- Posts: 18
× Members
ESA support group special rules
- H2o
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
10 years 5 months ago - 10 years 5 months ago #112638 by H2o
ESA support group special rules was created by H2o
I am aware that there is a argument for being included in the support group if there would be a risk to your health from the activities of looking for work, in the opinion of your GP. (rule 35)
Is it adding anything, or simply muddying things to argue that, as a result of the fall in payment due an incorrect decision, the claimant actually experienced a worsening of their condition. If there is a risk of them getting sanctions as a result of their illness, this would likely produce a far worse deterioration, as having no money is harder to deal with than appeal rate.
In DLA the risk of falling or other dangers is seen as important, even where falls have not occurred.
Just wondering if there is any advantage in pointing out the consequence of an event that has happened as well as the risk of future events. Can you include the risk of a sanction event which seem pretty easy to get even when healthy.
Is it adding anything, or simply muddying things to argue that, as a result of the fall in payment due an incorrect decision, the claimant actually experienced a worsening of their condition. If there is a risk of them getting sanctions as a result of their illness, this would likely produce a far worse deterioration, as having no money is harder to deal with than appeal rate.
In DLA the risk of falling or other dangers is seen as important, even where falls have not occurred.
Just wondering if there is any advantage in pointing out the consequence of an event that has happened as well as the risk of future events. Can you include the risk of a sanction event which seem pretty easy to get even when healthy.
Last edit: 10 years 5 months ago by Gordon.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51076
10 years 5 months ago #112645 by Gordon
I need to be very cautious in answering your question.
There are circumstances where I would say a categorical no to this type of strategy, the case you make is a little less clear.
As a general rule the panel cannot consider the financial implications of a Decision they made, so if you asked about appealing to SG on the basis on the ESA(CB) time limit, I would say to not bother as your case will likely be thrown out on the day.
If you were to use the approach you suggest then I would go no further than raising the issue of sanction, leave it to the panel to draw any conclusion as to the financial impact, and I would certainly concentrate on the reasons you can complete the activities and therefore risk the possibility of sanction.
Gorodn
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic ESA support group special rules
H2o wrote: I am aware that there is a argument for being included in the support group if there would be a risk to your health from the activities of looking for work, in the opinion of your GP. (rule 35)
Is it adding anything, or simply muddying things to argue that, as a result of the fall in payment due an incorrect decision, the claimant actually experienced a worsening of their condition. If there is a risk of them getting sanctions as a result of their illness, this would likely produce a far worse deterioration, as having no money is harder to deal with than appeal rate.
In DLA the risk of falling or other dangers is seen as important, even where falls have not occurred.
Just wondering if there is any advantage in pointing out the consequence of an event that has happened as well as the risk of future events. Can you include the risk of a sanction event which seem pretty easy to get even when healthy.
I need to be very cautious in answering your question.
There are circumstances where I would say a categorical no to this type of strategy, the case you make is a little less clear.
As a general rule the panel cannot consider the financial implications of a Decision they made, so if you asked about appealing to SG on the basis on the ESA(CB) time limit, I would say to not bother as your case will likely be thrown out on the day.
If you were to use the approach you suggest then I would go no further than raising the issue of sanction, leave it to the panel to draw any conclusion as to the financial impact, and I would certainly concentrate on the reasons you can complete the activities and therefore risk the possibility of sanction.
Gorodn
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- slugsta
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 9439
10 years 5 months ago #112647 by slugsta
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by slugsta on topic ESA support group special rules
Hi H2O,
Just to be clear - a claimant can be awarded the Support Group ESA if the Decision Maker believes that there is a significant likelihood of their condition worsening if they had to undertake Work Related Activities. The claimant's GP can support this claim, but it is not him/her who needs to be of the opinion that this is the case.
Just to be clear - a claimant can be awarded the Support Group ESA if the Decision Maker believes that there is a significant likelihood of their condition worsening if they had to undertake Work Related Activities. The claimant's GP can support this claim, but it is not him/her who needs to be of the opinion that this is the case.
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51076
10 years 5 months ago #112657 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic ESA support group special rules
H2O
I have just re-read your post, I originally assumed that this was in connection with an appeal which it now appears not to be, however, my advice is equally applicable to the DWP Decision Maker.
To add to my post, the burden of proof for Regulations 29 and 35 lies with the claimant, so it is not enough to simply state that where there are issues, you also need to provide evidence that this would be the case so you will need the support of your GP or other Health Care Professionals involved in your treatment.
Gordon
I have just re-read your post, I originally assumed that this was in connection with an appeal which it now appears not to be, however, my advice is equally applicable to the DWP Decision Maker.
To add to my post, the burden of proof for Regulations 29 and 35 lies with the claimant, so it is not enough to simply state that where there are issues, you also need to provide evidence that this would be the case so you will need the support of your GP or other Health Care Professionals involved in your treatment.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris