ESA tribunal decision

I have a long and complicated query and would appreciate some clear advice please.

My son’s appeal to an ESA Tribunal was allowed on 12 November. (Following a decision made at a WCA in March 2018 to remove all ESA benefits)

The Decision Notice is written in similar terms to those seen on other forum entries, and is not entirely clear to me. It reads:

1. The appeal is allowed
2. The decision made by the secretary of state on 9/5/2018 is set aside
3. XXXX has limited capability for work. The matter is now remitted to the secretary of state to make a final decision upon entitlement to ESA
4. In applying the WCA, 15 points were scored for the following activities and descriptors in schedule 2 of the ESA regs 2008 made up as follows:
14. Coping with change. (c) – 6 points
17. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder. (c) 9 points
5. No schedule 3 descriptor applied. Regulation 35 of the ESA Regulations did not apply. By reason of his multiple medical conditions XXXX is significantly limited. As a result the above descriptors are satisfied. In reaching this decision the Tribunal placed reliance upon all the evidence including the oral evidence of the Appellant and his Mother.

---

On the following day, 13 November, I had to telephone the Universal Credit helpline (my son transferred to Universal Credit in June 2019 following a house move) because he had received a notification to attend another WCA.

They agreed it was not necessary to attend and transferred me to the ESA helpline. The person I spoke to said they had received the Tribunal Decision Notice, and that my son was now in the support group. This was before we had received the Tribunal notice ourselves. I was told that his arrears would now be paid. We duly received the Tribunal notice the following day. On 18 November my son received a letter/ notification from a manager at ESA Oldham (Wolverhampton) stating that they had paid an amount into my son’s bank account for the period of the arrears. The amount was equal to difference between the standard single allowance and the rate for the support group during that period which was 55 weeks and 6 days.

The following day, 19 November, a substantially lower amount was paid into his bank account. I telephoned the ESA helpline to enquire why the amount was lower. The advisor refused to speak to me about financial matters because I only have implicit consent to speak to them on my son’s behalf. My son does not want me to be an appointee as he wants to retain some independence in financial matters, however his conditions mean that he cannot cope with the stress of waiting for the phone to be answered and asking questions without becoming unreasonably angry due to stress. He suffers from PTSD following an accident which caused a spinal cord injury. His complicated multiple medical issues were recognised in the wording of the Tribunal decision section 5 above. His mobility and use of his hands is severely compromised by the injury and the resulting effects on his nervous system. Chronic severe pain is just one of the many effects. When I pressed the advisor and explained that previous advisors had spoken to me, and even telephoned me, to inform me of payments, the advisor cut the phone line.

Consequently, I wrote to ESA Oldham (Wolverhampton) on my son’s behalf, to ask why the reduced amount was paid and how they had made their calculations. On 8 January my son received a reply which informed him that he has been placed in the WRAG and that the letter of 18 November was unfortunately incorrect because the correct amount was the lower WRAG rate. A copy of a Part 3 Decision for ESA was enclosed. This states that the decision maker has revised the previous ESA award made in May 2018. The revised decision is that XXXX is entitled to ESA including the work related activity component, because the decision maker has determined that XXXX has limited capability for work. It goes on to say that the Tribunal allowed his appeal and determined that my son XXXX has limited capability for work.

This is a very long entry. What I would like to know is what does the Tribunal Decision Notice mean in section 5, where it states the above descriptors are satisfied? Following the telephone conversation with ESA helpline I took that to mean that he should be treated as having LCWRA due to his multiple medical conditions and therefore be in the support group not WRAG. Is that the case?

It appears that initially the DWP decided that this was so and place my son in the support group, but that a decision maker came to a different conclusion when interpreting the Decision Notice. Do we have any redress? Does the Tribunal Notice mean my son be in the support group or WRAG? Thank you for your patience in reading all this.

I cannot overestimate the effect this has had on my son’s mental health. As a sufferer of PTSD he simply cannot cope with the stress this has induced. It is monumentally incompetent to inform him that he was placed in the support group and then to change that decision.

Thank you. Could you explain what the wording in section 5 of the decision notice, that says -the above descriptors are satisfied-means? What descriptors are they referring to?

Secondly, the DWP informed myself on the telephone that my son was in the support group, and my son in a letter that he would receive the support group additional payment. Has he any redress following this. He has only just been notified that he is in WRAG. Since 13 November he only had information that he was in the support group. This has had a dramatic impact on his PTSD.