× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

NSESA

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 465

Joined: 17 June 2010

Hi,

Client was in receipt of IRESA, and her husband’s income increased, ended claim.

Client claimed, and has been awarded ,NSESA, and she requested a backdated period, just over 8 weeks, which was also allowed.

Does NSESA have a linking rule similar to old style ESA, as NSESA say not and client must have a new WCA.

 

 

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Questions rather than an answer…
Was the IRESA claim her claim, or was she a partner on the husband’s claim?
If it was hers and she is now entitled to NS ESA, would she not have been entitled to CB ESA alongside the IR on the old claim?
Therefore, should it have stopped in the first place?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

roecab - 08 February 2022 01:27 PM

Hi,

Client was in receipt of IRESA, and her husband’s income increased, ended claim.

Client claimed, and has been awarded ,NSESA, and she requested a backdated period, just over 8 weeks, which was also allowed.

Does NSESA have a linking rule similar to old style ESA, as NSESA say not and client must have a new WCA.

 

 

Art. 10 of the No. 9 Commencement Order provides for linking between old-style and new-style awards of ESA, and for LCW/LCWRA determinations to carry over.
Subsequent Commencement Orders then apply these rules to the areas covered by those Commencement orders.

Remember though that DWP (almost) always have the power to make a fresh determination about LCW/LCWRA anyway.

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 465

Joined: 17 June 2010

Many thanks both.

Now I have seen the decision notice, it is as was suggested that client had both CESA and IRESA, shame they ended the claim as this meant client moved over to UC - and although her claim to NSESA prompted them to reopen CESA th client is now stuck on UC, at least we can now argue that the LCWRA applies from the 1st AP.

Cheers