ESA appeal WRAG to SG question

Darthcranium wrote:

Thanks Gordon! That was fast

I have already collated my descriptors for the points I got and compared them to the descriptors I would need to get 15 points and found some things confusing.

I scored 6 points in the "getting about" section, but there seems to be no "getting about" section in the descriptors for getting max points and qualifying for the SG that way...

Some "interpretation" is needed when fitting symptoms into neat boxes for the descriptors..
For example section 13 Initiating and completing personal actions (which means planning, organisation, problem solving, prioritising or switching tasks).
I scored 9 points:
13(b) Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 personal actions for the majority of the time.

and to score the maximum I would need to demonstrate
Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 sequential personal actions.

How much leeway is there for arguing a point? Does it just depend on what the examiner on the day thinks?

Would I need to prove that I fit into one of the "maximum score" boxes in order to qualify for the Support Group? Is there a way I could argue that scoring 9 9 9 6 6 makes me as eligible as scoring 15 0 0 0 0 ?

Tackling your questions out of order

The only way to get into the SG is to meet one of the SG criteria, scoring 39 point or 139 points is irrelevant if you do not meet the one of the criteria.

So using the example of the Going Out descriptor that you mention, even if you scored 15 points for thie descriptor you would not be placed in the SG, becase there is no SG descriptor for Going Out.

With regard to the example of question 13, Initiating Actions, the difference between (b) and (a), is the difference between the majority of the time and always. If you believe you can show that you are always unable to complete two sequential personal actions, then you would meet the criteria.

There are examples of factors that can be used to argue that you cannot complete a task, for example; needing to be prompted, in the ESA Claim guide on Mental Health Grounds. See

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/help-for-claimants/esa

Gordon

Darthcranium wrote:

The ATOS examiner noted that I needed prompting at interview, had poor general memory and poor concentration. Would this count?

Yes, these are factors that could be taken into account, but you still need to show that you are always effected.

Gordon