ESA claimant must have limited capability for work before s/he can qualify for the ‘support group’ 

CSE 493 2014 on today’s Rightsnet.

I’m bamboozled by this. How could the FTT have found someone to qualify under Reg 35 having already considered they did not meet Reg 29? Surely the Reg 35 test is always going to be stricter than the Reg 29 test, so what process of logic could they have followed to come to the decision that they did? if someone is at risk of self-harming if they are found fit for WRA why would they not be at risk if found fit for work?

I appreciate the decision has been reversed by the UTT but cannot grasp how it could ever have been made. Can anyone shed any light?

It’s disturbing that the case wasn’t remitted to the FTT. For the reasons you say, the decision that regulation 29 didn’t apply should have been considered too tainted by error to stand.