Appeal to go from WRAG to support .. Advice

nannytone_2

as has been said before ....
frouping is a box ticking exercise and bears little relevance to a persons ability to work.
being placed in the WRAG doesnt mean that the claimant will be capable of work in the future, just that their condition doesnt 'tick' any of the very specific support froup descriptors.
i was in the WRAG for 1 years. i am blind. is my consition likely to improve?
no, of course it isnt. but at the time i was initially grouped, my disability didnt tick any of the support group descriptors.
now it does because they constantly mess around with them.
am i less capable of work than i was when i was in the WRAG?
of course not, my condition is exactly the same!

rogerblack

Cookiee wrote: »

It is not factually incorrect. The information I got was not actually from the DWP but from a dedicated site that supports people in either group and to help them if they need to appeal their "group placement"..

This does not mean it is not wrong.

You absolutely cannot qualify for the support group merely because your condition will never improve, or have no prospect of ever working again.
Only if 'work related activity' is actually harmful to you in some manner.

HB58

Cookie, I am glad that your mum has been placed in the Support Group by the tribunal and that she will be left alone for a while now.

However, I feel that I must support RogerBlack in his explanation of the way the system works.

By claiming that people put in the WRAG will be fit for work at some stage in the foreseeable future, the government are misleading people. They are using this fallacy to support some of their cruelest policies and to hoodwink the public.

None of the Support Group descriptors refer to people with lifelong/deteriorating conditions who will never be able to work again, these people can quite properly (according to the descriptors) be harassed into performing useless activities that cause them anxiety, exhaustion and pain and then left without any support after 12 months has passed.

Cookiee

I just want to say thank you for all those who have given me advice on my mum's appeal.


I did not start this threat to argue the pro's and considerable cons of a system I barely know anything about. Everyone has their own opinion on the system and I value all that have contributed. I have dealt with both the WRAG group with my husband, which helped him after his injury and assisted in getting him back to work, right through to battling the system for my mum to be put into the support group.


I am not stating that the WRAG group works for all, on the contrary it appears that it is completely inadequate to deal with such a complex situation. Nor am I saying that the support group is perfect if you are ill/have a condition which unfortunately leaves you in a position where you will not be able to work. I am only going on my own personal experiences.


The only question I have left to all is if you believe the system is as rubbish as you have experienced, how would you change it to improve it? I know the obvious one is get rid of ATOS but would you get rid of the groups? Change the descriptors for how you qualify? This is just a general question. TBH now that my mum is now in the correct group, I am happy to now walk away from this thread.

nannytone_2

for someone like me, that has a totally measureable and indisputable condition ... the current system works fantastically well.
but i am well aware that i am in the minority. most ilnessess/disabilities have a grey area where ones persons opinion can be disputed by another'
the biggest problem is that the system needs to be stringent, in order to ensure only those with a valid need receive the benefit.
i cant see anyway that a system dealing with so many varuables can ever be much better than the one we currently have

cattermole

Thats the most upsetting thing for me about ESA Roger there is no provision for those that will never work and could not possibly work ever.

The very term is offensive to their families. Imagine having a young adult wheelchair bound from birth with profound learning disabilities to be put on a benefit called "Employment" Support Allowance.

Incapacity benefit should have been kept for that group and administratively it makes more sense as well.

Next group should have been support ESA which could be very profound but with high level support possible.

Wrag should mean you could work with minimal support or are likely to improve in the future.

But Esa is nothing like that and apart from labelling incorrectly as in my example gives no more chance of disabled people getting the support they might need to work than the previous system did what a waste of money in more red tape!

rogerblack

As I've said before - ESA (and IB and SDA and ...) are a bit broken.

ESA spectacularly so - as it's penny-pinching in the wrong areas.

ESA needs a couple more groups.
The most important is for those that are _STILL_EMPLOYED_.

Many conditions - mental and physical - would be greatly improved if instead of waiting weeks or months to get treated - are treated immediately.

This avoids them leaving work, going onto ESA, spending months or years on ESA - possibly including spending on appeals and 'work related activity' because they're out of work.
All of this costs money - which isn't properly taken into account.
Not getting better promptly costs the company a worker, the family a parent, the NHS a harder to treat patient because they've had to wait 9 months.

You can put hard financial numbers on this - and spending quite large amounts of money up-front can _vastly_ improve financial outcomes to the exchequer in the long term.
Not to mention keeping people in work with all those benefits.

The second group is for those that will never be reasonably able to work again.
Especially including those who are disabled from birth.
Those who are well enough to form relationships face a lifetime of being a financial drain on any partner.

However flawed it might have been - IB at least in principle had one of the routes to eligibility be 'no employer is likely to employ them given all their disabilities'.

In addition - bring back for this group 104 week linking.
Where if they do find work - they can if due to their health go straight back on ESA if it doesn't work.

Working on ESA needs to be highlighted as possible to every single claimant.
The number who commit fraud by claiming ESA and working normally is dwarfed by those who are scared of trying because they fear it will risk their benefit.

In some ways, universal credit could be a solution.
Seperate completely the disability test, and the payments.

Below a certain limit, you're treated like anyone else.
As disability rises so that you're less employable, your 'work allowance' rises so that you can take home more of any pay you do make.
As you become unemployable by most employers, this rises further, as well as disability components kicking in to make up basic income.