New illness and already waiting for the appeal to be heard.

Gemstar30

Hello,

I wonder if there is someone that has some good knowledge to tell me if I am wrong or right on this.

Backround:

Failed ESA medical and lodged an appeal. Now waiting for the date for it to be heard,

In the meantime I have had further medical problems which not only are making the original condition worse, but it is itself a new condition.

DWP say:
No you cannot make a new claim as the original claim is still live until after the Tribunal hearing.

No, we can't consider any new illness or a worsening of an existing one until after the Tribunal hearing.

And as it is not just the same illness now, it's a good job as you would have had to wait 6 months after the hearing otherwise to make a new claim. As it is, you can make it straight away if you fail at the appeal.

Me Today:

Rubbish!!!!
I have in front of me the DMG33/10 Memo which makes various amendments to the ESA Regulations.

It says that Memo DMG7/10 has been amended and those original instructions are cancelled as from 28/6/10 and are substituted by DMG 33/10.

The amended regulations now allow the claim during the appeal period to be treated as a new claim and that THEY MUST consider any new illness or deterioration of an existing one even to the point of having another medical assessment carried out.

And that the 6 month rule refers to the date the DM made his decision NOT the date of the Tribunal hearing.


Oh I do hope that I am right! I have spent ages researching this subject.
If I am right, why is it that I have to do all of the work to prove to the DWP that they are wrong.
Or is it that this is the way forward from now. 'Don't ask us what you can claim for and how the Regulations affect you - you work it out for yourself - prove it that you are right and we will say either OK or nooooooo!

Thanks

Gemma
x

TOBRUK

Hi Gemma, I don't know about the rules with ESA, however, I remember a DLA tribunal years ago which I attended and remember at one point stating that my condition had worsened explaining to the panel other issues that had developed since waiting for the hearing.

I was told that they could not take this into consideration as they could only make a decision based on when the DLA application was made, what was stated on the original form - anything else was not and could not be considered.

cit_k

Ring up, ask to speak to the decision maker dealing with your claim.

Point out the information you have ask why you were told otherwise, if there is (which I doubt) a reason why you cannot now claim, they will explain it to you. If not, they will have to back down and let you put in a new claim.

When you ring, they will likely say the decision maker will have to ring you back at a later time.

Front line advice from the DWP is not worth the paper its written on or the air it consumes for them to speak it...

bertiebat

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello

I honestly think you have hit the nail on the head!
I know from my own personal situation that when I was working full time hours (37 pw) I was just about breaking even when taking the 'cost of working' - travel, food etc into account. I was then offered an increase in my salary which meant that the financial help I was getting elsewhere stopped.
I worked it out that by working for 16 hrs pw (2 days pw) at the new salary rate, claiming WTC as being in full time employment due to DLA and then not having those extra 3 days of 'work costs' I would be on the same as I was on previously before the rise. In addition I had an extra 3 days a week to myself to do as I wished.

Maybe not right, but I was happy with what I earned previously, so the extra money aspect never came into it. Time off was more important to me to have a better quality of life.

Things have moved on since then. I have become ill and retired at 60 on Civil Service and OAP pensions.

Gemma
x

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello
I agree entirely with you!

Why on earth do we actually need Tax Credits anyhow?

It was not that long ago that when you went out to work and earned a wage you lived on it. If you couldn't you did something about it. Get a better paying job or reduce your outgoings.

Once again this country has gone soft on people. Let's get back to those days when you were responsible for you and your own.

Tax Credits have funded a lifestyle, one that should not be there!
Either you can pay for it out of your own income and enjoy the rewards, or if you can't - well do something about it then!!!
Honestly, it's like Oliver - Please Mr, can I have some more????

Thank you

Gemma
x

I am the only one that is confused by your posting history?

I could quote a lot more conflicting posts, but will leave it at that.

Gemstar30

I worked it out that by working for 16 hrs pw (2 days pw) at the new salary rate, claiming WTC as being in full time employment due to DLA and then not having those extra 3 days of 'work costs' I would be on the same as I was on previously before the rise. In addition I had an extra 3 days a week to myself to do as I wished.

Things have moved on since then. I have become ill and retired at 60 on Civil Service and OAP pensions.

Tax Credits have funded a lifestyle, one that should not be there!


Hello,

Confused??

Yes I was ill and because of that I went onto short hours. WTC helped increase my income because that is what it is for.

I was talking about people manipulating the system to work just 16 instead of 35 AND claiming WTC.

When I claimed WTC on short hours it was not a lifestyle choice. It was because I couldn't work full time hours due to illness.

Those that can work full time hours SHOULD, not decide to take time off and expect the taxpayer to fund that decision.



I shouldn't have to answer to you what I do.

I have worked all my life at the expense of not having a family of my own. Work was important to me. And when I became ill and had to have a reduced income, the benefit system is there to help, not provide a lifestyle as others would seem to be doing!

If you can't help with my question - please refrain from making comments about something which is unrelated.

Gemma
x

bertiebat

Gemstar30 wrote: »

I worked it out that by working for 16 hrs pw (2 days pw) at the new salary rate, claiming WTC as being in full time employment due to DLA and then not having those extra 3 days of 'work costs' I would be on the same as I was on previously before the rise. In addition I had an extra 3 days a week to myself to do as I wished.

Things have moved on since then. I have become ill and retired at 60 on Civil Service and OAP pensions.

Tax Credits have funded a lifestyle, one that should not be there!


Hello,

Confused??

Yes I was ill and because of that I went onto short hours. WTC helped increase my income because that is what it is for.

I was talking about people manipulating the system to work just 16 instead of 35 AND claiming WTC.

When I claimed WTC on short hours it was not a lifestyle choice. It was because I couldn't work full time hours due to illness.

Those that can work full time hours SHOULD, not decide to take time off and expect the taxpayer to fund that decision.



I shouldn't have to answer to you what I do.

I have worked all my life at the expense of not having a family of my own. Work was important to me. And when I became ill and had to have a reduced income, the benefit system is there to help, not provide a lifestyle as others would seem to be doing!

If you can't help with my question - please refrain from making comments about something which is unrelated.

Gemma
x

No of course no one should have to answer to anyone on what they do.

However you stated you were retired at 60 with 2 pensions and therefore this conflicts with claiming ESA. That was my main point and feel free to explain to me how I'm wrong in thinking that.

I also find your constant referring on this and other forums about claiming incapacity benefits as a lifestyle choice could possibly be, at the very least, insensitive to the genuine claimants (who for obvious reasons read this and the D&D board).

I will edit your above quote on who you are, to tell you I am.
I have worked all my life. Work was important to me. And when I became ill/(disabled by the NHS in my case) and had to have a reduced income, the benefit system is there to help.

Gemstar30

bertiebat wrote: »

No of course no one should have to answer to anyone on what they do.

However you stated you were retired at 60 with 2 pensions and therefore this conflicts with claiming ESA. That was my main point and feel free to explain to me how I'm wrong in thinking that.

I also find your constant referring on this and other forums about claiming incapacity benefits as a lifestyle choice could possibly be, at the very least, insensitive to the genuine claimants (who for obvious reasons read this and the D&D board).

I will edit your above quote on who you are, to tell you I am.
I have worked all my life. Work was important to me. And when I became ill/(disabled by the NHS in my case) and had to have a reduced income, the benefit system is there to help.

Hello

Ahhh now I see what you are getting at.

My original claim for ESA was before I retired. Failed the assessment and appealed. Then things went from bad to worse with my health. Then I reached retirement age and started to receive my OAP. ESA then stopped.

I still have my appeal going through, but my problem was that in between being told that I failed the assessment and reaching retirement age my health deteriorated further. That is the bit I am trying to get them to look at now, not after the Tribunal.

I do not have a current ESA claim just the appeal and the bit after up until it stopped.

Sorry if I have confused you - I confuse myself!!!!

All I am trying to understand is do I have the right to demand that they look at that deterioration as a separate claim now instead of having to wait for the hearing despite an ESA appeal still live.

As regards your other comments. I can fully understand why ESA came about, and that it is a good system in theory.
My argument is that having spent 44 years in the Civil Service I have come across so many people that they can't see the wood for the trees.
I am very passionate about working instead of using benefits as a means to enhance a lifestyle. It is better to earn the £65 pw than to receive it as a benefit. You get satisfaction out of working - not out of claiming benefits.

I have always been a great believer in getting in there in the midst of it and working your way out of it.

Today far too many see benefits including WTC as a supplement to income and justify it as they are entitled to it.

Yes I know there are those that are too sick to work and we should support them. Yet there are many more that could work but choose not to.
Those should embrace the opportunities given with ESA and help themselves.
I have visited so many people in my lifetime in their homes and can say that over the past 20 years the number of 'too sick to work' types has increased beyond belief.

I actually used to go a day earlier than I had planned to interview them. The panic on their faces was obvious. I have compared notes with colleagues on the same individuals and the cars disappear overnight. Family members disappear, and the crutches come out of the cupboard, the house is untidy, yet when I go unannounced the place is like a palace, 4x4 and a BMW on the driveway with no indication of any illness or disability in the household. You have no idea what some are like.

I know they are the minority, but you must admit something had to be done with the ease that people could get and stay on lucrative benefits for years.
And NO I didn't work for the DWP is was another department.


By the way have you read the recent thread from Pizzle84? That is what I am on about!!



Thanks

Gemma
x

bertiebat

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello

Thank you. You learn something new everyday!

I have a relative that claimed DLA and was turned down. There was more than enough evidence sent in to prove their needs. Incorrectly he accepted that despite that, he was not in sufficient need according to DLA, so he didn't appeal or ask for a reconsideration.
Thinking back now, I will concede that maybe the DLA 1 was not complete - it was thought that the DWP would give credit for that when they reviewed the evidence.
So, yes thanks for that info, it may come in handy sometime in the future should I need to make a claim in the next couple of years before I am 65.

Gemma
x

Sorry but still confused. According to the above post you are around 63. You claimed ESA sometime before your retirement at 60.

Are you saying that the appeal has been running for at least 3 years?

Since there seems to be no real purpose in continuing the appeal, don't you think it would be a better use of tax payers money to drop it anyway?

I stick by my statement on your references in certain threads, about the validity of claiming incapacity benefits inappropriately . Sometimes this can be by see by the original poster or others who've contributed as aimed at them when there is no reason to attribute them with this label. This can needlessly cause offence.

DT is the place for such discussions I feel.

cit_k

Gemstar30 wrote: »

I know they are the minority, but you must admit something had to be done with the ease that people could get and stay on lucrative benefits for years.

As you seem to be referring to incapacity benefit, no, that is not something that people in possession of the full facts would admit.

Something does need to be done to counter the propaganda, and also the ill-informed opinions of large numbers of the public, including yourself who promote myths about incapacity benefit.

bertiebat

Hello Gemma

Noticed you were on D&D earlier and just wondered whether you had forgotten this thread.

People won't be able to answer your query without all the correct information.

dmg24

bertiebat wrote: »

Sorry but still confused. According to the above post you are around 63. You claimed ESA sometime before your retirement at 60.

Are you saying that the appeal has been running for at least 3 years?

Now I am really confused - ESA was only introduced two years ago!