No ESA50 at WCA

bro58,

I think they must have had to assess which descriptors to award points under though and there must be some paperwork showing this and why he was put in the WRAG rather than Support group, even if the ESA85A doesn't generally show that information. He requested "all relevant paperwork", so they should have sent him any that shows this information.

I can't imagine that they just look at the ESA50 and go "Yeah OK, give him 15 points" without making a more detailed assessment, as if someone challenged being put in the WRAG rather than Support group, the DWP wouldn't be able to explain their decision.

I'm also rather concerned that the MR decision doesn't contain any of the details that the guide suggests it should and that the DM didn't wait for the additional evidence my friend said he'd be sending, as it suggests the DWP are now operating a new policy where they've decided that the MR decision just needs to say "We think the decision is right" and that they won't wait for any additional evidence, even when the claimant has specifically stated they'll be sending some in the MR request.

David Jones wrote: bro58,

I think they must have had to assess which descriptors to award points under though and there must be some paperwork showing this and why he was put in the WRAG rather than Support group, even if the ESA85A doesn't generally show that information. He requested "all relevant paperwork", so they should have sent him any that shows this information.

I can't imagine that they just look at the ESA50 and go "Yeah OK, give him 15 points" without making a more detailed assessment, as if someone challenged being put in the WRAG rather than Support group, the DWP wouldn't be able to explain their decision.

I'm also rather concerned that the MR decision doesn't contain any of the details that the guide suggests it should and that the DM didn't wait for the additional evidence my friend said he'd be sending, as it suggests the DWP are now operating a new policy where they've decided that the MR decision just needs to say "We think the decision is right" and that they won't wait for any additional evidence, even when the claimant has specifically stated they'll be sending some in the MR request.

Hi DL,

Where a decision has been made on paper scrutiny without the need for a face to face, it is likely that the only documentation used will be the ESA85A Medical Report compiled by The HCP, an LT54 filled in by the DWP ESA DM, The ESA50 + any added documents, and any Further Medical Evidence (FME) used such as an ESA113 Questionnaire "IF" one was sent to The G.P. to fill in.

As I stated, information in an ESA85A is generally pretty vague, they simply make their recommendation based on the paper evidence, and in the majority of case The DM agrees with them.

You may well be looking for something that does not exist.

bro58

I'm afraid that just makes no sense to me. I don't see how they can determine that someone has achieved x points without determining under which descriptors a claimant has scored points. It would mean that no assessment of the person's limitations has been made at all and they've just been awarded 15 points because the DM felt like it and they'd have no way of justifying their decision to put the claimant in the WRAG rather than Support group.

Do you have any thoughts on the other points about the lack of details in the decision letter and making the decision without waiting for the additional evidence? If the guides no longer reflect the DWPs policy and practice, it would be useful to update them so that claimants aren't misled about what to expect.

Oh well, I guess it can only help him at appeal if the DWP has failed to follow the most basic procedures and can't justify its own decisions.

As two DM have now ignored the missing ESA50 (the first one even said he'd taken it into account when making his decision, which he obviously can't have done as it doesn't exist) and failed to follow policy, it makes me suspect that they've been told they can do pretty much what they like and ignore policy and there's every chance this will happen to other claimants.

David Jones wrote: Oh well, I guess it can only help him at appeal if the DWP has failed to follow the most basic procedures and can't justify its own decisions.

As two DM have now ignored the missing ESA50 (the first one even said he'd taken it into account when making his decision, which he obviously can't have done as it doesn't exist) and failed to follow policy, it makes me suspect that they've been told they can do pretty much what they like and ignore policy and there's every chance this will happen to other claimants.

Hi DJ,

There has been recent UTT Caselaw regarding The Assessing HCP not providing relevant information of which Schedule 2 Descriptors were applied and how many points were awarded when recommending LCW. (WRAG)

Unfortunately, it would be of little use to you, as more than 13 months have elapsed since the date of decision/s that you cite. (2012. & 2013)

13 months is the absolute maximum period, without exception, for which an MR/Appeal can be lodged against an adverse decision.

As I have previously stated, it was common practice at one stage, I think that I described it at the time as "production line assessments".

Purely for informative purposes, you can read about it : Here on rightsnet.

The post also includes a link to the site where you can download the Judgement.

Policy regarding this was supposed to have changed post 04/12/13 :

"NB - the judgment relates to assessments carried out ‘on scrutiny’ before a change in DWP policy on 4 December 2013 meant that healthcare professionals were obliged to record the likely Schedule 2 scoring descriptors. However, Judge Wright says that a number of cases have been stayed behind these two appeals and so the decision here will have a wider significance then just on these two appeals."

This just reiterates that this practice was widespread.

bro58