LCWRA MANDATORY RECONSIDERATION

This is in relation to mandatory reconsideration for LCWRA. I have to submit my mandatory reconsideration for LCWRA today. I have only been able to log in as a user for this website today, I've never had enough money to join before. So my mandatory reconsideration is something I've been working on myself, and it reads as this, and I don't know if I'm allowed to submit anything like this on this website. . And I hope that someone can help me to say whether I can just send it off as it is, because I've just looked at your form and mine does not follow that layout, and I'm concerned that my mandatory reconsideration won't be accepted because it's not pointing out each descriptor that I felt was wrong. I've been asking AI to help me, and they said I didn't have to do it like that.

MANDATORY RECONSIDERATION STATEMENT
Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA)
Regulation 35 – Universal Credit Regulations

Name:
NI Number:
Decision under review: November 2025

Introduction
I am requesting a Mandatory Reconsideration of the decision dated 26 November 2025, which determined that I do not have Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity.

I believe this decision failed to properly apply Regulation 35 of the Universal Credit Regulations, as requiring me to undertake work-related activity would place me at substantial risk of serious deterioration in both my mental and physical health.

Reason for Delay in Requesting Mandatory Reconsideration
I was unable to submit this Mandatory Reconsideration earlier due to circumstances outside my control.

I requested a copy of the assessment report on multiple occasions via my Universal Credit journal but did not receive a response. The report was not provided to me until mid-January 2026. Without access to the report, I was unable to properly understand or challenge the decision.

During this period, my mental health deteriorated significantly, further affecting my ability to manage correspondence, process information, and pursue the Mandatory Reconsideration.

I have submitted this request as soon as reasonably possible after receiving the assessment report and being able to engage with the process, and I ask that it be accepted as made within time, or accepted late for good reason.

Regulation 35 – Substantial Risk
I believe I meet the criteria for LCWRA under Regulation 35. Any requirement to engage in work-related activity would pose a substantial risk to my health.

This risk is not theoretical. When required to attend my LCWRA assessment, I experienced severe psychological distress, cognitive disorientation, and loss of independent functioning. I became extremely distressed in public, was unable to navigate safely, and required telephone guidance from DWP staff while sobbing on the street in order to reach the building.

Requiring me to repeat work-related activity, attend appointments, or place myself in public or workplace environments would very likely result in total functional shutdown and a serious worsening of my mental health.

My current level of social withdrawal is not a choice, but a trauma-related protective response that prevents further psychological harm.

However, I am relying primarily on Regulation 35 due to the substantial risk posed by compulsory engagement itself, including the combined and independent risks arising from both my mental health conditions and my chronic menorrhagia.

Background: Long-Standing Trauma and Body Dysmorphic Disorder
I suffer from severe, lifelong Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), rooted in over 40 years of appearance-based bullying, abuse, and trauma.

From the age of 12, I was subjected to sustained verbal harassment specifically about my nose, which continued into adulthood across social, workplace, and public settings. This included repeated mocking, humiliation, and profiling, as well as a violent physical assault in my teens that left me in a permanent state of hyper-vigilance.

I disclosed this difficulty only once in early adulthood, and the response I received left me feeling dismissed and unable to speak about it again for decades.

BDD is associated with deep shame and secrecy. My long silence reflects the nature of the condition rather than an absence of severity.

Recent Deterioration and Loss of Function
My ability to cope collapsed following:

the death of my mother in January 2025, and

a traumatic facial injury on 31 May 2025 involving heavy bleeding to the bridge of my nose and forehead.

This injury directly affected the physical feature that has been the focus of lifelong trauma and occurred while I was already psychologically depleted by bereavement. This was the final breaking point.

Since that time, my functioning has significantly deteriorated. I rarely leave my home, and my bedroom has become my only psychological safe space. I no longer trust my ability to be seen in public without overwhelming distress.

I have also lost the ability to navigate independently:

During my LCWRA assessment journey, I became disoriented and distressed and could not find the building without telephone support.

Two weeks later, I was unable to attend a specialist gynaecology appointment due to cognitive collapse, despite having previously managed that journey.

These experiences demonstrate that compulsory engagement itself causes immediate psychological harm.

Impact of Compulsory Engagement
The decision does not adequately account for the effect that mandatory appointments, deadlines, correspondence, and expectations of compliance have on my health.

In practice, compulsory engagement results in:

acute anxiety and hyper-vigilance in anticipation of appointments

disorientation and shutdown during engagement

difficulty processing information or responding appropriately

prolonged exhaustion and distress afterwards

increased withdrawal and isolation

reduced ability to attend essential medical and therapeutic appointments

Rather than supporting recovery, engagement itself leads to deterioration.

Regulation 35 – Substantial Risk (Physical Health: Chronic Menorrhagia)
In addition to the substantial psychological risk described above, my chronic menorrhagia presents an independent and significant physical risk if I were required to engage in work or work-related activity.

My chronic menorrhagia is documented in secondary-care correspondence from Princess Royal University Hospital. In a gynaecology follow-up letter dated 23 August 2023, I was diagnosed with abnormal uterine bleeding, described as ongoing, irregular, and heavy, with symptoms persisting despite treatment. The letter confirms prolonged reliance on tranexamic acid and explicitly notes that this medication is not safe for continuous use due to the risk of blood clots in the legs and lungs.

The consultant records that my bleeding remains unresolved and has recommended further invasive investigation and intervention, including hysteroscopy, biopsy, and Mirena insertion. This demonstrates that my condition is active, medically significant, and not safely controlled.

Requiring me to engage in work-related activity during episodes of unpredictable heavy bleeding, fatigue, and pain would place me at substantial risk of physical harm, independent of my mental health condition.

Physical Health Context
I am under ongoing gynaecological care and have undergone invasive investigations, including hysteroscopy. I am currently seeking further investigation such as laparoscopy for suspected Endometriosis or Adenomyosis.

The unpredictability and severity of this condition significantly compound my overall risk and further undermine my ability to reliably attend or engage in work-related activity.

Focus of This Mandatory Reconsideration
While I have not sought to challenge every detail of the assessment report, I do not believe it accurately reflects the severity, consistency, or impact of my difficulties.

I have therefore focused this Mandatory Reconsideration on the central issue of Regulation 35: the substantial risk to my mental and physical health caused by compulsory engagement itself, as demonstrated by my lived experience and recent deterioration.

Conclusion
I have spent decades surviving by pushing myself beyond safe limits. Through therapy, I am beginning to understand that my withdrawal is a protective response, not avoidance or unwillingness.

Forcing me into work-related activity at this time would place me at substantial risk of serious deterioration in both my mental and physical health.

I therefore request that the decision be revised and that I be awarded Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity under Regulation 35.