Regulation 29

Fawlty wrote: Thanks for the heads up Bro I will leave that out the letter I am sending to the DM regarding my ESA85A and use the regulations as a last resort. I know all documents should go to the appeal service when I get something through from them but no harm in making the DM aware of all the facts.

Hi Basil,

There is nothing wrong with citing ESA Regs 29, and/or 35 now.

My comment was more that you should try not to rely solely on the above if at all possible.

You should also take into account that you would have to provide evidence as to how and why you may suffer the "Substantial Risk".

bro58

carmind wrote: Thanks for the replies to my previous query.

So what's the difference between regulation 29 and 35?

Every previous deciision that involved regulation 35 meant that a client was placed in the Support Group; in this case he was put in the WRAG Group.

Hi c,

I have merged your post to your original query for continuity.

Basically, the wording is exactly the same only instead of it saying "Limited Capability for Work" it states "Limited Capability for Work Related Activity",

The other difference is that the 28/01/13 amendments don't apply to ESA Reg 35 as the do with ESA Reg 29.

These amendments don't apply to Reg 35 :

(3) Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply where the risk could be reduced by a significant amount by—

(a)reasonable adjustments being made in the claimant’s workplace;

or

(b)the claimant taking medication to manage the claimant’s condition where such medication has been prescribed for the claimant by a registered medical practitioner treating the claimant.”.

ESA Reg 35 for entry to The SG (LCWRA)

bro58

Thanks for all the info Bro, as for the proof I think that would be to a risk to my health with the conditions I have which where outlined in a second letter I submitted to the DM a couple of weeks ago from my GP he went into more details and used not directly but used references the descriptors.

Letter was very nicely put and in a way that anyone with zero medical knowledge would understand.

So at the moment I will leave out Reg 35, I've got letters from 5 different doctors over the years regarding my health plus on my ESA85A the nurse said I had significant disabilities and got an old letter saying pretty much the same from another doctor pre Atos.

If all else fails I can always buy a hotel in Torquay.

Fawlty wrote: Thanks for all the info Bro, as for the proof I think that would be to a risk to my health with the conditions I have which where outlined in a second letter I submitted to the DM a couple of weeks ago from my GP he went into more details and used not directly but used references the descriptors.

Letter was very nicely put and in a way that anyone with zero medical knowledge would understand.

So at the moment I will leave out Reg 35, I've got letters from 5 different doctors over the years regarding my health plus on my ESA85A the nurse said I had significant disabilities and got an old letter saying pretty much the same from another doctor pre Atos.

If all else fails I can always buy a hotel in Torquay.

You can count me in as your first paying guest Basil

It could be a refuge for ATOS "Rejects".

bro58

carmind wrote: Thanks for the replies to my previous query.

So what's the difference between regulation 29 and 35?

Every previous deciision that involved regulation 35 meant that a client was placed in the Support Group; in this case he was put in the WRAG Group.

Just to further clarify c,

You are correct ESA Reg 29 gives the claimant entry to The WRAG, as they are deemed as having Limited Capability for Work. (LCW)

Whereas ESA Reg 35 gives the claimant entry to The SG, as they are deemed as having Limited Capability for Work Related Activity. (LCWRA)

Obviously, if a claimant is deemed to have LCWRA, they also have LCW.

bro58

Hi all,

Here is a link to an interesting cpag article on ESA Regs 29 and 35:

www.cpag.org.uk/content/making-exception

bro58