Can a ESA50 form be typed ?

Cpt.Scarlet

Loathe as I am to agreee with NASA, there are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that are not entirely correct.

First, case law has established that the burden of proof lies with the claimant for an initial claim, and with the DWP for a re-assessment. See http://www.disabilityalliance.org/esalaw.htm and in particular R(S)/13/54 & R(S)13/52.

Secondly. Whilst it is at the claimants discretion as to how much or little of the ESA50 they complete, clause 37 of ESA Regulations 2008 clearly states that failure to adequately complete the ESA50 will result in the claimant being found not to have Limited Capability for Work.

Lastly, the jury is still out with regard to the DWP requesting medical information, but my impression is that in the majority of cases they are.

I'm in no way suggesting that any of the this has improved the decision making process for the significant minority that the system regularly fails, but to suggest the claimant doesn't have to particpate is rubbish.

eskimo26

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Lastly, the jury is still out with regard to the DWP requesting medical information, but my impression is that in the majority of cases they are.

I'm in no way suggesting that any of the this has improved the decision making process for the significant minority that the system regularly fails, but to suggest the claimant doesn't have to particpate is rubbish.

When and where do they ask for medical evidence? The only reason i knew to do so was because i researched online. They don't say anything about evidence at anytime, they insinuate they will contact your medical team by asking for there details. They even deliberately muddy the waters by staying silent on evidence while ATOS sends out a cover letter with the ESA50 saying in big capitals that no other evidence is to be sent in to them with the form full stop.

It's diabolical, how are people to know if they are not told? People that are sick and have never applied for a benefit in their lives are just suppose to guess? Is it a requirement now for the claimant to be either psychic or to go online and do detailed research on the benefit they wish to claim?

cit_k

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Loathe as I am to agreee with NASA, there are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that are not entirely correct.

First, case law has established that the burden of proof lies with the claimant for an initial claim, and with the DWP for a re-assessment. See http://www.disabilityalliance.org/esalaw.htm and in particular R(S)/13/54 & R(S)13/52.

Secondly. Whilst it is at the claimants discretion as to how much or little of the ESA50 they complete, clause 37 of ESA Regulations 2008 clearly states that failure to adequately complete the ESA50 will result in the claimant being found not to have Limited Capability for Work.

Lastly, the jury is still out with regard to the DWP requesting medical information, but my impression is that in the majority of cases they are.

I'm in no way suggesting that any of the this has improved the decision making process for the significant minority that the system regularly fails, but to suggest the claimant doesn't have to particpate is rubbish.

Regulation 37 is a minefield, as obviously many people may have a (for example mental illness) disability that prevents them from complying with the DWP's expectations properly.

Regulation 37 and 38 are covered by regulation 39

Matters to be taken into account in determining good cause in relation to regulations 37 or
38
39. The matters to be taken into account in determining whether a claimant has good cause
under regulations 37 (failure to provide information in relation to work-related activity) or 38
(failure to attend a medical examination to determine limited capability for work-related activity)
include—
(a) whether the claimant was outside Great Britain at the relevant time;
(b) the claimant’s state of health at the relevant time; and
(c) the nature of any disability the claimant has.

Now, its clearly arguable, that they cannot determine good cause, if they have not requested medical information in cases where someone fails to fill in a esa50 form or fails to attend a medical.

As for burden of proof, why in that case, on a re-assessment, should, in cases where the descriptors have not altered, should the DWP call someone in for an assessment, if a) the claimaint has said there is no change in circumstances, and b) the DWP have not even requested any information that shows circumstances have altered?

I am not aware of any recent stats regarding the requesting of medical evidence, the last ones I saw were for IB, and in the year in question, in 78 percent of IB cases, NO medical evidence was requested from anyone (ie reliant totally on esa form and assessment).

seven-day-weekend

If you are on Jobseekers' Allowance you have to prove you are fulfilling the condition to look for work.

If you are receiving a Pension based on your age, you have to provide proof of your age.

Therefore if you have a sickness-related Benefit, why should you not have to furnish proof that you are sick?

I know nothing about directives, it just appears common sense to me that if you want particular conditions to be included in the assessment, then it is up to you to provide the evidence of those conditions. The DWP are not mind readers.

cit_k

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If you are on Jobseekers' Allowance you have to prove you are fulfilling the condition to look for work.

If you are receiving a Pension based on your age, you have to provide proof of your age.

Therefore if you have a sickness-related Benefit, why should you not have to furnish proof that you are sick?

I know nothing about directives, it just appears common sense to me that if you want particular conditions to be included in the assessment, then it is up to you to provide the evidence of those conditions. The DWP are not mind readers.

You are meant to provide the evidence that the DWP requests, UNLESS your illness or disablity prevents you from doing so properly, in which case you can be excused for a failure in that regard.

ATOS and the DWP were sending out ESA forms telling people NOT to send any other evidence in with the form....
and the nature of the forms gives people the impression the DWP will be contacting the medical profession on their behalf (as the forms asked for details of GP etc, and permission to contact them etc).

It was all designed to mislead so people do not send in further evidence.

Proof is provided in the initial stages with fit notes from a GP (new name for sick notes), and of course, your declarations on the form detailing your illness and problems.

seven-day-weekend

My husband claims IB, not ESA. On the form he has to give his Dr's name and address. But we have never assumed that this means it is not his responsibility to provide any further evidence we might have, and in fact has always sent other 'stuff' with the questionnaire. He does not think that giving the Dr's details and permission to contact him/her means that the DWP are going to do the work that is his responsibility to do.

TBH, I assumed they asked about the Dr merely to ascertain that you have seen one about your condition!

However, if they actually say not to send anything else, then I would get the evidence anyway and just keep it in case it is needed in the future.

(I also appreciate that some people are unable to get the evidence for various reasons. By this I mean people with genuine conditions that stop them doing so, not just those who can't be !!!!!d).

Richard1075

I have dexterity problems due to severing my ulna nerve and osteoarthritis. I always type out any forms, print them out on plain paper and then stick to form using a tape pen or glue stick. I do make sure that my NINI is on every piece of paper in case they get detached.

I have never had a problem ......

Actually, it makes me laugh as I remember Spike Milligan saying that whenever he saw forms that said "do not write here" or "do not write below this line" he used to rub the edge of a candle over the space - his reasoning was that if he couldn't write in that space then nobody else should allowed to! I like his thinking!

sangiar

NASA wrote: »

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.

We will disagree on that one. I believe that the DWP have a duty to obtain as much evidence as possible in order to make a decent decision first time round in order to avoid costly appeals going through the system. Claimants should be treated as knowing nothing about benefits, and the DWP is there to provide a good service to help them. To be honest that is what makes a good Civil Servant!

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.

Maybe the case is that if as much responsibly can be heaped on the poor old claimant, targets etc can be achieved within the department. Whatever happened to providing a good, fair and honest service to the public?

Poor old claimant my hole.

Sorry to have to say this but you do sound like the typical DWP employee, over stretched, under paid and has lost the ethos of what the Civil Service was set up to do.

sangiar

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Loathe as I am to agreee with NASA, there are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that are not entirely correct.

First, case law has established that the burden of proof lies with the claimant for an initial claim, and with the DWP for a re-assessment. See http://www.disabilityalliance.org/esalaw.htm and in particular R(S)/13/54 & R(S)13/52.

Yes I agree entirely with your argument

Secondly. Whilst it is at the claimants discretion as to how much or little of the ESA50 they complete, clause 37 of ESA Regulations 2008 clearly states that failure to adequately complete the ESA50 will result in the claimant being found not to have Limited Capability for Work.

Yes, I agree entirely.

Lastly, the jury is still out with regard to the DWP requesting medical information, but my impression is that in the majority of cases they are.

Are you suggesting that the DWP actually request further and better evidence in cases where they think that it might possibly give a different decision?

I'm in no way suggesting that any of the this has improved the decision making process for the significant minority that the system regularly fails, but to suggest the claimant doesn't have to particpate is rubbish.

I agree entirely with you and thanks.

In the world of what is right or wrong, the claimant is requested to provide the information.
My argument has been always that not everybody has that ability. That is when the DWP should step in and 'help' to obtain the evidence.

Like I have said, if what NASA says happens in the DWP, there are two levels of claimants. Those that are experienced, have funds to provide evidence and fully understand what type of evidence is required - they will more than likely be granted ESA as a higher percentage of applicants, than those that can do little more than put their name and address on the ESA50.

Is that right and fair?

NASA says that it is their fault. ummm where is the view that everybody should be treated differently, some needing more help than others?

It the likes of NASA wants to throw the rule book at a claimant, then they should first of all make sure that the claimant will understand it's contents.

sangiar

eskimo26 wrote: »

When and where do they ask for medical evidence? The only reason i knew to do so was because i researched online. They don't say anything about evidence at anytime, they insinuate they will contact your medical team by asking for there details. They even deliberately muddy the waters by staying silent on evidence while ATOS sends out a cover letter with the ESA50 saying in big capitals that no other evidence is to be sent in to them with the form full stop.

It's diabolical, how are people to know if they are not told? People that are sick and have never applied for a benefit in their lives are just suppose to guess? Is it a requirement now for the claimant to be either psychic or to go online and do detailed research on the benefit they wish to claim?

As I have said it is becoming very clear on this thread that there are two levels of claimants. Those that understand the rules and regulations and those that don't, but just muddle through. Which group would you expect to be granted ESA?

We do have an eminent poster in this forum that has the money and knows the benefit system inside out and back to front.
This particular individual has the resources to pay for a private psychiatric assessment to back up their DLA claim. Why? Because they admitted that the NHS psychiatrist would not have given such good evidence to secure the claim.

Now if that is the way forward, as NASA seems to expect, then many of us mere plebs that don't know the first thing about form filling, never mind looking to get the best evidence and being able to afford it, then it is tough luck!!