Grrr... contribution based ESA

daska

Have to vent...!

Just got off the phone from the welfare adviser who has explained why I've been put in CB ESA when I expected to be on IR. She confirmed that the JC+ were giving me misleading advice over a year ago when they told me it wasn't worth applying for IB because I'd not contributed in the last 2 years. IF they had given me the correct advice I would have applied and been far better off!!!!

So, because I've not seen it spelt out here, this is how it appears to work for ESA. When your claim is assessed it's done on the basis of your contributions in the 3 benefit years prior to the year you are applying in. (Or it might possibly be the year you fall ill in but knowing which is difficult because I fell ill 3.5 years ago and I guess most people won't be waiting so long before applying.) And you have to have contributed a minimum of 25 x the weekly minimum wage contribution in ONE of those 3 years.

The benefit year starts on the first Sunday of January so would have taken me back earlier than the tax year, which starts in April, and would have meant that I qualified!

This is information which my support worker and SS appear to be completely unaware of yet they get paid to help with benefit applications! :eek:

And none of the written communication from the DWP spells out whether you are getting CB or IR and they don't bother to tell you that you no longer qualify for free prescriptions etc. so I have a. unknowingly committed fraud and b. now have to pay for dental work etc.

I also lose my qualification for reduced leisure facilities etc even though I have no savings or income other than benefits because the qualifying benefit is income related ESA.

So, there is one positive aspect to balance this which is that having qualified for contribution based ESA it doesn't convert to income related so if my financial position improves I won't lose it.

The more exposure I have to the benefits system the more I believe the complexity is a job creation exercise.

dmg24

Yep, that is correct - the calculation is the same as the one used for IB.

Any paperwork that you complete for free prescriptions etc does state which benefits you need to be in receipt of to qualify, so there would be no excuse for not knowing. If you are still on a low income, you could apply for help with health costs due to being on a low income - Google 'HC1 form' or 'help with health costs'.

daska

Actually my prescription exemption came via tax credits and I still have an in-date certificate that hasn't been cancelled. It doesn't have anything on it to state that I won't qualify for them if I start getting ESA and when we rang tax credits to check what they needed to know and what changes it might make they didn't mention it. Thankfully my support worker has an independent record of these inquiries being made and she wasn't aware either.

NASA_2

So, have you claimed the Income Related part since this revelation came to light?

If not, why not?

dmg24

daska wrote: »

Actually my prescription exemption came via tax credits and I still have an in-date certificate that hasn't been cancelled. It doesn't have anything on it to state that I won't qualify for them if I start getting ESA and when we rang tax credits to check what they needed to know and what changes it might make they didn't mention it. Thankfully my support worker has an independent record of these inquiries being made and she wasn't aware either.

So why are you moaning about no longer being entitled?

daska

Sorry it came across that way, actually my moan is that between them the HMRC, the council, the DWP and the JC make it so complicated and give such inaccurate information.

And no, as it isn't possible to claim the income related part of ESA if you qualify for the contribution based version, I haven't applied for whatever it is you're thinking of.

NASA_2

You are also claiming to have been disadvantaged because you are getting ESA(C) and not ESA(IR). Which begs the question have you applied for ESA(IR) since you were told that you were wrongly advised?

Are your circumstances such that you would have been paid at a higher rate had ESA(IR) been claimed?

NASA_2

NASA wrote: »

You are also claiming to have been disadvantaged because you are getting ESA(C) and not ESA(IR). Which begs the question have you applied for ESA(IR) since you were told that you were wrongly advised?

Are your circumstances such that you would have been paid at a higher rate had ESA(IR) been claimed?

daska wrote: »

And no, as it isn't possible to claim the income related part of ESA if you qualify for the contribution based version, I haven't applied for whatever it is you're thinking of.

It is possible to claim the Income Related part even if you qualify for ESA(C).

daska

No, I've been assured by the ESA helpline that I can't apply for the income related part because I qualify for the contribution based version. Let me guess, the person I spoke with doesn't know their @rse from their elbow?

NASA_2

daska wrote: »

No, I've been assured by the ESA helpline that I can't apply for the income related part because I qualify for the contribution based version. Let me guess, the person I spoke with doesn't know their @rse from their elbow?

You definately can claim both ESA(C) and ESA(IR) and will be paid the higher of the two. If ESA(C) is paid at the same or a higher rate than ESA(IR) then it is 'paid first' but that isnt the same as saying they cant both be claimed at the same time.

EDIT: So if what you say they said is accurate then they are wrong.

daska

So how would I go about claiming the IR part?

(I think there ought to be a special 'having to deal with benefit helplines and getting the wrong information' smilie)