ESA Reassements

unsureabout

Are ESA reassessments still on hold or is there still a huge backlog? I was put in the support group last November. I have got all the paperwork evidence if they do intend to review it. I am sure I was on 12 month support group. I am worrying each day when the post man arrives for the dreaded brown envelope.

1. Are they still on hold or a huge backlog?
2. How long should I be awaiting for the ESA form to arrive given the review was at start of November?

rogerblack

ESA reassessments are ongoing.
They are not required to do any specific reassessment at any time.

unsureabout

Could you explain? I know I was put in support group for 12 months is it highly likely I will hear off them in next few weeks to complete another dreaded ESA50 form and/or a possible assessment at Maximus

Torry_Quine

My assessement was due July 2014 and I am still waiting so it could be long enough.

rogerblack

unsureabout wrote: »

Could you explain? I know I was put in support group for 12 months is it highly likely I will hear off them in next few weeks to complete another dreaded ESA50 form and/or a possible assessment at Maximus

They are not required to reassess you at the date it says on the form.
They can if they choose simply keep paying you.
It's not so much a backlog at the moment as I understand it as choosing to reduce the rate of assessment for some people.
There may for example be a realisation growing that the 'prognosis' on which the award length is based is very inaccurate for some conditions.

If your condition has improved, you need to tell them.
Otherwise, there is little else you can do other than wait.

unsureabout

OK so its a literally a lottery on it and just a matter if and when that form arrives

Indie_Kid

unsureabout wrote: »

OK so its a literally a lottery on it and just a matter if and when that form arrives

Yes, pretty much.

I've been in the support group since November 2012. Expecting a form any time soon.

TELLIT01

rogerblack wrote: »

It's not so much a backlog at the moment as I understand it as choosing to reduce the rate of assessment for some people.

Reducing the rate at which people are reassessed will automatically reduce the backlog, but it does mean that people who would potentially be deemed fit for work will remain on benefit longer. Rather like on IB which was replaced by ESA to stop people being on benefit too long!

dodgydave69

I was put in the Support Group in November 2013 with a prognosis of 3 years. I assume i'll be contacted at some point next year?

rogerblack

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Reducing the rate at which people are reassessed will automatically reduce the backlog, but it does mean that people who would potentially be deemed fit for work will remain on benefit longer. Rather like on IB which was replaced by ESA to stop people being on benefit too long!

Err -no.

IB could be awarded for fixed periods.
It also can involve an in person assessment and the person claiming it is required to say if they get better before the end of their award.

Just like ESA.

The notion that ESA was introduced to fix things in IB that can be fixed without legislation by simply changing DWP practice is barking mad. (*)

Done properly, lowering the reassessment rate may not increase the fraud rate.

The 'prognosis' for an ESA claim is almost meaningless in many cases. It is generated by the recommendation of a health care professional assessing the person, and picking one of several options. There are reports there are quotas on the available prognosis lengths. The HCP may know little to nothing about the condition.
Due to not knowing about the condition, it is possible certain conditions have systematically inappropriate dates set, and longer is actually more appropriate on a review of data.
Most people on ESA would rather get back to work when they get better, as they are employed at a considerably larger wage.
Work-related activity may encourage them into work.

Amongst others.
Then there is the fact that reassessment is not free.
If the average excess payout due to claimant fraud or error is less than the cost of more frequent reassessment, it is fiscally irresponsible to assess people more often.


*) This does not of course always make it wrong, because politics. Much the same with PIP, for which this is the cover story, when the actual reason is changing the criteria so less people are covered and there is a fiscal saving.