Jump to content


ESA Decision Maker phone call


Pauline1968
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2060 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I had an ESA medical assessment on 31st March 2016.

I am recovering from mouth cancer which was diagnosed in 2014,

 

 

I had radical neck dissection, floor of mouth replaced and 3/4 of my tongue removed.

I will put off eating as I struggle to move food around and swallowing is very hard,

and communicating is almost impossible as my speech has been severely affected.

 

My husband received a call from a Decision Maker today (I am unable to talk or be understood),

he was asked if I had deteriorated since assessment which he answered no.

 

 

He was then informed I scored 0 points and was not eligible for ESA

and I could ask for a reconsideration but wouldn't receive any money

and I would have to claim JSA.

 

 

My husband said he did not agree with the desicion and I couldn't claim JSA as I am not fit for work,

he said most of the from didn't apply to me I am only affected by eating, swallowing and communication,

he gave some examples,

 

 

then they completed changed their mind and said I am to stay in the support group with a review in 24 months.

 

Is this unusual?

I cannot believe in a 10 minute phone call I can go from 0 points to being in the support group.

I'm worried my payments will stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds odd. I've read on here sometimes they may phone for some extra information. But I think it's more for people who are borderline, rather than those who have scored 0.

 

I do believe, (I've not seen one of those forms for a few years now) that there is a section in relation to swallowing / eating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's made me very sceptical to go from 0 points to support group. He was told the call was recorded but I feel something is amiss. My husband did got through the eating and swallowing problems while on the phone but I can't see how they can change their mind so quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds odd. I've read on here sometimes they may phone for some extra information. But I think it's more for people who are borderline, rather than those who have scored 0.

 

I do believe, (I've not seen one of those forms for a few years now) that there is a section in relation to swallowing / eating.

I scored Zero at the F2F farce aka WCA and was awarded 6 points over the phone, though it should really been 15 based on what i told them ,
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably down to something not adding up or being contradictory in the maximus report, they have probably been told to check them more thoroughly to reduce the number of MR's and tribunals

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask if this is unusual - yes, it is somewhat unusual, but it's not unheard of and there's no reason to think there's anything untoward going on.

 

Although you had an assessment, the DWP Decision Maker is the one who determines your entitlement. Usually they would base their decision on the assessment report, but they can consider other information (such as that provided by your husband) as well. So there are several possibilities. One is that the DM has awarded extra points based on what your husband has said, and has also decided that one of the Support Group Descriptors applies. The other is that the DM has made a "Regulation 28/Regulation 35" decision in your favour. These regulations say, basically: "Even though the claimant has not scored sufficient points, ESA can be awarded if it would be unreasonable to expect the claimant to work because that would be a risk to their safety, or the safety of others around them in the workplace."

 

One thing that can meet that "safety" requirement is, for example, that you would be unable to warn a colleague of an imminent threat: say, not able to shout "The building is on fire!" or warn someone of a falling object, that sort of thing.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...