Revision of later WCA decisions following successful WCA appeal/ UC not paying arrears of LCWRA component
I’m advising a colleague who has taken on a client with a serious sight loss (not registered as yet). The history is as follows:
1) Client was on ir-ESA - failed WCA #1 on 24/07/18 - this date was his last payment of ESA
2) Claimed UC on 24/07/18
3) Requested an MR of WCA #1 (ESA) decision - MR was unsuccessful and he lodged an appeal
4) Made a new claim for ns-ESA on 1.09.18, and he was treated as a credits only case from 1/09/2018 to 13/12/18 until he failed WCA #2 on 14/12/18
5) Requested an MR against the new ESA decision of 14.12.18. MR unsuccessful dated 9.01.19 (but client has not yet appealed this decision)
6) Failed his UC WCA #3 on 22/01/19 – has requested MR
7) Appeal tribunal (20 May) re WCA#1 found client had LCWRA (reg 35) on 24/07/2018
My thinking is colleague should help client to request a late appeal re WCA#2, and write to ESA and UC re WCA#2 and WCA#3 respectively, giving both a copy of tribunal decision and asking them to revise their decisions on basis that the facts in all the WCAs were the same and his condition has not changed since the first WCA.
UC are saying that ESA is responsible for the arrears of the LCWRA component payable from 24/07/2018 – 13/12/2018, but as the ESA claim was closed/award ended on 24/07 I can’t see how they’re arguing this, other than they don’t get the UC transitional provisions regs.
Is there anything I’ve missed or any further advice, including re strategies to get UC to pay up on the arrears? Thanks[ Edited: 17 Jun 2019 at 10:34 am by Charlie.RNIB ]
You need to get old style ESA to acknowledge and implement the decision even though this will have limited practical effect as far as old ESA goes. Once that is done, they should update nsESA and UC with the correct information about entitlements at the point of transition which should then lead to recalculation of entitlements.
It has been less than a month since the Tribunal decision, so it would not be entirely surprising if ESA just haven’t gotten around to dealing with the decision yet - but it is an appeal against one of their decisions, so it is their job to implement it and then direct UC about what to do next. UC won’t take any action on the appeal until told to do so by ESA.