Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
A change of heart maybe?
I helped a claimant complete form ESA50 the other day. At the end of the form I mentioned that an appeal tribunal had commented in its decision notice that the appellant should not be re-assessed until a date 2 years following the appeal hearing. I pointed out that it had only been 12 months. Surprisingly, to me anyway, Maximus telephoned client to apologise and that she need not attend a WCA.
Is this now the norm do you think; or am I overly optimistic?
Thank you.
Patrick
Fear it may be a one-off. We had a client in exactly the same boat recently. Not only did Maximus insist on her attending face to face assessment she failed WCA and we’re (once again) appealing.
It speaks volumes that if this were my client, I would be half-expecting a letter down the line indicating that they had failed to attend a medical and were being sanctioned.
Whilst we’re on the subject, people have said to me that the DWP are not bound by statements regarding further re-assessments for periods given by tribunals. I’m sure someone will know why this is so and why the following is of no value.
Is it not that such comment/direction about re-assessment is an integral part of the decision and must, therefore, carry the same weight and be as binding as the rest of the decision?
As I say, I happy to know why I am mistaken.
Thank you.
Patrick
The statement on re-assessment is not binding because a decision on entitlement is always just a decision about things on that day in history - it is not open to a tribunal to prevent the DWP from later superseding its decision.
The decision pro-forma in my area makes this clear by saying “Any recommendation given below does not form part of the Tribunal’s decision and is not binding on the Secretary of State.”
However the recommendation will usually be followed absent unusual circs. See DMG 42178 etc.
As I said, I’m happy to know why I’m wrong. Simple when you think on it.
Thank you Elliot.
Patrick
Suspect Maximus are doing a bit of an ATOS and balancing the need to be paid for x number of medicals against the need to hit targets for numbers processed.
As for tribunal recommendations, the main reason they’re not followed is that the decision is communicated back to DWP but not necessarily your ATOS etc. Had numerous cases where ATOS et al happy to follow a 2 or 3 year recommendation but had scheduled the claimant in inside 6 months because DWP and TS don’t tell them.
Had numerous cases where ATOS et al happy to follow a 2 or 3 year recommendation but had scheduled the claimant in inside 6 months because DWP and TS don’t tell them.
Surely, DWP tells the assessment provider to assess someone. My understanding is that DWP sends a referral to them, which puts the (re)assessment process in motion. If you think about it, it couldn’t work any other way, because the assessment provider doesn’t know whether the claimant even still has an ESA award come reassessment day.
Therefore, it’s a DWP decision whether or not to reassess somebody, not Atos/Maximus/whoever.
Provider has a schedule that throws up who needs assessment. So, if a claimant is on a 6 month reassessment schedule it will happen every 6 months regardless unless someone from DWP says not. If a tribunal says 2 years that gets communicated to DWP but, as we’ve found repeatedly, what is their interest in updating the information to the provider.
I hear what you’re saying about knowing whether they’re on ESA or not but then you only have to cast your mind over those people who should have moved to claiming PC but still get an invite. People who’ve just come out of tribunals who get an invite and so on.
I should say I’ve had several cases involving just this and it took some getting to the bottom of. Ultimately it doesn’t work as we would assume it would or ought.