Court ruling on ESA

Hi Pj

My understanding of the court ruling is that it only applies to ESA.

Prior to the ruling, a claimant would loose their ESA benefit if they were found fit for work, whilst they requested a MR they would not receive any benefits which forced a lot of claimants to then apply for UC, those that did not claim UC had to wait for their MR decision, if they were still found fit for work after a MR they could then appeal that decision.

Once you put in an appeal you can then ask DWP to put your ESA back into payment but you would not be eligible to any premiums.

My understanding of the appeal is the period between being found fit for work and requesting a MR when you were not entitled to claim any ESA which forced many claimants to apply for UC and of course once you are in the UC lobster pot there is no going back, even if you win your appeal.

Gordon will correct me if I am wrong in my way of thinking.

Gary

Thank you Pj for your kind words.

I am not sure if UC and ESA regulations are the same and therefore the court ruling you are talking about would apply to claimants on UC. You do raise an interesting point. The Judge quoted specific regulations, Gordon maybe able shed further light on what you are asking.

Judge Swift ruled:

“It is anomalous that the payment pending appeal arrangements for ESA under regulation 30(3) of the ESA Regulations do not extend to ESA claimants who are required by regulation 3ZA to request the Secretary of State to revise a decision and await her decision on that request before initiating an appeal.

“My conclusion is that regulation 3ZA of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations is a disproportionate interference with the right of access to court, so far as it applies to claimants to ESA who, once an appeal is initiated, meet the conditions for payment pending appeal under regulation 30(3) of the ESA Regulations.”

Gary

Pj

I would not expect this ruling to apply to UC. Whilst the UC might be reduced if the LCW or LCWRA elements are not payable the key point is that it does not stop while the claimant waits for an MR and more importantly there is no change in payment if they then go on to request an appeal, it is just the group that they are in that changes.

The key issue of the Decision is that there are no ESA payments during the MR phase whereas there are if the claimant is eligible when an appeal is lodged.

Gordon