Can a ESA50 form be typed ?

NASA_2

sangiar wrote: »

rogerblack wrote: »

As I understand it, form ESA113 is there for that purpose, but it is very rarely used - I wonder why?
Why, according to NASA, should the claimant be put to the time and trouble to get these reports when it is quite clear that there is a system already in place for the DWP to do it, but chose not to use it.

Yes, there is form ESA113 which can be issued to a GP, but these are usually used for appeal cases and fresh claims with a 6 month period of a disallowance and the person is claiming a deterioration.

ANd like I said - I dont claim that a claimant has to get further information but if they want it taken into account they should obtain it and pass it on.

NASA_2

What is the point of asking a GP for a medical report (IB113/ESA113) when they have already issued statements expressing their opinion?

People suffering from certain specified severely disabling conditions (“exempt” category in Incapacity Benefit or “support group” in Employment and Support Allowance) may be treated as incapable of work without being tested.
Jobcentre Plus therefore takes steps to identify such people before applying the Personal Capability Assessment (Incapacity Benefit) or Work Capability Assessment (Employment and Support Allowance). GPs (acting as certifying medical practitioners) play a crucial role in providing a precise diagnosis and factual clinical details in cases where a person may have a severe condition that, under Regulations, allows them to be treated as incapable of work.
A fully completed IB113/ESA113 report may thus avoid the need for a person to undergo a benefit related examination and help Jobcentre Plus to give a prompt decision on entitlement.

cit_k

NASA wrote: »

sangiar wrote: »

It says it here:

Evidence and information7.—(1) Every person who makes a claim for benefit shall furnish such certificates, documents, information and evidence in connection with the claim, or any question arising out of it, as may be required by the Secretary of State and shall do so within one month of being required to do so or such longer period as the Secretary of State may consider reasonable.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/1968/regulation/7/made

Yes, but that is refering to evidence 'as may be required by the Secretary of State' which must be produced, and i quote

within one month of being required to do so or such longer period as the Secretary of State may consider reasonable.

I dont recall, having any directives or letters telling me to ever send in any evidence from a GP other than a fit note.

If they dont tell the claimaint they 'are required' to send in whatever the secretary of state 'requires' then the claimaint is not at fault surely.

Personally, its a waste of time I find anyway.

ATOS did not read anything I sent in last time (and admitted it), and the decision maker supplied a statement of reasons showing they had NOT looked at ANY other evidence apart from the atos report.

This is after the harrington recommendations were supposed to be in place to, and they still rubber stamped the atos report and ignored everything else.

cit_k

rogerblack wrote: »

sangiar wrote: »

To be fair - looking at it from a global POV - it would put a quite large burden on GPs and other doctors, if they were more involved in the process, they'd have to be appropriately compensated for this.

To be fair, a one of report is a lot less hassle for a doctor than having to examine the client multiple times over a year, whilst the claimaint waits for an appeal.
Its also less hassle for them if the claimaint is examined 'properly' with evidence taken into consideration and the benefit granted, as failure can lead to peoples health deteriorating, resulting in even more work for the doctor.

Then another doctor has to be tied up at the tribunal.
Not to mention a second decision maker for the reconsideration, admin staff for fit notes, a lawyer at the tribunal, and possibly welfare rights workers to.

Save a fortune if the DWP requested data themselves.

sangiar

NASA wrote: »

What is the point of asking a GP for a medical report (IB113/ESA113) when they have already issued statements expressing their opinion?

People suffering from certain specified severely disabling conditions (“exempt” category in Incapacity Benefit or “support group” in Employment and Support Allowance) may be treated as incapable of work without being tested.
Jobcentre Plus therefore takes steps to identify such people before applying the Personal Capability Assessment (Incapacity Benefit) or Work Capability Assessment (Employment and Support Allowance). GPs (acting as certifying medical practitioners) play a crucial role in providing a precise diagnosis and factual clinical details in cases where a person may have a severe condition that, under Regulations, allows them to be treated as incapable of work.
A fully completed IB113/ESA113 report may thus avoid the need for a person to undergo a benefit related examination and help Jobcentre Plus to give a prompt decision on entitlement.

I've heard and read enough! Whatever the system was designed for is clearly not working.
DWP cannot just change things to make the claimant do all of the running.
As for the SOS direction issue, that has nothing to do with the argument.

We were simply saying who is responsible for what when making an ESA claim.

The claimant is responsible for submitting a valid sick note and a completed (to some degree, even if it is only their name and address) ESA50.

The DWP are then required to decide if there is a case to answer or not based on the evidence. They have it in their powers by way of an ESA113 to seek out further evidence which will help them in making that decision. They could even have a SOS directive issued for the claimant to supply something. But the bottom line is that the DWP MUST make a valued and reasonable decision on the facts.

To say that they will only look at what is put in front of them is negligent in my opinion. Do they not have a duty to seek out the facts, those that the claimant may not have disclosed or submitted in the form of reports?

I can see that your argument mirrors that of the DWP, I would presume that you work for them.

We are treading on very dangerous ground here, because if I accept your argument, then those that have difficulty in completing forms, have difficulty in communicating with people they are being put at a serious disadvantage to those that are well versed in completing forms and gathering evidence. So the 'thick' (please excuse me for using that word but it describes what I feel) unintelligent, loners will not stand the same chance as others.

Does the DWP not have the responsibility to balance this out by seeking out evidence either in support of the claimant or not?
Why not make greater use of the ESA113?

Then maybe everybody has an equal chance.

cit_k

It would be interesting to ask the GMC's stance, as the GMC state medical reports for these type of assessments must be fully justifiable and backed up with evidence.

How can they be acting ethically, the assessors, if they knowingly dont have highly relavent evidence?

sangiar

cit_k wrote: »

It would be interesting to ask the GMC's stance, as the GMC state medical reports for these type of assessments must be fully justifiable and backed up with evidence.

How can they be acting ethically, the assessors, if they knowingly dont have highly relavent evidence?

That is a very good point!

I agree, the DWP should be satisfied that all appropriate action has been taken by them to ensure that ALL relevant evidence is obtained in order to ensure that the right decision is made.

How can they back up the decision if they are aware that no evidence has been submitted save for an ATOS report - I am looking at it as well in that the ESA50 contains very little info.

I presume the DWP will argue that they made the decision on the evidence supplied, but that is nothing more then a get out clause because they chose not to seek further evidence.

As I have said many times when you submit the ESA50, you are not REQUIRED - only requested to complete it fully. There is no regulation that says what MUST be shown on the ESA50, Likewise the ESA claim is only conditional on submitting a valid sick note.

Given that ATOS or the DWP in that case would only be aware of what is on the sick note (which may only be one of many conditions), and with no info on the ESA50, how can they back up any report.

This whole thing is a smokescreen designed by the DWP, to clearly place the emphasis on the claimant to submit all and every bit of evidence for fear of being refused benefit.

There is no regulation that says that that is what the claimant MUST do.

Given that the claim is submitted, it is for the DWP to show, backing it up with evidence that the claim should be refused and certainly not for the claimant to prove his or her entitlement with anything other than a sick note.

The DWP have lost staff, their budget has been cut is no excuse. There is a system in place for them to obtain further evidence using ESA113. They chose not to do so citing cost and time as the excuse.

It is no wonder that so many appeals are upheld. Even the DWP cite the reason as 'maybe the claimant has produced more evidence'.

If that evidence was available when the claim was reviewed in the first place, is it the responsibility of the claimant to send it in or for the DWP to take steps to obtain it?

Ignoring the SOS direction, It is for the DWP to obtain it to shopw that they have made a decision based on ALL available evidence, not just the bit sent in by the claimant. Then maybe the appeals would dry up very quickly as the right decision would have been made initially. The DWP can't have their cake and eat it. They can't say it is not for them to get the additional evidence then complain that the appeal is upheld in the applicants favour because of it.
Not good enough!!

NASA_2

Whinge, whinge, whinge.

Why do claimants always try to avoid personal responsibility?

sangiar

NASA wrote: »

Whinge, whinge, whinge.

Why do claimants always try to avoid personal responsibility?

There is no need for that sort of comment is there?

You have still not shown me any ESA regulations that REQUIRE a claimant to provide any evidence, apart from the SOS direction, which is hardy ever used, to substantiate an ESA claim other than the return of the ESA (filled in or not as long as it is returned) and a current sick note.

You show me it and I will apologise profoundly to you.

Additionally you have not explained why the DWP do not make better use of the system of issuing ESA113's to get more evidence in all cases where evidence is clearly lacking.

If there is a genuine (costs, staffing etc apart) reason why the ESA113 system is not better used I will accept it.

As the DWP are looking for reasons to pass or not the claim, it is THEIR duty to ensure that all available evidence is obtained before a decision is made. To make a decision on the basis of what is supplied by the claimant and possibly an ATOS assessment, is not being balanced or fair. It also creates a huge problem for the MOJ when these decisions are appealed against. Plus the bad publicity that the DWP get when many are upheld in the claimants favour. Especially when they start complaining that the reason was that new evidence was submitted to the Tribunal. (90% of that evidence was available at the time the first decision was made but was never requested).

Why not try and get it right first time?

The claimant makes the claim, the DWP have to decide whether to accept it or not but in doing so, MUST justify and exlplain their reasoning. It is no good taking the easy route which eventually becomes the more time consuming and expensive one using the appeal system.

Methinks the time has come to ask the DWP direct about their so called systems that clearly are not working and to stop trying to put the onus back onto the poor old claimant all of the time in order to save time and money from the DWP's perspective.

NASA_2

I already said a number of times that there is nothing to require a claimant to provide additional evidence above and beyond the mandatory stuff at the start of the claim. However, if they whinge that their full details werent taken into account, and they never provided those details to support their claim - its the claimants fault.

I'm not sure why I need to set out a case why the DWP doesnt use ESA113's for every claim - going by their website they only issue them if they think people are potentially going to be able to go into support group without a WCA. It's really an operational matter for them. No legislative requirement hence they dont do it I guess.

Poor old claimant my hole.