Tribunal Judge’s recommendation on ESA appeals

One of our judges is refusing to put a recommendation on ESA appeal decisions as to when the person should be reassessed.  Anyone came across this and is there anything to challenge here

If memory serves they are only recommendations, and not enforceable anyway

As they can be routinely ignored maybe the judge stopped issuing such recommendations?

Thanks, he is the only Judge doing this

Has he said why?

I thought there was some HMCTS guidance on this? There’s also a potential argument about it being an incomplete decision given that a DM would certainly attach a recommendation for reassessment to a decision.

i wouldnt mind knowing where and which judge this is.  you can send me a private message if thats better.

for what its worth ive never seen this and we do glasgow/hamilton regularly enough.

I had an ESA appeal just under a year ago for someone with learning disabilities and epilepsy, it was a transfer from SDA case which was assessed without a face to face and placed in WRAG, appeal was to get into SG. Client’s first meeting with work coach after WRAG decision resulted in a single action on her work plan - to contact my organisation for assistance to get into SG. They could not identify any work-related activity this person could do. I have just today completed another ESA50 for same client and went looking for the decision notice, it had no recommended date of reassessment. Obviously didn’t matter much at the time of the appeal as it was successful (i can’t even recall noticing it) and reg 35 awarded but I see now it would have been useful to have something to use against them reassessing so soon. This was in Glasgow. I still live in hope with these cases that some sensible person would look at the circumstances of people who are being reassessed (as they keep promising they will do in terms of life long conditions with no expectation of improvement) and not put them through this year in, year out. I would be very interested to know how people are tackling these cases. When are the DWP going to follow through on not reassessing this kind of claimant?