Query re ESA Support Group

SingleSue

My experience was that they asked if I/we wanted to attach youngest's old DLA details to his PIP claim rather than them asking if they could do it.

For him, there was still relevance in that paperwork which was then also backed up with all his new paperwork...whoever got that pile of stuff had a lot of reading to do!

billywilly

SingleSue wrote: »

My experience was that they asked if I/we wanted to attach youngest's old DLA details to his PIP claim rather than them asking if they could do it.

For him, there was still relevance in that paperwork which was then also backed up with all his new paperwork...whoever got that pile of stuff had a lot of reading to do!

It doesn't matter if they asked or you wanted, it has been said many times that there is no common denominator between DLA and PIP - they look at the disabilities from a totally different perspective.

Like squeezing a lime and expecting it to taste of lemon! Both are citrus fruits and both are sour - but that is where the similarities end.
The DWP tried it on with me after I had claimed PIP on transfer from DLA. I personally couldn't see what relevant connection could be made, so said no.

pmlindyloo

From what I have read they are indeed using recent ESA assessment reports as a basis to decide an application for PIP.

Although I recognise that the two benefits are entirely different I can understand their reason for doing so.

The lengthy wait for an award of PIP has become the focus of considerable concern.

This new incentive has been based on the premise that some PIP decisions can be made on a paperwork assessment only. This could be good news for those awaiting a decision for PIP. There must be a wealth of medical evidence from the ESA claim that can be used for assessing a claim for PIP plus the face to face assessment should also be useful.

Against this is ATOS' previous inability to assess correctly and a possible over reliance on incorrect information.

However, in some cases I am believe this could be a sensible move in the current situation.

This would rely on those assessing on paperwork only to have the ability to ask the claimant for a face to face interview if there was insufficient evidence or a concern about the validity of the evidence.

If safeguards are put into place (and of course there is still the right for an appeal) then it could be a way forward to help those who have waited for months on end.

I suspect there are no statistics available as yet/or will be where there has been this use of ESA evidence but I do believe that it may be an option that we need to give credence to.

nannytone_2

you really are dense at times Billy.

we know that DLA descriptors are different from PIP descriptors, which are both different from ESA descriptors.

but medical eveidence/doctors reports are relevant to all 3 as they prove difficulties which affect daily life.
the forms are the place to put information that relates specifically to the benefits descriptors, and additional evidence that relates to ONLY THAT benefit can be sent too.

GP's/consultants dont, as a rule, write reports to meet a pertains benefits criteria... they just provide a report about the patients condition

billywilly

pmlindyloo wrote: »

From what I have read they are indeed using recent ESA assessment reports as a basis to decide an application for PIP.

Although I recognise that the two benefits are entirely different I can understand their reason for doing so.

The lengthy wait for an award of PIP has become the focus of considerable concern.

This new incentive has been based on the premise that some PIP decisions can be made on a paperwork assessment only. This could be good news for those awaiting a decision for PIP. There must be a wealth of medical evidence from the ESA claim that can be used for assessing a claim for PIP plus the face to face assessment should also be useful.

Against this is ATOS' previous inability to assess correctly and a possible over reliance on incorrect information.

However, in some cases I am believe this could be a sensible move in the current situation.

This would rely on those assessing on paperwork only to have the ability to ask the claimant for a face to face interview if there was insufficient evidence or a concern about the validity of the evidence.

If safeguards are put into place (and of course there is still the right for an appeal) then it could be a way forward to help those who have waited for months on end.

I suspect there are no statistics available as yet/or will be where there has been this use of ESA evidence but I do believe that it may be an option that we need to give credence to.

I don't agree entirely.

For those that had a face to face assessment for gathering evidence for ESA which was later found to be wrong at a Tribunal, would they still want to rely on the ESA F2F opinion for PIP?
Maybe.

If as you say they are doing this routinely, then in my case when they found that I did not qualify for one point for the PIP claim, they couldn't have used the ESA file. If they had, they would have found a mountain of medical and social evidence that saw me being put into the Support Group for 3 years twice, once following a F2F assessment and the second based purely on the report received from my GP.
Personally I think that is is a 'blind' and what they are not admitting to is that they are using Google instead!

The government have also warned that they will be hoping to have direct access to other sources - Social Services reports, GP files, hospital files, OT reports etc - in fact any digital file that is held either by the NHS/LA or GP without our permission. That I strongly object to on the grounds of privacy. If that did happen many people would be mistrusting of the medical and social profession as they would have no control over who had access to what and when.

The real answer to this chaos is to employ more people to do the job, not penny pinch by trying to make a square block fit into a round hole.

billywilly

nannytone wrote: »

you really are dense at times Billy.

we know that DLA descriptors are different from PIP descriptors, which are both different from ESA descriptors.

but medical eveidence/doctors reports are relevant to all 3 as they prove difficulties which affect daily life.

No they don't , that is unless they have changed the format of the GP factual report or the ESA113. Those reports generally only deal with the diagnosis and the treatment given. There is a box that asks about needs/mobility, but you will find that it is either ignored by the GP or stated: none aware of .
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251339/esa113-interactive.pdf


the forms are the place to put information that relates specifically to the benefits descriptors, and additional evidence that relates to ONLY THAT benefit can be sent too.
And if you are poor at completing those forms fully, have difficulty in accessing any evidence - what then? It is common knowledge that many claimants go it alone when completing these forms as there is no suitable help available


GP's/consultants dont, as a rule, write reports to meet a pertains benefits criteria... they just provide a report about the patients condition
Neither do GPs or any one else that I know of. The factual report document issued by the DWP doesn't ask for details appertaining to the information needed by the DWP specific to needs or mobility..

It would be safer and fairer all round if the DWP did not muddle information up between one benefit and another.

If their problem is not being able to get a PIP decision out within a reasonable time frame, they should employ more staff!