disability

BigAunty

rogerblack wrote: »

You are quoting the briefest overview of ESA.

It is misleading.

..

A member of the public can't be expected to slog through the decision makers guides - these are DWP staff manuals.

The Direct Gov website gives an accurate overview of ESA and a reliable emphasis on the actual fact that it is deliberately designed as a benefit for those who are too sick/injured to work, complete with an assessment to see if the claimant is capable of no work whatsoever or some work with support.

The descriptors may not specifically have ones that state whether or not the person is capable of employment, they build up a picture of their physical and mental capabilities...

I think your poor opinion of ESA is blinding you to its aims and objectives. Whether it meets them from the claimants or employers perspective can be debated but what cannot be disputed is the fact that it is benefit for those who feel they are too sick to work and the assessment will determine whether or not they are deemed capable of any work.

I won't be responding to any more of your debates on the operation of ESA and suggest that you take your beef on the policy over to discussion time.

The OPs question has been satisfactorily answered from a specific benefit query point of view - your nit-picking, claiming falsely it is not a benefit for those who are too sick to work and disputing that it provides an assessment of the claimants capability for employment, is not constructive.

Muttleythefrog

BigAunty wrote: »

A member of the public can't be expected to slog through the decision makers guides - these are DWP staff manuals....

The OPs question has been satisfactorily answered from a specific benefit query point of view - your nit-picking, claiming falsely it is not a benefit for those who are too sick to work and disputing that it provides an assessment of the claimants capability for employment, is not constructive.

I have to step in and defend what he (roger) has said. Many claimants seem to fall foul of ESA specifically because they read only the headline statements regarding ESA (or have equivalent understanding). ESA may be a benefit described as for those unable to work but it certainly doesn't assess that... certainly not in the main phase. How many times do you see people say I have been found 'fit for work' but my doctor has provided some document saying I can't work. I'm in the Support Gp rightly but the idea I cannot work is laughable. I'd also strongly query this notion of ESA testing what you can do rather then what you can't... because all of the descriptors are negative statements. I mean I can run 100m in less than 15 secs... I can lift things double my body weight... I can write for England... but all the medical was concerned with is what problems my mental health poses in areas of things like getting on with people, coping with change and completing tasks. I suppose it is true that by finding out what a person can do in specific 'test' you may be able to eliminate the applicability of descriptors... so 'can go out to unfamiliar places without supervision' would eliminate all the getting about descriptors as example.

So I think roger was just trying to clarify.. especially given if the Op did go down the route of ESA then it is important to note exactly how they would qualify, if indeed they could (especially beyond assessment phase as for the assessment phase qualification is typically obtained by having a GP state you are currenty unable to work/do your job..i.e in loose terms I suppose you could say is for those unable to work). The Op may be misled if told that ESA is for those unable to work if they judge themselves to be capable of work other than current job which poses them real difficulty...they may still qualify for the main phase and a good scan of the descriptors is probably the best way to determine. And investigation of such detail is surely appropriate here and probably ASAP by the Op as the decision regarding benefits may soon be enforced... although ideally alternative role at work would be one avenue for looking at if applicable.

All that can be said regarding the Work Capability Assessment is it looks at 17 apparent areas of functionality.. some physical, some mental/cognitive... areas that would be typically areas where if you have problems then it will limit your working prospects or possibilities. Unlikely to be the case but if Op cannot pick up and move 0.5 litre carton full of liquid then they would (in theory) qualify for Support Gp as example. Picking things up and moving them around is probably a central part of many jobs and so you would indeed think it posed significant limitations in ability to work or take part in work type activity if you couldn't. But it wouldn't stop them doing many jobs... in fact the counsellor I had was as good as paralysed from neck down.