We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
New ESA50!
Comments
-
rogerblack wrote: »To do with the changes outlined in the DWP memo http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-1-13.pdf
The changes mean that people on tube-based chemotherapy for something other than cancer will now not be entitled to the support group, but if someone is likely to get, getting, or recovering from radiotherapy or chemotherapy for cancer - they are.
This means that oral chemo for cancer now entitles you to the support group, where it did not before.
However, for surgical treatment alone, it may not count.
I do not know if surgery alone is common.
Another provision is more insidious, and its effect will depend on the person making the decision.
If you are currently at substantial risk to health if you are found capable for work, or capable for work related activity - that entitles you to the relevant group of ESA.
The changes add the caveat that this doesn't apply, if 'reasonable changes' can be made to the workplace to eliminate this risk.
Very, very nastily - they have now separated the mental and physical aspects of the test.
You can only gain points on the mental side if this is due to a mental problem, or the result of treatment for a mental problem. Similarly on the physical side.
It would seem that - for example - side effects from medicines for a mental condition affecting physical ability now do not count.
For example, someone with poorly controlled blood sugar may undergo blackouts.
As this is not due to a mental disorder, they would not score points.
The example given in the guidance is someone with severe arthritus that to control the arthritus has to take painkillers that severely affect their concentration - to the degree they would previously have been entitled to ESA due to this lack.
As however arthritus is not a mental disorder, and painkillers are not treatment for a mental disorder - the pills effect cannot attract points.
The above is only my understanding, and should not be taken as gospel.
Seems that they have cleared away most of the 'grey' areas that have been used to 'sideways' claim a contributory problem - such as medication and its deemed consequences - something that was very subjective in that people argued that it could affect different people in different ways.
The test is now moving to a factual one - it either does or doesn't for the vast majority at an agreed level.
I would take issue with one aspect of your post, diabetes and it's complications has never been anything but physical. It is not a mental illness.
For example, someone with poorly controlled blood sugar may undergo blackouts.
As this is not due to a mental disorder, they would not score points.
I think that this new format is a better proposition than the old ESA50 it separates physical from mental and goes somepart to bring it into line with what I feel the PIP claim form will look like. It's a good idea for them to insist of facts not 'it may or may not'.
However I am still not satisfied with the idea that the DWP are 'requesting' evidence to be sent to them. They are asking for details of HCP yet say that they probably won't contact them.
I feel that the onus should be on the DWP to get all of the evidence together much like DLA when they contact the GP for a factual report. I don't see why the claimant should be put to the trouble of chasing around doing the DWP's job for them. (Well that's how I see it and my latest ESA50 has told them that in no uncertain terms!)0 -
So side effects of any medications have been taken out of the equation!
Wow a new low for Irritable Duncan-Smith.
Yes probably because it is open to abuse. If two people with the same condition take the same medication there shouldn't be any argument about it affecting people differently. Those two people should get eqaul and the same result.0 -
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »
Note: on a separate but related issue, R29 has been changed to say that if the risk can be addressed by making adjustments in the workplace OR by the claimant taking medication by their GP to manage their condition, then they will be found fit for work (which is okay as far as it goes, but are we going to get into the issue of 'virtual adjustments')?
Of course they will be virtual. They will be virtual until they find a job and the employer actually puts them into operation.
Nothing wrong with that. What I like is the fact that a decision can now be made on the basis of forcing the claimant to obtain medical advice as well as forcing them to take their medication and probably undergo surgery. Considering that with this action they should be able to get back to work.
If you refuse medical treatment it will go against you as you will be treated as putting yourself in a position of not taking up the chances to get back to work.0 -
So I presume if your mobility is e.g. restricted up to 50m then afterwards you have to stop due to whatever problems you have then you don't tick the 50m box because you cannot do it as per the criteria above? You use the large box underneath to explain why you cannot move this distance.
!
I can't see that being the case!
I have a consultant's report that specifically states that I cannot mobilise more than 50 metres without suffering from exhaustion, pain and severe discomfort. I then have to stop and take a rest. When I attempt to walk again the distance is considerably shorter for the same reasons. Eventually after this I cannot move at all.
I used that report for the ESA and DLA claim. Neither accepted it as good enough evidence for mobilising. They preferred the GP report which gave little or no information.0 -
I can't see that being the case!
I have a consultant's report that specifically states that I cannot mobilise more than 50 metres without suffering from exhaustion, pain and severe discomfort. I then have to stop and take a rest. When I attempt to walk again the distance is considerably shorter for the same reasons. Eventually after this I cannot move at all.
I used that report for the ESA and DLA claim. Neither accepted it as good enough evidence for mobilising. They preferred the GP report which gave little or no information.
I know I should feed you but in certain cases you need educating whatever identity you may be using!
If you were successful in your "claim" then so what, it makes no difference. However if you were denied DLA and/or ESA then you had perfect evidence to take to an appeal.0 -
I know I should feed you but in certain cases you need educating whatever identity you may be using!
If you were successful in your "claim" then so what, it makes no difference. However if you were denied DLA and/or ESA then you had perfect evidence to take to an appeal.
Maybe, but I didn't have the strength to do that.
As for the reason of my post, far too much is being played on this ability to mobilise.
It seems to me that if people put as much energy, time and effort in trying to twist and make regulations fit their own particular circumstances as regards the mobility question, into say, looking for a part time job, we would all be better off.0 -
Hi Bella. I can't see why you say that? You don't have to be in pain or discomfort to qualify for DLA. Pain is the least of my problems, I am only able to walk a few steps because of physical problems, not mental difficulties or pain. Pain seems to be being used as an excuse that DLA should be awarded. With todays modern science pain can almost in every case be relieved. Mobility should only be considered for those that physically have a problem with movement which in my opinion does not include pain, hence why I am so much in favour of the new PIP descriptors and in total agreement with Sunnyone.
As for the ESA appeal, I am appealing because of physical and mental reasons, none of which include pain.Many times my GP and Consultant have said that they don't know how I am managing to do what I do in life. Like I said to them willpower and drugs get me through it. My GP said that most if not all patients with a medical case as mine would be in bed or complaining of constant pain.
Who is Andy?
If you were successful in your "claim" then so what, it makes no difference. However if you were denied DLA and/or ESA then you had perfect evidence to take to an appeal.Maybe, but I didn't have the strength to do that.
.
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
For those who are interested the new regulations in full are here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/228/made
And for what it is worth I find it disgraceful that every time the Upper Tribunal define the meaning of a specific descriptor which the DWP doesn't like they merely change the law to remove the 'offensive bit'.
How much does this cost the taxpayer every time the government have to redraft legislation etc?
Note: These Regulations do not apply to a person who was sent a questionnaire (as to their capability for work or for work-related activity) before the date on which these Regulations come into force and in respect of whom a determination is made as to that persons capability for work after that date.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards