IB to ESA conversion without a clear reason why: ‘treated as having LCW’

I’m helping a collegue with an appeal for a client to try to get into the Support Group. He was transferred from IB earlier in the year and placed in the WRAG.

He didn’t attend a medical and there is no mention of which descriptors may apply, only that the Medical Services advice (ESA85A) was that he meets the criteria for having limited capacity for work and that he is likely to score above threshold on assessment.

The conversion decision then states that he is treated as having limited capacity for work. I can’t see that he meets any of the criteria to be treated as having LCW, so surely he must either have scorded 15+ points or have reg29 apply to him?

He has complex physical and learning difficulties so it’s not easy to see which level of each relevant descriptors may have been awarded

Has anyone had similar cases? Did anyone get more info from JCP about their decisions?

thanks

This is not uncommon. In migration cases (and subsequent WCA’s) decision’s made on ‘scrutiny’ - a HCP considers the existing evidence and decides a face to face assessment is not required - HCP gives their opinion to DWP on an ESA85A (the short version - 2 pages - of the full ESA85A HCP opinion following a face to facen assessment) normally only states the HCPs opinion that the claimant has LCFW (or presumably LCFWRA) - it does not identify specific descriptors / score or if applied under Reg 29/35.

The DWP decision letter reflects this and does not identify a points score but simply states that the claimant has LCFW (or LCFWRA) and has been awarded ESA. For the entertainment value your client could request a copy of the ESA85A that resulted in the decision.

As you are probably aware in migration cases this often means the claimant does not understand that they have only been placed in the WRAG, when SG may be appropriate, and therefore does not realise they could / should appeal.

A competent advice worker then picks up on this issue many months later .......

Thanks Peter

So are you saying that a longer ESA85A should exist, or is it purely a comedy value request?

I don’t understand why the decision maker says he is treated as having LCW, apart from it being the usual poor decision making

Peter Turville - 16 August 2013 02:03 PM

As you are probably aware in migration cases this often means the claimant does not understand that they have only been placed in the WRAG, when SG may be appropriate, and therefore does not realise they could / should appeal.

Is it cynical to suggest this may be one of the intended consequences?