Does the personal advisor at esa work focussed interview have your medical details?

needmorehelp

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I had a WFI before i was laced in the support group and she wasn;t aware of my health problems (well...she was in a way due the fact she found me having a panic attack and meltdown in the waiting area ), she was however very nice to me and took me to a private room, she explained at that point that there were possibly courses to help with my mental well being and that we should focus on that before we looked into anything else. I onyl had that one appointment though as was placed in the support group not long after.

My advice would be, as hard as is it, try and be honest about you mental health and try and convey what limitations it might have on you, they can only try and help if they have a fuller picture. I know its not an easy thing to talk about, but please don;t feel ashamed or anything, MH problems affect 1 in 4 of us at some point in our lives and talking about it is a positive step.

In regards to finding it too distressing, there is a support group desciptor that takes into account that if a person (or others) would be at risk in undertaking work or work related activities that may mean they have a limited capability to work (sorry not sure of exact wording), this was the reason i was placed in the support group, do you feel this applies to you?

Yes I do and at the moment I am in the support group for that reason, I was placed in work group after being migrated from IB, I wrote a letter to decision maker outlining the above reason and was placed in support group for two years.

Got the ESA50 review and just been for the WCA which I found very stressful, still can't really sleep right nights later, though I didn't have a total melt down panic attack in there.

I know I could loose the ESA altogether but trying to prepare myself mentally if I do have to go for work focussed interviews.

Rogerblacks take on Descriptor 13 is very interesting as that is the point that I won the mandatory reconsideration on two years ago, but until I read his post I actually believed that "always" in the descriptor actually meant "ALWAYS" not "On the vast majority of occasions"

13. Coping with social engagement due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual. '

Always here does not quite mean always - but 'on the vast majority of occasions'

I was under the impression that "On the vast majority of occasions" would put someone in the wrag.

Thanks for all the great advice on here, it really does help with the stress.

rogerblack

needmorehelp wrote: »

Always here does not quite mean always - but 'on the vast majority of occasions'

I was under the impression that "On the vast majority of occasions" would put someone in the wrag.

Thanks for all the great advice on here, it really does help with the stress.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/4170

This refers to a decision of the upper tribunal on what 'always' means. Before this (as was mentioned in the thread) there was a case saying 'social activity can be interaction with professionals (taxi/...) in the course of their job) - but this is significantly weakened by this decision.

Judge Parker commented in CSE/22/2013 that…
‘therefore in order to make use of reg 34(2) but mindful of the distinction in activity 16 of schedule 2 between “always” and “for the majority of time”, I conclude that “always precluded” as used in activity 13 of schedule 3, and likewise as used in activity 16 of schedule 2, is not an all or nothing test; rather it means “repeatedly” or “persistent” or “often”. A “majority” may be consituted by events which happen only on 50.1% of possible occasions, but a greater frequency is required by the use of the word “always”. It is a question of degree, but a fact finding tribunal is eminently suited to applying these subtle nuances of difference in a common sense way. It suffices to say in the present case, that because a claimant attends one tribunal hearing, and his GP accepts that he comes to the surgery very occasionally, does not necessarily entail the conclusion, as the tribunal clearly considered that it did, that it “cannot be said that engagement in social contact is always precluded”.’

In short - very occasionally managing things may not count.
It is clear that if you just can't manage things 50% of the time, that would not count for this descriptor.
The limit is somewhere between 'well over 50%' and 100%, and each tribunal or DM needs to take this into account.