ESA 365 day period ended - reinstating ESA due to eligibility for SG
Hi and Happy New Year all!
I have a client whose 365 day period ended in July 2020, and he has confirmed with ESA that he has been receiving NI credits since then on the basis that he has a LCW. Cl’s condition has worsened so he may now be eligible for the SG. DRH says he can “reinstate” his “claim” and he won’t have to satisfy NI conts conditions again, and will have no assessment period or waiting days. To do this it says that he should “make a new claim for ESA”.
Cl has called ESA however, who have said instead of making a new claim, he should write a letter saying his condition has worsened and sending evidence. This suggests they are looking to treat this as a supersession.
Does anyone know if this is correct - as they are only crediting NI, there is no claim as such as far as I understand it, so not sure how it can be superseded?
Many thanks :-)
My experience in these cases is that DWP will look to supersede existing LCW decision - as with your client mine have similarly been asked to write in to advise of a worsening condition / provide any available evidence
Following this ESA have then started another WCA to determine if client now has LCWFRA to then re-instate actual payments if they do
The legal position is that the ESA award ended. The entitlement to credits for LCW is not ESA and therefore there is nothing to be superseded. Further entitlement to ESA would depend on a new claim being made. So you are right in this respect.
However in the DWP’s administrative system your client is still considered as an ESA claimant but is in receipt of “credits only ESA”. This isn’t really accurate to the actual legal position but appears to be a more convenient way for them to think about it. So your client going from “credits only” to a resumed cESA entitlement would be viewed as a change within the context of one existing award.
Thanks both, much appreciated!
This appears to be an instance where DWP administrative convenience works to claimant’s advantage when compared to the legally correct position.