Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
DWP advice to CESA/UC client - just claim UC or we make you fill in 2 sets of forms and have 2 sets of interviews
Client eligible for CESA and UC says:
“Having filled in the forms, and had the interviews for both UC and New style ESA, I am now in receipt of UC, however it’s been advised that I make just one claim for UC, as if on both, then it doubles the amount of forms/appts etc, and I would probably be getting the same amount of financial support, but “from 2x separate pots, rather than one”.
It defies belief that DWP is seriously proposing to double up on appointments and forms, as if to punish the claimant and harass her in to claiming UC only.
Is there no co-ordidnation between ESA and UC? (rhetorical question????)
At least they are admitting the continued existence of CBESA now, that’s a great leap forward!
Client eligible for CESA and UC says:
“Having filled in the forms, and had the interviews for both UC and New style ESA, I am now in receipt of UC, however it’s been advised that I make just one claim for UC, as if on both, then it doubles the amount of forms/appts etc, and I would probably be getting the same amount of financial support, but “from 2x separate pots, rather than one”.
It defies belief that DWP is seriously proposing to double up on appointments and forms, as if to punish the claimant and harass her in to claiming UC only.
Is there no co-ordidnation between ESA and UC? (rhetorical question????)
And a hugely inefficient use of DWP time.
..but presumably double the assessments, and therefore double the payments going to assessment providers?
..but presumably double the assessments, and therefore double the payments going to assessment providers?
And of course two completely different WCA outcomes!!!!
Someone who is not a Rightsnet subscriber has recently taken this matter up via FoI and has supplied this link (my thanks to that person!)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dualtwin_work_capability_assessm#outgoing-800192
DWP reply includes: ‘Claimant….is not required to have two separate WCAs…we recognise [that this has happened to some claimants] and will be reviewing the process to prevent this from occurring in the future’
Now that seems sensible: but how was it allowed to happen at all? This benefit is a mess and is not ready for any kind of ‘roll-out’.