New Style ESA Advice

WhenIam64

I was in the same predicament as I am now since I retired early last year, but didn’t know anything about ESA

How far are you off your actual retirement age? If you are close to it, there is the possibility of Pension Credit. Very narrow age range applies (equality applies) so you might want to check when that might kick in.

sportsarb

calcotti wrote: »

You need to avoid looking at old information which refers to ESA. New claims are all for 'new style' ESA which has slightly different rules and is solely a contribution based benefit (unlike the old ESA which has both a contribution based element and a means tested element). Having said that the backdating rules are the same. An ESA claim can be backdated for 3 months but, as others have said, this is intended to be done at the time the claim is made. I have never come across anyway successfully extending a claim backwards after it has started and would be surprised if this is possible.

My experience is with northern Ireland claims, not DWP claims, but we always went about this scenario by having the person make a completely new claim and it was decided on by the fresh claims team in line with the normal rules for deciding on claims.

It was never a matter of extending the existing claim backwards because, well, you can’t do that.

There’s no logical reason to prevent a new claim to pre exist the current one.

calcotti

KatrinaWaves wrote: »

In my defence, TWO of the links talk about new style ESA and UC, there is only one which is older, but that has the same info re backdating.

I didnt think a huge amount of time had passed considering the claim began just before Christmas, as the links seemed to give a blanket 'you dont need to give a reason' which seems unusual as most bens I've dealt with require really good reasons for backdating!

No defence needed. My comment wasn't meant to be accusatory just a general health warning. You're quite right the ease of backdating ESA (at the outset) is definitely unusual.

calcotti

sportsarb wrote: »

There’s no logical reason to prevent a new claim to pre exist the current one.

That possibility had never occurred to me. Unfortunately in this case it wouldn't make much difference given that over two months have passed since the current claim was made.

sportsarb

calcotti wrote: »

That possibility had never occurred to me. Unfortunately in this case it wouldn't make much difference given that over two months have passed since the current claim was made.

True.

Still thought it was worth mentioning. Even among staff here not many people could ever get their head around how claims operate and are decided on. How the public were supposed to know was beyond me.

calcotti

sportsarb wrote: »

Even among staff here not many people could ever get their head around how claims operate and are decided on. How the public were supposed to know was beyond me.

Of course UC is supposed to be so much easier!! Only wish that were true.