on credits following exhaustion to tide him over to retirement age with working partner.
[ Edited: 10 Feb 2023 at 01:19 pm by JennyRussell ]My biggest single arrears payment was someone in similar circumstances; we’d managed to get an ESA claim in but the client disengaged, JCP very kindly left the claim open for years, hopefully in the knowledge that said client had quite severe mental health issues.
Nah; they complacently didn’t close the claim down then rather underhandedly tried to invent a decision I had been told over the phone hadn’t been made. The Tribunal didn’t believe them and someone winced at the arrears payment that was well into 5 figures. If no decision has been made that he’s not entitled you’ve still got a live claim; what should have killed the claim off was failure to attend a WCA; in my case they never made the referral.
It’s worth ringing JCP and seeing if the claim’s still open. It’s been a while mind but it might be sat at the back of someone’s proverbial desk.
I’m going to tell you both off for talking about “claims” being “closed” or “open” before Martin at CPAG sees this.
Really that probably answers your question. There is no “claim” at all. Your client has an award of ESA and awards don’t go anywhere without decisions being made. If no decision was made, or if the decision can be shown at this distance to be erroneous, then the entitlement continues.
SAR often a good place to start for this kind of thing.
The following may come in handy
R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Another [2003] UK HL 36 held ‘The arguments for the Home Secretary ignore fundamental principles of our law. Notice of a decision is required before it can have the character of a determination with legal effect because the individual concerned must be in a position to challenge the decision in the courts if he or she wishes to do so. This is not a technical rule. It is simply an application of the right of access to justice. That is a fundamental and constitutional principle of our legal system: Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1, 10G per Lord Wilberforce; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Leech, [1994] QB 198, 209D; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115’ (paragraph 26).
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/anuf-1.htm
ADM A1: Principles of Decision Making and Evidence: A1015 A decision is valid as soon as it is properly recorded by the DM. If a decision is not acted upon or not communicated to the relevant parties, this does not invalidate the decision1. However a decision is not fully effective unless, and until it is notified2. See A1116 - A1118 for guidance on how and when decisions are notified and for failure to notify the decision see A1119.1 R(P) 1/85.pdf ; 2 R(U) 7/81; R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Another [2003] UK HL 36.