Which is better, ESA or IS?

rogerblack

'Burden of proof' is entirely the wrong term to use, it creates the wrong impression.

The only sorts of decision that are supposed to be routinely and automatically overturned are ones which are 'perverse'.
That is - ones that no reasonable person could come to, based on the information supplied to the decisionmaker, based on the law as it stands.

For example, if it was decided you did not get high-rate mobility, when you in fact have no lower legs. (this is grounds for automatic HRM (if you are not in a coma, or unable to from time-to-time benefit from HRM))

The DWP or the claimant never have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most decisions carry the right of appeal, but again, the only case in which the decision is supposed to be automatically overturned is if a decision is perverse or wrong in law.

Simply because a decision-maker or tribunal chooses not to believe you, after taking account of all of the evidence and law, is not grounds for an automatic appeal success.
Even if most people would take a different view.

Cpt.Scarlet

Roger

Not sure if you are replying to me or the OP, but if me, then I use the phrase "burden of proff" because that is what is used in R(S)/3/90 which establishes that at the review stage, it's the decision-maker who must show that the claimant is not entitled.

Of course if it wan't me, ignore this post.

ltcinter

It appears that staying on ESA could be more problematic, because if my OH were to lose HRC/MRC this would possibly impact negatively on her support group status also - and vice versa. However, with IS there is only one concern and that is staying above LRC.

Financially, IS is precarious since if she were even to go from HRC to MRC she would also lose the enhanced disability premium.

What I am trying to decide is what is the path of least resistance for my OH in the long term. I suppose I have to wait and find out how long each award (ESA and DLA) is likely to be for - and then take it from there.

dave030445

Iam in the same boat im saying put at the moment
Also something else to remember is that on IS you do not get your National Insurance Contributions paid you do on ESA and with the change from DLA to PIP its a bit of a unknown stay put till you find out if you can get PIP

andrea_louise

I was under the impression that all IS claimants on the grounds of disability, would be re-assessed for ESA between 2011 and 2014, a friend at the spinal support group I attend, has just been through the reassessment in December.

dave030445

andrea_louise wrote: »

I was under the impression that all IS claimants on the grounds of disability, would be re-assessed for ESA between 2011 and 2014, a friend at the spinal support group I attend, has just been through the reassessment in December.

yes thats right but its the partner who will be claiming IS as there are the carer for the person who gets DLA. so ESA will just stop.

rogerblack

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Roger

Not sure if you are replying to me or the OP, but if me, then I use the phrase "burden of proff" because that is what is used in R(S)/3/90 which establishes that at the review stage, it's the decision-maker who must show that the claimant is not entitled.

I agree, I was trying to make the point that most people may associate this phrase with 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - which it doesn't imply.
Sorry for being unclear.