Hi there,

All the great info. provided on the B&W site often states that when obtaining support letters it is best to get one that refers to the esa descriptors.

If it just states that a person is severely affected by there conditions and has significant difficulties with all activities of daily living and requires almost total care from family. And that despite several treatments, so far has not made any significant recovery or had any remission. Is this any good or does it need to be more descriptive?

Thanks.

pjd wrote:I would expect it to carry less weight than one that references the descriptors explicitly, but this does not mean it will be of no value.

Gordon

I'm tagging this on to an existing thread, since it seems useful here.

The form invites you to add letters from non-medical people, and your own latest guide says,
Do you think that the DWP (or the ATOS ADA - new term for HCP?) will either read letters from family or friends or take any notice of them? I'm concerned that putting others through the distressing task of describing someone else's trainwreck of a life would be pointless if they were disregarded on the "They would say that, wouldn't they?" principle.

I personally feel that the most important thing about providing written evidence to the ADA or decision maker, is that whether they read it or not, it will be dated, so a tribunal will be aware that the evidence should have been read by the ADA and DM.

By the way, although ADA is a new term for HCP, Atos still refer to their doctors and nurses as HCPs!

carruthers wrote:
Unfortunately the same scenario could arise where a claimant asks for letters of support from their GP and/or consultant.

It seems that appeal tribunals in particular are very sceptical about medical reports obtained by claimants, where there is the possibility of any suspicion that they have "put words into the doctors mouth." A doctor may inadvertently say "Mr/Miss/Mrs ..... has told me that....." This is likely to be seized upon by the ESA decision maker in claiming that the medical report is not independent and has simply been paraphrased with input from the claimant. What can make matters worse is that a claimant may pay a substantial sum of money for a report that has been instantly dismissed by the decision making authority.