× Members

Inconsistencies

More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #104852 by Phenom_inal
Inconsistencies was created by Phenom_inal
Upon avidly reading all topics relating to claims for ESA, I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a touch of 'luck of the draw' and whether there is also a bit of a postcode lottery as to people being required to attend medicals V being put straight through the the support group?
There seem to be a few inconsistencies regarding decisions made e.g people who are submitting a lot of documentary evidence for their claim being made to attend medicals whereas people being pleasantly surprised to receive notification of being put straight into the support group.
Just wondered what other people's views are on this.
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by bro58.
The topic has been locked.
  • bro58
12 years 3 weeks ago #104854 by bro58
Replied by bro58 on topic Inconsistencies

Phenom_inal wrote: Upon avidly reading all topics relating to claims for ESA, I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a touch of 'luck of the draw' and whether there is also a bit of a postcode lottery as to people being required to attend medicals V being put straight through the the support group?
There seem to be a few inconsistencies regarding decisions made e.g people who are submitting a lot of documentary evidence for their claim being made to attend medicals whereas people being pleasantly surprised to receive notification of being put straight into the support group.
Just wondered what other people's views are on this.


Hi P,

There is a view held that there is a amount of "Pot Luck" involved.

There is also a view that The ESA50 and any supporting evidence is not taken into account properly by the assessing ATOS HCP and The DWP DM who makes the decision.

Even if one believed this, there are still advantages to providing in depth information with The ESA50.

It makes it easier for a reviewing DM to find in your favour at a reconsideration.

It makes it easier to gain success at an appeal, as one can show that they provided enough evidence at the time of the adverse decision to gain the correct award.

Further, if one doesn't provide in depth information at the earliest opportunity, there is no possibility of it being taken into account.

All the above are good reasons why people should continue to supply in depth information along with the ESA50, even if they feel that due regard may not be given to it in the first instance.

As the forum is not for discussions, I will lock this topic to stop it developing into one.

bro58
The topic has been locked.
Moderators: bro58GordonlatetrainBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserChrisDavid
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.