'invitation' to a work focus interview

I have received a letter inviting me to a work focus interview in two weeks time. I have been away sorting out residential care for sick elderly parents. The letter was dated 4th April.

I have been on IB since 2005 and was aware that peolple such as myself were targeted for reassessment.

I havent received a questionnaire from them and had thought this would happen first?

I am on higher rated DLA, care and mobility. Doent this make me exempt?

How should I reply to them since I am gong to ring them tomorrow?

I will ring my GP first to see if they have received any communication about me from DWP.

What else should I do now?

Many thanks for any input


Suzanne

Hi Suzanne

I'm afraid nobody is exempt from WFIs in the WRAG but your advisor can defer them if it is decided that they would not be helpful. See page 31 of the Understanding ESA guide.

Good luck

Derek

Derek4 wrote:

Hi Suzanne

I'm afraid nobody is exempt from WFIs in the WRAG but your advisor can defer them if it is decided that they would not be helpful. See page 31 of the Understanding ESA guide.

Good luck

Derek

the person is on IB ? and higher rate care DLA so is exempt i thought ? one of us has missed read me thinks

suzanne wrote:

I have received a letter inviting me to a work focus interview in two weeks time. I have been away sorting out residential care for sick elderly parents. The letter was dated 4th April.

I have been on IB since 2005 and was aware that peolple such as myself were targeted for reassessment.

I havent received a questionnaire from them and had thought this would happen first?

I am on higher rated DLA, care and mobility. Doent this make me exempt?

How should I reply to them since I am gong to ring them tomorrow?

I will ring my GP first to see if they have received any communication about me from DWP.

What else should I do now?

Many thanks for any input


Suzanne

Under the 'old' rules you would have been automatically exempt from work-focused interviews.

You could argue that because you have not been migrated to ESA, the old rules still apply until such time as the migration process has been completed in your case. I cannot find any transitional arrangements for previously exempt IB claimants and WFIs. Accordingly, you would be entitled to ask the DWP for details of the legislation to demonstrate that you are now required to attend for a WFI? In any event it is up to the DWP to prove that the legislation has changed, and it is not the responsibility of the claimant.

Whether you will eventually have to attend a WFI will depend on the DWP discharging the burden of proof, that your attendance is required in accordance with the law?

Dave wrote:

Derek4 wrote:

Hi Suzanne

I'm afraid nobody is exempt from WFIs in the WRAG but your advisor can defer them if it is decided that they would not be helpful. See page 31 of the Understanding ESA guide.

Good luck

Derek

the person is on IB ? and higher rate care DLA so is exempt i thought ? one of us has missed read me thinks

Sorry Suzanne; thanks for waking me up Dave.

I looked at page 31 and it starts with Work-focused (pathways to work) interviews:
'Claimants in the work-related activity group are subject to a series of five further work-focused interviews – also known as pathways to work interviews -after their initial work-focused interview in the assessment phase.'

But I am not in any group - I have not had a medical and been put in the work related group rather than the support group.

How can they interview me as someone capable of work when no medical assessment has taken place or information gathered from my GP?

Has the DWP Atos person jumped the gun here and how would I challenge it?

I am going to tell them about my own personal family circumstances which are in massive upheaval as I try to get both parents in residential care - he wieth severe alzheimers, she blind, brain tumour and crippled with arthritis. I see that this might be taken into account in deferrring the process for a while.

But what about the main question above?

Suzanne