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

bertiebat

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello,

I am looking for some part time work, ideally working with animals. As usual I check the JC+ website every day and to my surprise I find a job that I would like to try for.

There is a problem, whilst I am more than happy with the hours on offer (10 pw), at NMR, I cannot get my head round the fact that I am probably expected to work another 10 for nothing!!

That means that I will be working for just over £3 per hour for 20 hours pw.

Is this right that they are allowed to put this stipulation in? I know it doesn't say it is compulsory, but to get the jobit looks like it will be a decider between who applies for it.
Have I got the right to say NO! I'll just take the 10 hours that you are paying me for.

In case you don't believe me I have copied the job here:

KENNEL PERSON

Wage

MEETS NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
Hours
2 HOURS A DAY, MONDAY TO FRIDAY
Location
DOVER, KENT CT15
Duration
Permanent
Date posted
13 October 2010
Pension details
No details held
Description
The successful applicant will need to be an enthusiastic, motivated person able to work on their own or as part of a team to help us care for, groom and exercise the dogs in our care. We are a registered animal charity and your duties will involve the daily care, including the cleaning of kennels, and welfare of the rescue dogs that come into our centre and. so a natural rapport with dogs is essential. We are looking for someone to work 8am -10am Monday to Friday and would appreciate a similar amount of hours to be given as voluntary.
How to apply
You can apply for this job by sending a CV/written application to
Employer

Thank you

Gemma

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello everybody,

I had a telephone call today from the DWP (ESA) after waiting since the 27th September when they promised one within 24 hours!
I told them that they have to re-assess me because of the deterioration in my health but that are adamant that I will have to wait until after the appeal has been heard. I am now getting cross with them, they just don't seem to want to do anything for me.

I also asked that when I go into hospital in a few weeks, will I be treated as unfit for work (in hospital for at least 8 weeks) and be allocated one of the two groups. They said no! - As I am already receiving the assessmant rate that will continue. They went on to tell me that I would only be allocated it if I had not had the medical that I failed. I said that that wasn't fair, as I am clearly ill then and cannot work.

I have sent them a letter with details from another forum I am on (Consumer Forum) which details the law relating to a revision of my current status, but they just seem to be ignoring it.

I am going to write to my MP about this as they seem to be making up the rules as they go along. I did ask them what would happen if I died in the operating room - I couldn't work then!!

Thanks for putting up with me - it's more of letting off steam than anything else.

Thank you
Gemma

Gemma you seem to be a VERY confused person.

Your previous posts are riddled with you stating you are the claimant involved with the ESA claim and not someone you know.

I'd also like to know whether you pursued the working with animals job whilst you were too ill to work and of course retired with 2 pensions for 3 years as well.

Strange to mention your husband had diabetes type one in a post without a mention this is one or your problems as well. I'm glad you found the information on claiming DLA useful (strange you didn't know how it was done when you were on DLA HRM for few years ago). You do indeed seem very confused!

Gemstar30

NASA wrote: »

I could be wrong but I thought that the same memo that we are talking about removed the provision that meant an appeal was actually a new claim. It had to be removed as everytime someone appealed it took a new decision to end the new 'claim' which then brought new appeal rights and the claim would never really end if people kept appealing.

Memo 33/10 made it so that a new claim didnt need to be made when an appeal was made - and entitlement now ends when the tribunal decides the department was right without a further decision being required. Thus removing the right of payment under appeal continuing indefinately.

Thus, its only ever a review of the original claim, not a new claim.

Yes you are right up to a point.

The instructions given in memo 7/10 relating to payment of benefit whilst under appeal were amended by memo 33/10.
Paras 34-60 of 33/10 refer.

Para 35 of 33/10 now clearly states that the award pending determination of the appeal is a new award and not a reinstatement of the previous award which is the subject of the appeal.

Consequently as I have stated earlier, that 'new' award can be reviewed in the light of evidence that the illness/disability/condition has deteriorated or there is a new illness/disability/condirion. The new regulations allow this to happen without the 6 month rule being enacted.

That review may cause a further ESA50 to be completed and another ATOS medical. If the DM decides that there is still no reason to award a change and grant full ESA, then that decision can be appealed against. But only on that change or new illness.

Now we have 2 appeals. One in respect of the medical condition that existed when the first decision was made and the second relating to the deemed deterioration or new illness since the date of the first decision, as at the date of the second decision.

Now as that 2nd appeal has been lodged and the DM has decided that the changes were not sufficient to award full ESA, memo 33/10 still carries the right that following that decison (2nd one) that the assessment rate of payment will continue and be based on another 'new' claim - not a reinstatement.

In all of this a physical 'new' claim does not need to be completed.

As I see it, this can carry on for as long as there are deteriorations or new illnesses. Which in my example would be someone who is suffering from a progressive deteriorating illness.

I am quite happy with my understanding of the Regulations in this matter, although the DWP are still currently insisting that your point of view still stands.
I obviously need to have this clarified in order that it can work in the favour of my friend.
If I am right, then this is in my opinion a massive hole in the system that can allow multiple 'new' claims and multiple reviews of those 'new' claims, with each decision being able to be appealed against.

If I am wrong, then I will need someone to prove it.

I don't think this was the intention when 33/10 was written, but it says what it says. I have spent hours researching this and maybe if I am proved correct, it will enable those that have that type of condition to have repeated attempts at the ESA claim without waiting for the Tribunal hearing.

In the light of this 'opening of doors' I will be discussing the matter with my MP on the 5th November and handing him my opinion on this matter to be taken up with the DWP direct.
Whatever happens I will keep you informed.

Gemma

Gemstar30

bertiebat wrote: »

Gemma you seem to be a VERY confused person.

Your previous posts are riddled with you stating you are the claimant involved with the ESA claim and not someone you know.

I'd also like to know whether you pursued the working with animals job whilst you were too ill to work and of course retired with 2 pensions for 3 years as well.

Strange to mention your husband had diabetes type one in a post without a mention this is one or your problems as well. I'm glad you found the information on claiming DLA useful (strange you didn't know how it was done when you were on DLA HRM for few years ago). You do indeed seem very confused!

Hello
It may appear so, but a lot of the questions I am asking relate to friends and family and it is just my way of asking those questions. There are in fact four people that I am trying to help.

So yes, it may appear so, but each set of circumstances relate to someone different.

Sorry to have confused you.

But on the other hand why bother writing when you clearly have no input to the particular question asked? Or are you just bored?

Gemma

NASA_2

This is getting complicated now.

A new 'award' doesnt constitute a new claim though, as far as I understand it, an award is the payable rate of benefit. A new award is made everytime someone has a change of income for example. In no way is that a new claim.

Paragraph 35 explicitly states '
Nor is there any provision enabling the appeal to be treated as a claim.'

The appeal allows a new award of benefit but doesnt constitute a new claim.

And you seem to suggest I am meekly agreeing with DWP - I think my posts clearly show that I am not. They are wrong in ignoring the new evidence but they are correct that only one claim can exist at any one time. Any new claim, during an existing claim, would be a duplicate claim and disallowed on that basis.

Gemstar30

NASA wrote: »

This is getting complicated now.

A new 'award' doesnt constitute a new claim though, as far as I understand it, an award is the payable rate of benefit. A new award is made everytime someone has a change of income for example. In no way is that a new claim.

Paragraph 35 explicitly states '
Nor is there any provision enabling the appeal to be treated as a claim.'

The appeal allows a new award of benefit but doesnt constitute a new claim.

And you seem to suggest I am meekly agreeing with DWP - I think my posts clearly show that I am not. They are wrong in ignoring the new evidence but they are correct that only one claim can exist at any one time. Any new claim, during an existing claim, would be a duplicate claim and disallowed on that basis.

Thanks honey for that. Let me go away and re-check my facts.

yes it is confusing but I must try and understand how to get to where I would like to get to.

Gemma

bertiebat

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello
It may appear so, but a lot of the questions I am asking relate to friends and family and it is just my way of asking those questions. There are in fact four people that I am trying to help.

So yes, it may appear so, but each set of circumstances relate to someone different.

Sorry to have confused you.

But on the other hand why bother writing when you clearly have no input to the particular question asked? Or are you just bored?

Gemma

Sorry but this does not explain the all the discrepancies in your posts. I just wish to hi-light the fact to people not to take your posts at face value. Since you yourself admit this to be true!

I will be asking the mods to review your membership if you continue to misrepresent yourself. As far as I know this is against the rules of this site.

Obviously you have some reason to get a answer on your question, so I will now leave this thread alone.

Gemstar30

NASA wrote: »

This is getting complicated now.

A new 'award' doesnt constitute a new claim though, as far as I understand it, an award is the payable rate of benefit. A new award is made everytime someone has a change of income for example. In no way is that a new claim.

Paragraph 35 explicitly states '
Nor is there any provision enabling the appeal to be treated as a claim.'

The appeal allows a new award of benefit but doesnt constitute a new claim.

And you seem to suggest I am meekly agreeing with DWP - I think my posts clearly show that I am not. They are wrong in ignoring the new evidence but they are correct that only one claim can exist at any one time. Any new claim, during an existing claim, would be a duplicate claim and disallowed on that basis.

Hello

I am now even more confused, but one saving grace is that others have made it that way for me!

Right, yes I understand the difference between an award and a new claim - we agree on that!

And yes you are quite correct in that the Regulations only refer to an award NOT a new claim. This is where I was confused. I have been told previously by others that they are the same - which clearly they are not.

So yes you are right again in that there is only ONE claim, but a NEW award following the appeal of the 1st decision.

So with a REVIEW of the NEW award, I presume that carries the right of appeal should that REVIEW be dismissed?

Many REVIEWS can be carried out on that one and only claim.

So looking further and I will have to make this as a separte question.
What would happen if that REVIEW fails but the the original appeal succeeds at the Tribunal? It seems to be the case that the Tribunal's decision can only refer to the period up to that date when awarding 'full' ESA. Because of the disallowance of the REVIEW and ?? that appeal, the claimant would go back onto the assessment rate until THAT appeal against the rerview has been heard.

Good grief, does that mean that even though the claimant will have won at the Tribunal say to the Support Group, but it is limited only to the period from 13 weeks after the date of the CLAIM up to the date of the Tribunal's decision? From then on it becomes a new award subject to the assessment rate until that appeal is heard? If then that appeal fails, a NEW claim is put in.

If there are muliple REVIEWS and appeals on them, you could have a situation that the claimant moves from one group to another or even loses entitlement altogether.

If that is the case the risk has to be weighed with the advantages and disadvantages of winning/losing at the Tribunal on each occasion.

Thanks you are such a gem of wisdom

Gemma