ESA Work Capability assessment. Please help

13567

Comments

  • pmlindyloo
    pmlindyloo Posts: 13,049 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    You are able to send in older medical evidence but whether this is accepted depends on what the evidence is about.

    Older evidence may be useful if you have a progressive medical condition or have a condition which is unlikely to change/improve but for most cases they will need to see up to date evidence.

    This makes sense (at least to me) because there are new treatments/technology being developed all the time.

    Particularly in a number of cases of mental illness therapy etc may improve the condition over time.

    So, it really depends on why you are claiming but in the majority of cases the more up to date evidence the better.
  • Polgara72
    Polgara72 Posts: 42 Forumite
    Danday wrote: »
    In an ideal world everyone that makes a claim for either ESA, DLA or PIP would have evidence supporting every aspect of their difficulties bound neatly in a file, in date order and be no older than 2 years. That simply very rarely happens.

    I am a former civil servant...so date order with the most recent at the top !!!128541;
  • Polgara72
    Polgara72 Posts: 42 Forumite
    sandra1980123 wrote: »
    As it was my first claim I didn't know that I was supposed to send evidence and you can use evidence that is older than 2 years for mental health i used evidence that was 3 years old last year on my reassessment and I will be using it again on my next reassessment.

    Thank you for that: I also thought any evidence had to be no older than two years. I’ve got much more I can send in now.
  • Polgara72
    Polgara72 Posts: 42 Forumite
    pmlindyloo wrote: »
    You are able to send in older medical evidence but whether this is accepted depends on what the evidence is about.

    Older evidence may be useful if you have a progressive medical condition or have a condition which is unlikely to change/improve but for most cases they will need to see up to date evidence.

    This makes sense (at least to me) because there are new treatments/technology being developed all the time.

    Particularly in a number of cases of mental illness therapy etc may improve the condition over time.

    So, it really depends on why you are claiming but in the majority of cases the more up to date evidence the better.

    This was certainly the case when I was a DM. The more recent the evidence, the better. That said, increasingly there was an awareness of the length of waiting lists in some areas, so older evidence was always useful (slaps self for not remembering this before). For example, I was referred to OT 20 months ago. I haven’t heard anything yet.

    I’m on maximum venlafaxine (375mg) plus a number of other medications. So it’s no longer just a case of the illness itself, but the added side effects.
  • Danday
    Danday Posts: 436 Forumite
    edited 9 April 2018 at 4:56PM
    poppy12345 wrote: »
    As i stated before to you, evidence doesn't have to be within the last 2 years! I have no idea why you keep saying this. I've used evidence that's much older than that for PIP and ESA and i'm in Support Group and claim standard daily living and Enhanced mobility. Last ESA review i was kept in the Support Group without the need for an assessment. You keep making mountains out of mole hills but why?

    I am only quoting the rules relating to the review of a PIP claim.
    These are clearly shown on that form

    Supporting information

    8 Information we don't want to see:
    appointment letters
    information you've sent us before
    only
    anything more than 2 years old

    I have no idea if the same rules apply to an ESA review, presumably they do.

    There must be a very good reason why the DWP are insisting on these rules - they wouldn't just make them up for the fun of it.
  • Polgara72
    Polgara72 Posts: 42 Forumite
    Danday wrote: »
    I have no idea if the same rules apply to a ESA review, presumably they do.

    There must be a very good reason why the DWP are insisting on these rules - they wouldn't just make them up for the fun of it.

    They say that to stop every care plan/note/summary of consultation written since 1875 being submitted. It all has to be scanned and every piece read, so they need to try and limit unnecessary submissions.
  • Danday
    Danday Posts: 436 Forumite
    Polgara72 wrote: »
    .

    I!!!8217;m on maximum venlafaxine (375mg) plus a number of other medications. So it!!!8217;s no longer just a case of the illness itself, but the added side effects.

    You learn something new every day so they say.
    I didn't realise that you could put forward an argument to the DWP that the side effects also caused a disability/sickess/illness?

    Mind you I can see the drawback. Whilst the medication will possibly have side effects as per the leaflet inside the pack, how on earth would you be able to prove that those side effects actually exist?
    If it was just as simple as saying 'here is my repeat prescription and here is the list that came in the box that lists all of the side effects that could happen - and in my case I have every one of them!' everybody would be claiming for them.
  • Danday
    Danday Posts: 436 Forumite
    Polgara72 wrote: »
    They say that to stop every care plan/note/summary of consultation written since 1875 being submitted. It all has to be scanned and every piece read, so they need to try and limit unnecessary submissions.
    Yes I can see that so they have a cut off of 2 years then? not 2 years 8 montths.
    The same way that someone who was 64yrs 364 days old on the 8th April 2013 has to claim PIP. If you were 65 before the 8th April 2013 you get to continue with DLA. One day makes a difference.
    I will bring this up when (if) I get to see the CAB with the MR application.
  • Polgara72
    Polgara72 Posts: 42 Forumite
    Danday wrote: »
    I didn't realise that you could put forward an argument to the DWP that the side effects also caused a disability/sickess/illness?.

    I didn’t suggest you could claim that a side effect caused an illness. But, in the case of many psychiatric drugs, they can combine with symptoms of the illness to exacerbate things. For example, I struggle to concentrate. One of my meds impairs my memory. The combination of the two means that my ability to perform simple tasks is more impaired.
  • Polgara72
    Polgara72 Posts: 42 Forumite
    Danday wrote: »
    Yes I can see that so they have a cut off of 2 years then? not 2 years 8 montths.
    The same way that someone who was 64yrs 364 days old on the 8th April 2013 has to claim PIP. If you were 65 before the 8th April 2013 you get to continue with DLA. One day makes a difference.
    I will bring this up when (if) I get to see the CAB with the MR application.

    The cut off dates for DLA/PIP are set, not arbitrary and form part of the regulations (possibly legislation) governing those two different benefits.

    There is no hard and fast cut off time for evidence, as I stated in a previous reply. Evidence is about its usefulness (or otherwise) in relation to the claim it pertains to.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards