Went on holiday came back to find letter from ESA

3876samf

The letter said there had been changes in the law and they needed to go over my case because of those changes.

But I checked there has been no recent changes in the law with regards to going away on holiday.

Also they highlighted the parts of my claim that would be affected by me going on holiday ie mobility etc would come under question if I was able to go off on holiday.

I am allowed to go on holiday btw I have done nothing wrong.

But are they allowed to lie like that and say it was to check one thing liek about that thing, but really they are just basically warning me in a subtle way?

Or was it co-incidental ? Or someone reported me?

I find it odd that I get the letter just as I get back from holiday.I hadnt been for a long time away.

MovingForwards

How long did you go away for and where eg UK, Europe or further away?

3876samf

MovingForwards wrote: »

How long did you go away for and where eg UK, Europe or further away?

less than 2 weeks in Europe, I still score high enough anyway to keep getting PIP but one part was updated so my score is now less, it was a part to do with planning a journey and moving about .

It seems such a strange co-incidence that there was a sudden review of that part just as I went on holiday.

Is it even legal for them to "hint" and lie , say they were doing one thing but really they are just warning me?

Or ios it more realistic that this is just a co-incidence, a big one?

nicechap

3876samf wrote: »

The letter said there had been changes in the law and they needed to go over my case because of those changes.

But I checked there has been no recent changes in the law with regards to going away on holiday.

Also they highlighted the parts of my claim that would be affected by me going on holiday ie mobility etc would come under question if I was able to go off on holiday.

I am allowed to go on holiday btw I have done nothing wrong.

But are they allowed to lie like that and say it was to check one thing liek about that thing, but really they are just basically warning me in a subtle way?

Or was it co-incidental ? Or someone reported me?

I find it odd that I get the letter just as I get back from holiday.I hadnt been for a long time away.

Paranoia is never a heathy reaction.

Have you replied to the author of the letter asking them which law has been changed?

3876samf

nicechap wrote: »

Paranoia is never a heathy reaction.

Have you replied to the author of the letter asking them which law has been changed?

No but I researched, and the law was changed all the way back in 2016, no law has changed recently but they say it has had a recent change and thats why it was reviewed but it hasnt had a recent change. The last change was a court case in 2016 where the DWP lost.

Is that really paranoia?

74jax

3876samf wrote: »

, it was a part to do with planning a journey and moving about .

Is it even legal for them to "hint" and lie , say they were doing one thing but really they are just warning me?

I would write back and give evidence of whoever planned the journey and also all the assistance needed (ie the confirmation of airport booking assistance /wheelchair booking etc). I can understand where they are coming from so you need to explain yes you understand that point but you can show Betty at the travel agent organised all the travel and made all the calls, you can prove you had assistance to get from A to B. Whilst at B you can prove you got around with assistance by showing xyz.

In the letter ask precisely what has changed. What it was, what it now is.

3876samf

74jax wrote: »

I would write back and give evidence of whoever planned the journey and also all the assistance needed (ie the confirmation of airport booking assistance /wheelchair booking etc). I can understand where they are coming from so you need to explain yes you understand that point but you can show Betty at the travel agent organised all the travel and made all the calls, you can prove you had assistance to get from A to B. Whilst at B you can prove you got around with assistance by showing xyz.

In the letter ask precisely what has changed. What it was, what it now is.

Not my question.

gettingtheresometime

3876samf wrote: »

Not my question.

In fairness 74jax may not have answered your direct question but offered a way forwarded and was polite enough as well not to justify that response.

nicechap

3876samf wrote: »

Not my question.

You're the one accusing them of lying, you're the only one who can challenge their assertion, no one on the internet can do it for you to resolve your problem.

[Deleted User]

The logical thing to do is to stop speculating and ring the ESA helpline otherwise it’s all guesswork.

TELLIT01

As somebody who worked at DWP for a number of years I would say the most likely reason for the wording of the letter is that it was created following a change to the law in 2016, therefore using "recent", but hasn't been updated since to change the wording to something more appropriate.
Irrespective of that, DWP has the right to question any activity undertaken by a claimant which seems to contradict one or more of the reasons for their claim.