Wife kicked off ESA (from SG). Please help!

Gordon wrote: RainmakerRaw

To be honest it is up to you, turnover rates are low at the MR stage, if you believe that the letter was not considered then you can ask for a second MR, but you may simply be adding more time to the process.

Revision rates at MR are supposed to be a high as 30% but we don't see anything close to this on the forum, success rates for ESA appeals is consistently in excess of 40%.

Gordon

I have just typed up a long reply, whereupon my browser page refreshed and deleted it. Oh joy. I apologise but at this late hour I can't re-type it but please do accept the cliff notes with my apologies:

My wife applied to tribunal after the DWP denied her MR. After a brief wobble where she was so stressed about attending and 'being grilled' that she said she wanted to switch to a paper hearing, she did in fact attend in person yesterday. This site telling us the success rate is higher in person really helped make that decision despite her nerves. We found the YouTube video (so often linked and discussed on this forum) really helped us prepare and gave us an idea what to expect.

As it turned out, the court was very informal and friendly. The staff bent over backwards throughout by bringing better chairs, tissues, drinks and generally ensuring my wife had minimal distances to walk (even allowing her to sit outside the hearing room door instead of walking down to the waiting room).

The judge and doctor making up the panel were polite and respectful, and told us they were completely independent of the DWP. They said they weren't there to arbitrate between us and DWP, meaning they weren't intending to read the claim, then subsequent correspondence and decide who was 'right'. They said in fact they were assessing my wife for ESA as though this was the first - and only - step in the process, right from scratch. They read her ESA form (before we got there) and asked a few questions to get more details - for example about how long/far my wife could walk or stand, sit etc.

A problem arose when they asked why, if my wife had a genuine serious condition, the GP seemed totally unaware of it. We were puzzled but it transpired the medical records submitted to the tribunal by DWP jumped from 2013 to the birth of our daughter in 2015, with nothing in between. How then, they asked, did my wife assert she had a serious accident in 2013/2014 for which there was no record at all?

It turned out that - by some strange coincidence - the DWP had accidentally forgotten to send the parts of my wife's medical records that contained any references to her accident or subsequent treatment. A completely innocent oversight, I'm sure....

Luckily my wife had also additionally submitted a letter to the court from her GP, which had a full chronological breakdown of her fall, A&E attendance, referrals, scans etc. It also stated she couldn't use a manual wheelchair because of the nerve damage, and that she was severely restricted in mobility due to paralysis caused by the accident at work.

The judge said the tribunal actually hadn't received this from us, but after my telling him politely we had an email receipt from the clerk of the court confirming they had added 'one GP letter, 2 pages' to the evidence bundle he swiftly apologised and agreed to accept our original copy into evidence on the day. Thank goodness for smart phones / mobile email apps! More to the point, thank goodness we had taken the original with us on the day in my wife's folder of papers as she'd have been screwed without it!

He said it was extremely helpful, and cleared up the problem they were having believing my wife's claims until that moment. He apologised again for the court's oversight, and commented that it was awfully strange the DWP had forgotten to send the relevant pages of my wife's medical notes.

After asking my wife and me to say any final things we wished to share, we were asked to wait outside for a moment while the judge and doctor talked over the case and came to a decision. We'd been in with them perhaps 20 to 30 minutes, and waited no longer than four or five minutes for them to call us back into the room.

The judge said the appeal had been allowed!

My wife was, he said, clearly very disabled and they were concerned that the DWP had acted the way it had in handling her case. They noted that the DWP health care professional's report was 'clearly inconsistent with the other documentary evidence, especially the strongly contested account of your typical day'. The judge said he accepted my wife's assertion that the HCP had asked her to leave early and had - perhaps inadvertently - written inaccurate information in the 'typical day' description. For example, he said, it was clear that despite the HCP's assertion, my wife could never walk up a flight of stairs unaided or walk around town for the afternoon - things the HCP claimed my wife had told her during her medical assessment.

As such, he said he had no difficulty in finding in her favour. She was originally awarded zero points for every category by DWP, but the judge and doctor said they found she qualified for 24 points on the first two descriptors alone. As such, the judge said he had made an Order that the DWP/Secretary of State's decision be set aside. My wife was to be granted ESA backdated to the date of her dismissal by DWP, and furthermore she was to be placed into the support group by order of the court.

The judge thanked us for coming and wished us well. That was all. All that stress for nothing, really. Yes it was daunting, and at times upsetting/embarrassing for my wife to explain intimate problems to two 'strange' men. But overall it was a polite half hour chat followed by a clear decision that she was disabled and had been wronged by DWP.

So, for anyone reading this in future, please don't give up! The courts are 'on your side' (figuratively speaking) and will not hesitate to grant an award where one is due. You have nothing to worry about in attending in person, and will be treated very well indeed. You won't be grilled or cross examined, but they will ask for more information about things you've said on your ESA forms if they aren't clear on what was meant. It's really nothing major, and you have everything to gain.

I will add, from experience, that it's best to remain calm and factual. Don't give vague answers if you can help it, but rather say "My answer is blah blah, BECAUSE... blah blah'. It helps give a fuller picture. Don't be scared to speak up if they query things either! For example one doctor had written to my wife's GP saying one of her symptoms was 'intermittent'.

The doctor at the appeal asked what my wife expected him to think that meant, as my wife had actually stated on her claim form that this particular symptom was a 'regular occurrence'. She calmly replied that they were two very subjective words. She experiences the symptom at least twice a week, so to her mind that's a 'regular occurrence' - especially when one considers that a healthy person wouldn't experience it ever, at all. However to the doctor writing the letter, it was apparently 'intermittent' because twice a week meant it wasn't there all day every day. The same description by two different people using differing words to describe the same thing.

The court accepted this answer, but if she hadn't challenged the comment it could have gone against her.

Also, leave emotion out of it as best you can and stick to facts. As uncaring as it sounds, that's all they can deal in and facts help them decide whereas emotion just clouds the issue. I also feel it helps if you remain respectful of the court and address the judge as Sir (or Madam) and the doctor as Doctor (or Sir/Madam). Anyway I've gone on too long but after this epic saga I didn't want to cut and run without a final - happy - conclusion.

Thanks so much again for everything Gordon, and the B&W site. You've helped us a great deal, both with the excellent guides and by being there to provide a listening ear when we were upset and stressed and needed to vent. Cheers!

RainmakerRaw wrote:

Gordon wrote: RainmakerRaw

To be honest it is up to you, turnover rates are low at the MR stage, if you believe that the letter was not considered then you can ask for a second MR, but you may simply be adding more time to the process.

Revision rates at MR are supposed to be a high as 30% but we don't see anything close to this on the forum, success rates for ESA appeals is consistently in excess of 40%.

Gordon

I have just typed up a long reply, whereupon my browser page refreshed and deleted it. Oh joy. I apologise but at this late hour I can't re-type it but please do accept the cliff notes with my apologies:

My wife applied to tribunal after the DWP denied her MR. After a brief wobble where she was so stressed about attending and 'being grilled' that she said she wanted to switch to a paper hearing, she did in fact attend in person yesterday. This site telling us the success rate is higher in person really helped make that decision despite her nerves. We found the YouTube video (so often linked and discussed on this forum) really helped us prepare and gave us an idea what to expect.

As it turned out, the court was very informal and friendly. The staff bent over backwards throughout by bringing better chairs, tissues, drinks and generally ensuring my wife had minimal distances to walk (even allowing her to sit outside the hearing room door instead of walking down to the waiting room).

The judge and doctor making up the panel were polite and respectful, and told us they were completely independent of the DWP. They said they weren't there to arbitrate between us and DWP, meaning they weren't intending to read the claim, then subsequent correspondence and decide who was 'right'. They said in fact they were assessing my wife for ESA as though this was the first - and only - step in the process, right from scratch. They read her ESA form (before we got there) and asked a few questions to get more details - for example about how long/far my wife could walk or stand, sit etc.

A problem arose when they asked why, if my wife had a genuine serious condition, the GP seemed totally unaware of it. We were puzzled but it transpired the medical records submitted to the tribunal by DWP jumped from 2013 to the birth of our daughter in 2015, with nothing in between. How then, they asked, did my wife assert she had a serious accident in 2013/2014 for which there was no record at all?

It turned out that - by some strange coincidence - the DWP had accidentally forgotten to send the parts of my wife's medical records that contained any references to her accident or subsequent treatment. A completely innocent oversight, I'm sure....

Luckily my wife had also additionally submitted a letter to the court from her GP, which had a full chronological breakdown of her fall, A&E attendance, referrals, scans etc. It also stated she couldn't use a manual wheelchair because of the nerve damage, and that she was severely restricted in mobility due to paralysis caused by the accident at work.

The judge said the tribunal actually hadn't received this from us, but after my telling him politely we had an email receipt from the clerk of the court confirming they had added 'one GP letter, 2 pages' to the evidence bundle he swiftly apologised and agreed to accept our original copy into evidence on the day. Thank goodness for smart phones / mobile email apps! More to the point, thank goodness we had taken the original with us on the day in my wife's folder of papers as she'd have been screwed without it!

He said it was extremely helpful, and cleared up the problem they were having believing my wife's claims until that moment. He apologised again for the court's oversight, and commented that it was awfully strange the DWP had forgotten to send the relevant pages of my wife's medical notes.

After asking my wife and me to say any final things we wished to share, we were asked to wait outside for a moment while the judge and doctor talked over the case and came to a decision. We'd been in with them perhaps 20 to 30 minutes, and waited no longer than four or five minutes for them to call us back into the room.

The judge said the appeal had been allowed!

My wife was, he said, clearly very disabled and they were concerned that the DWP had acted the way it had in handling her case. They noted that the DWP health care professional's report was 'clearly inconsistent with the other documentary evidence, especially the strongly contested account of your typical day'. The judge said he accepted my wife's assertion that the HCP had asked her to leave early and had - perhaps inadvertently - written inaccurate information in the 'typical day' description. For example, he said, it was clear that despite the HCP's assertion, my wife could never walk up a flight of stairs unaided or walk around town for the afternoon - things the HCP claimed my wife had told her during her medical assessment.

As such, he said he had no difficulty in finding in her favour. She was originally awarded zero points for every category by DWP, but the judge and doctor said they found she qualified for 24 points on the first two descriptors alone. As such, the judge said he had made an Order that the DWP/Secretary of State's decision be set aside. My wife was to be granted ESA backdated to the date of her dismissal by DWP, and furthermore she was to be placed into the support group by order of the court.

The judge thanked us for coming and wished us well. That was all. All that stress for nothing, really. Yes it was daunting, and at times upsetting/embarrassing for my wife to explain intimate problems to two 'strange' men. But overall it was a polite half hour chat followed by a clear decision that she was disabled and had been wronged by DWP.

So, for anyone reading this in future, please don't give up! The courts are 'on your side' (figuratively speaking) and will not hesitate to grant an award where one is due. You have nothing to worry about in attending in person, and will be treated very well indeed. You won't be grilled or cross examined, but they will ask for more information about things you've said on your ESA forms if they aren't clear on what was meant. It's really nothing major, and you have everything to gain.

I will add, from experience, that it's best to remain calm and factual. Don't give vague answers if you can help it, but rather say "My answer is blah blah, BECAUSE... blah blah'. It helps give a fuller picture. Don't be scared to speak up if they query things either! For example one doctor had written to my wife's GP saying one of her symptoms was 'intermittent'.

The doctor at the appeal asked what my wife expected him to think that meant, as my wife had actually stated on her claim form that this particular symptom was a 'regular occurrence'. She calmly replied that they were two very subjective words. She experiences the symptom at least twice a week, so to her mind that's a 'regular occurrence' - especially when one considers that a healthy person wouldn't experience it ever, at all. However to the doctor writing the letter, it was apparently 'intermittent' because twice a week meant it wasn't there all day every day. The same description by two different people using differing words to describe the same thing.

The court accepted this answer, but if she hadn't challenged the comment it could have gone against her.

Also, leave emotion out of it as best you can and stick to facts. As uncaring as it sounds, that's all they can deal in and facts help them decide whereas emotion just clouds the issue. I also feel it helps if you remain respectful of the court and address the judge as Sir (or Madam) and the doctor as Doctor (or Sir/Madam). Anyway I've gone on too long but after this epic saga I didn't want to cut and run without a final - happy - conclusion.

Thanks so much again for everything Gordon, and the B&W site. You've helped us a great deal, both with the excellent guides and by being there to provide a listening ear when we were upset and stressed and needed to vent. Cheers!

Hi RR,

Many congratulations on your wife being placed into The SG at her appeal !!!

Zero points to SG is some going, and just reiterates how poor The DWP ESA Decision Making and MR processes can be !!!

It is always worthwhile going on to appeal if you feel that you have a good case !!

Thanks for your comments regarding B&W !!

It can take 4-8 weeks for DWP to action the Tribunal's decision, but it can be sooner.

She will be entitled to any back pay owed as a result of The SG decision from the date of the adverse decision appealed and it will now be as if she has been in The SG since that time.

If you haven't heard from DWP ESA by the 4-5 week mark you could contact them !!

bro58

That's great news RR! Thank you so much for taking the time to relate your experience with the tribunal - and for your kind words about B+W