ESA query please

FBaby

Full time students (on either an advanced or non-advanced course of study) in receipt of any rate of the DLA care component or either rate of the PIP daily living component are automatically treated as having limited capability for work and do not have to undergo a Work Capability Assessment.

Why would that be? PIP is not a out of work benefit, and many people claiming it do work, so why should the fact that someone decides to attend college make any different to their capability to work?

Robbie64

FBaby wrote: »

Why would that be? PIP is not a out of work benefit, and many people claiming it do work, so why should the fact that someone decides to attend college make any different to their capability to work?

It's a throwback to when the rules were relaxed for Income Support (when it was paid on the grounds on incapacity for work) with regards to disabled students. I think this happened around 1990. Students in full time education are normally unable to claim means tested benefits but an exemption was made for disabled students who received the care component of DLA. The exemption extended to not only being able to claim IS but also to not having to undergo the then equivalent of the WCA. When ESA replaced IS these exemptions were carried over.

epitome

Robbie64 wrote: »

Full time students (on either an advanced or non-advanced course of study) in receipt of any rate of the DLA care component or either rate of the PIP daily living component are automatically treated as having limited capability for work and do not have to undergo a Work Capability Assessment.

nannytone wrote: »

i wonder why it is different for everyone else then?

assuming a 19 year old at college would have automatic entitlement, but a 19 year old not in college wouldn't.

they do have some odd rules

FBaby wrote: »

Why would that be? PIP is not a out of work benefit, and many people claiming it do work, so why should the fact that someone decides to attend college make any different to their capability to work?

It's not true.

The only advantage given to FT students on DLA or PIP is that they are allowed to claim ESA IR. Whereas FT students without DLA or PIP are not allowed ESA IR but can get ESA Conts if they qualify.

EVERYONE on ESA has to go through the WCA process, though this process is shortened for certain groups like DS1500 and Cancer treatment.

What Robbie may be confusing is the use of the words "can be treated as having LCW" This simply means if they can show a med3 they can be treated as having LCW for ESA IR, whereas someone who is a FT student not in receipt of DLA/PIP cannot be treated as having LCW fore ESA IR even if they have med3. i.e. "treated as having LCW during the period of assessment."

tomtontom

epitome wrote: »

It's not true.

The only advantage given to FT students on DLA or PIP is that they are allowed to claim ESA IR. Whereas FT students without DLA or PIP are not allowed ESA IR but can get ESA Conts if they qualify.

EVERYONE on ESA has to go through the WCA process, though this process is shortened for certain groups like DS1500 and Cancer treatment.

What Robbie may be confusing is the use of the words "can be treated as having LCW" This simply means if they can show a med3 they can be treated as having LCW for ESA IR, whereas someone who is a FT student not in receipt of DLA/PIP cannot be treated as having LCW fore ESA IR even if they have med3. i.e. "treated as having LCW during the period of assessment."

Not sure why you've brought up an old thread, but your correction is not necessarily correct! If you refer to rightsnet you'll see this comes up pretty often.

I'm on the fence - taking the law literally I would agree with R64's stance, taking a common sense view I would follow yours.

Robbie64

epitome wrote: »

It's not true.

The only advantage given to FT students on DLA or PIP is that they are allowed to claim ESA IR. Whereas FT students without DLA or PIP are not allowed ESA IR but can get ESA Conts if they qualify.

EVERYONE on ESA has to go through the WCA process, though this process is shortened for certain groups like DS1500 and Cancer treatment.

What Robbie may be confusing is the use of the words "can be treated as having LCW" This simply means if they can show a med3 they can be treated as having LCW for ESA IR, whereas someone who is a FT student not in receipt of DLA/PIP cannot be treated as having LCW fore ESA IR even if they have med3. i.e. "treated as having LCW during the period of assessment."

Income-related ESA

If you are a full time student who is getting DLA you count as having limited capability for work without having to have a Work capability Assessment.

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Full-time-students-and-benefits/Can-full-time-students-claim-disability-benefits#guide-content

Also see https://www.glasgowstudent.net/blog/benefits-students/

You are correct that the above applies only to income related ESA. I should have made it clearer in my original reply. But if the student qualifies for IR ESA while receiving DLA or PIP then the WCA test is deemed to have been satisfied.

minimad1970

Robbie64 wrote: »

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Full-time-students-and-benefits/Can-full-time-students-claim-disability-benefits#guide-content

Also see https://www.glasgowstudent.net/blog/benefits-students/

You are correct that the above applies only to income related ESA. I should have made it clearer in my original reply. But if the student qualifies for IR ESA while receiving DLA or PIP then the WCA test is deemed to have been satisfied.

My son fits this criteria, full time uni student, IR ESA(assessment phase) and in receipt of DLA, but has received an appointment letter for a WCA. I'll get him to give them a ring tomorrow to ask if he needs an assessment. Thanks.

epitome

minimad1970 wrote: »

My son fits this criteria, full time uni student, IR ESA(assessment phase) and in receipt of DLA, but has received an appointment letter for a WCA. I'll get him to give them a ring tomorrow to ask if he needs an assessment. Thanks.

Yes, he will need to have a WCA, or he will be marked down as Failing To Attend and his benefit will stop. It has been 3 weeks since you posted...did he go to his assessment? He has to go to an assessment to determine of SG applies.

tomtontom wrote: »

Not sure why you've brought up an old thread, but your correction is not necessarily correct! If you refer to rightsnet you'll see this comes up pretty often. I'm on the fence - taking the law literally I would agree with R64's stance, taking a common sense view I would follow yours.

I replied to the thread because I saw something I thought was wrong, and if I did not reply then what could have been an error would remain unchallenged. Now that it has been challenged, I have had an oportunity to look into this subject further.... read on to see what I have found out.

Robbie64 wrote: »

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Full-time-students-and-benefits/Can-full-time-students-claim-disability-benefits#guide-content

Also see https://www.glasgowstudent.net/blog/benefits-students/

You are correct that the above applies only to income related ESA. I should have made it clearer in my original reply. But if the student qualifies for IR ESA while receiving DLA or PIP then the WCA test is deemed to have been satisfied.

I have now investigated and I partially agree with you. We are talking here about Reg 33(2) which says these students are to be treated as having LCW. This means that they do not need to supply med certs they do not need to return the ESA50 , but they do need to attend a WCA for SG determination. Also they have to be not entitled to ESA Conts at all, if there is an award of conts included then 33(2) does not apply. They should be awarded WRAG rate after 92 days of payment on the claim even if they have not had an assessment yet.

Those websites should be making it clear that Failing to Attend the WCA will result in the benefit claim being closed.

I will support and fight for anyone who can show me a law that supports their position, I will admit I am wrong if it is proven to me. In this subject I have found Reg33(2) and I admit I was wrong to dismiss your comment earlier, I apologise.