ESA Linking Rule
We have a client who has been in receipt of IRESA for a number years, he got offered work and took it, but it lasted a little under 4 weeks - normally I would just say that the linking rule applies.
However, not sure if that is the case as it would still need to make a new claim to ESA, to link it back to the former one, and you cannot make a new claim to IRESA?
So can he rely on the linking rule? Or will it be a claim to UC with the previous component of LCWRAG assessd, though not sure if that work as on the day of his UC claim he would not have been entitled to ESA, so no TP?
Any ideas appreciated
I cannot see anyway around the need for a new claim being an issue - so no way to link a claim.
Would be interested in any other opinions on this.
I agree with you - it is a new claim and therefore cannot be irESA.
So I think it will be a claim to UC and unfortunately, as he won’t in receipt of ESA when he makes the claim for UC, he can’t take advantage of reg 19 of the UC(TP) Regs and get the LCWRA element from the start of claim. I think he’ll have to go for a new WCA and wait three months.
It looks like he slips right through the net sadly unless anyone else has a different view?
Thanks for your response, Daphne, with UC I’m never sure I’ve not missed something.
It seems to go against the whole policy intention of making work pay though, but in saying that UC should never have consumed and combined an out of work benefit with in work benefits.
Would the same apply to a person who has been imprisoned for over 12 weeks, despite remaining a recipient of SDP within HB. Claim for iresa has been refused, now recipient of UC with no LCWWRA
I think it will impact on him too, because the TP do not help you, see Reg 19(1)
(b)on or before the relevant date it had been determined that the claimant had limited capability for work or limited capability for work-related activity
Also if the SDP is with HB only he will not get the SDP transitional element either when his HB, assume for TA, stops.[ Edited: 29 Apr 2021 at 04:27 pm by roecab ]
Thanks for the reply, I have exhausted all relevant regs in the hope I’ve not missed anything and now the client has been told by UC they think he may be entitled? but how can this be if he has surpassed the 12 weeks? Have I really missed something…
I’ve no idea either - if UC share their wisdom with you then do let us know!
I did also think that if within 12 weeks, and eligible, then could claim NSESA and that would link back to the old ESA claim, and then claim UC.