ESA dirty tricks support group called in to attend

Somewhat hypothetical but reading last weeks Polly Toynbee article much commented upon on b and w, regarding ESA dirty tricks and claimants being universally referred to fraud dept after 65 weeks of claim: Something in that article stated claimants who were vulnerable and didn't legally have to come in, were being sent letters in such ambiguous wording they look like an order to attend. I assume vulnerable means claimants in support group, or does it refer specifically to those with mental health conditions within that group?.Has anyone had experience of this and arent the rules in support group that those in that group cannot be forced to attend ? If one must comply could a home visit be requested. Any clarification would be appreciated

That's as I understood it Gordon, just the way Polly Toynbees article worded it was a little ambiguous. She said "vulnerable people". I note you replied to posts re her whistleblower article earlier this week on the subject of the 65 week thing with a little skepticism, which I share up to a point. However, I couldn't fathom who the "vulnerable" in her article were or what exactly they were being written to in order to actually attend. Although the context of her article semed to be aimed at Wrag group for the most part I just wondered if the DWP had tinkered, on the quiet, with the rules re support group claimants being called in..for whatever purpose. ..apparently not. Thanks for clarification.

What I was getting at Gordon is that her article sounded like the whistleblower was alleging that claimants not legally obliged to attend JC+ were being sent letters worded as though they must do so...that's how it comes across. I certainly wouldn't put it past DWP but as stated Miss Toynbees article is vague about who "vulnerable" claimants are. Could be those with learning difficulties, mental health issues or indeed anyone in support group. Other than that a good and revealing, if sinister (on DWP's part) article.

I did some further research into this issue this evening. There appears to be a small amount of anecdotal " evidence" in comments of other members in newsletters and posts that work programme providers under instruction from dwp managers might be chancing their arm by sending letters inviting support group claimants to attend JC+ .As Gordon rightly pointed out earlier,rules regarding support group remain unchanged, meaning support group members do not have to attend wfi or work programmes.
If I received such an ambiguously worded letter I would call dwp requesting a call back from a manager or someone of similar standing, asking for clarification both verbally and in writing confirming the position that attendance is not compulsory.Dwp call centre workers according to Toynbees article are instructed to tell claimants they must attend on threat of sanction. Hence I think it good practise, if this is happening as alleged, to request call back from a JC+ manager or similar.That's what I would do in this instance but that's me. Problem is that those with learning difficulties and some mental health issues might not react like this.
I wonder if members and/or moderators would agree with his view.