- Posts: 7
× Members
UC50 & LCWRA - bypassing assessment
- MPS
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
3 weeks 1 day ago #297354 by MPS
UC50 & LCWRA - bypassing assessment was created by MPS
Hi,
As a recovering homeless individual with a severe asthma, depression and homelessness-related PTSD I have just joined this forum seeking guidance to proceed with the UC50 and the LCWRA struggle that I have been experiencing since moving from ESA to UC in 2017.
I did not realise how much in the field of DWP/UC/LCWRA/ADP have changed in the recent years with the covid nonsense as I have myself suffered considerable health deterioration during the prolonged 5 years of homelessness.
Currently I am looking to have the health element (LCWRA) added discretionarily/automatically to my basic UC award utilising exceptional circumstances, exemptions on grounds of the absence of severe functional limitations, WCA regulations 35 and 43, and the fact that severe asthma is considered a terminal illness/no cure.
I would be very grateful for assistance with the above moving forward.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
MPS
As a recovering homeless individual with a severe asthma, depression and homelessness-related PTSD I have just joined this forum seeking guidance to proceed with the UC50 and the LCWRA struggle that I have been experiencing since moving from ESA to UC in 2017.
I did not realise how much in the field of DWP/UC/LCWRA/ADP have changed in the recent years with the covid nonsense as I have myself suffered considerable health deterioration during the prolonged 5 years of homelessness.
Currently I am looking to have the health element (LCWRA) added discretionarily/automatically to my basic UC award utilising exceptional circumstances, exemptions on grounds of the absence of severe functional limitations, WCA regulations 35 and 43, and the fact that severe asthma is considered a terminal illness/no cure.
I would be very grateful for assistance with the above moving forward.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
MPS
- David
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 785
3 weeks 18 hours ago #297361 by David
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by David on topic UC50 & LCWRA - bypassing assessment
Hi MPS,
You may find this commentary on Reg 35 shared by a colleague of some use.
"The Inner House of the Court of Session in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Brade [2014] AACR 29 [2014] CSIH 39 emphasised the need to take a purposive approach to the ESA regulations. The purpose of the distinction between the two ESA groups is to identify those who may be able to enter or re-enter the labour market if they undertake work-related activity.
Placement in the work-related activity means that the client must attend one or more work-focused interviews and then undertake work-related activity. The respondent is vague about what that activity might be or what is available [G; 10-11].
We ask the tribunal to conclude that the barrier to the client's going to work is not a deficiency in skills or motivation, which is what work-related activity is intended to address, but her very real and debilitating mix of physical and mental health issues. The kind of work-related activity available from the DWP and its contractors would not, we suggest, address those issues. They should be dealt with in a medical context, not as part of a regime involving, potentially, sanctions. For instance, the suggestion that the client might be required to contact or research “organisations or support groups that deal with your medical problems” [10] in our view borders on the irresponsible.
We invite the tribunal to conclude that attending one or more work-focused interviews would inevitably cause the client serious distress. It is difficult to see how such an interview could realistically meet any of the purposes set out in regulation 55 of the ESA Regulations, given the client's health issues. We suggest that any activities required would be pointless, and so it would be unreasonable for the respondent to require them to be undertaken. In the client's situation placement in the work-related activity group would, we submit, be not just futile but positively detrimental to her mental and physical health."
David
You may find this commentary on Reg 35 shared by a colleague of some use.
"The Inner House of the Court of Session in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Brade [2014] AACR 29 [2014] CSIH 39 emphasised the need to take a purposive approach to the ESA regulations. The purpose of the distinction between the two ESA groups is to identify those who may be able to enter or re-enter the labour market if they undertake work-related activity.
Placement in the work-related activity means that the client must attend one or more work-focused interviews and then undertake work-related activity. The respondent is vague about what that activity might be or what is available [G; 10-11].
We ask the tribunal to conclude that the barrier to the client's going to work is not a deficiency in skills or motivation, which is what work-related activity is intended to address, but her very real and debilitating mix of physical and mental health issues. The kind of work-related activity available from the DWP and its contractors would not, we suggest, address those issues. They should be dealt with in a medical context, not as part of a regime involving, potentially, sanctions. For instance, the suggestion that the client might be required to contact or research “organisations or support groups that deal with your medical problems” [10] in our view borders on the irresponsible.
We invite the tribunal to conclude that attending one or more work-focused interviews would inevitably cause the client serious distress. It is difficult to see how such an interview could realistically meet any of the purposes set out in regulation 55 of the ESA Regulations, given the client's health issues. We suggest that any activities required would be pointless, and so it would be unreasonable for the respondent to require them to be undertaken. In the client's situation placement in the work-related activity group would, we submit, be not just futile but positively detrimental to her mental and physical health."
David
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: MPS
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David