ESA successful reconsideration but still lose

calcotti

tomtom256 wrote: »

Duh that's the whole point of a proof of posting.

Once received by Royal Mail and accepted into there system and proof of this has been obtained i.e. at the post office etc, then it has to have been received by the recipient.

Leaving aside the stuff that never gets delivered or is delivered to the wrong address. However I accept that in practice proof of posting will usually be accepted as indicating that delivery is probable.

calcotti

Iwanttobefree wrote: »

Interesting. I scored 0 points on my ESA reconsideration, and on their advice, started my claim for UC. I went to the identity checking interview.

The next interview I was so stressed I walked out halfway through, then contacted them via my UC login page to say I'm stopping my claim for UC.

The claim procedure never got completed, only started.

On the extremely small off chance I win my tribunal, does that mean as I started my UC claim, I cant go back to the ESA support group?

There’s an article on this here http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/universal-credit-defective-claims-and-withdrawals which includes the following.

“Given that it is only when a valid claim for UC is made that the various provisions terminating existing awards or HB, tax credits and IS and abolishing income-related ESA and income-based JSA can operate, it is important to understand what counts as a ‘valid’ claim for UC. ......

Given this design of the online claim process, it seems that a claimant will count as having made a valid claim once s/he has answered all the questions on the online form (indicated by getting to the point at which a claimant can post on her/his journal).”

On this basis the point of no return is reached as soon as the online application is completed.

However the article goes on to say

“In cases where that claim has not yet been decided, then it is possible for the claim to be withdrawn....

In a case where a claim is withdrawn in this way, then it is arguable that it is, for all purposes, as if the claim had never been made.”

So that isn’t any clearer at all!!

sportsarb

tomtom256 wrote: »

Duh that's the whole point of a proof of posting.

Once received by Royal Mail and accepted into there system and proof of this has been obtained i.e. at the post office etc, then it has to have been received by the recipient.

No, it HAS to have been received by Royal Mail, because you have proof that you posted it. However, there is no proof of delivery and my question remains, how do you prove you DIDN't receive something.

Different matter if it is a tracked item, whether that is minimal tracking or fully tracked to the destination point, and it is signed for by the recipient. If it is signed for by the recipient and they say they don't have it then, well, they have to find it or admit they lost it.

tomtom256

sportsarb wrote: »

No, it HAS to have been received by Royal Mail, because you have proof that you posted it. However, there is no proof of delivery and my question remains, how do you prove you DIDN't receive something.

Different matter if it is a tracked item, whether that is minimal tracking or fully tracked to the destination point, and it is signed for by the recipient. If it is signed for by the recipient and they say they don't have it then, well, they have to find it or admit they lost it.

Google it there is or was case law on this.

But you could also argue that even though something was signed for, how do I know what you say was in the envelope was actually in the envelope when I signed for it and the circle begins.

sportsarb

tomtom256 wrote: »

Google it there is or was case law on this.

But you could also argue that even though something was signed for, how do I know what you say was in the envelope was actually in the envelope when I signed for it and the circle begins.

We’re getting a tad off topic I think but whatever.

I’m not arguing case law or anything of the sort as that goes way above my head and, tbh, not something I’ve ever needed to worry about in the past.

My contention was that there is simply no way to prove you didn’t receive something. A tribunal, for the sake of a benefit decision might accept in good faith that it has been sent, but the DWP can’t mosey on up with documentation to prove that it wasn’t received because.....well, to them it simply doesn’t exist.