The standard of the medical assessments undertaken on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to consider entitlement to Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) still leaves much to be desired, based on the cases that I see.
To become eligible for ESA the candidate should pass 15 points limit. People that have been rejected usually obtain advice in order to appeal their particular case yet still fall short. All the same, it's very seldom with regards to my personal past experience is concerned to never locate the needed 15 points whenever I assist my clients in coping with the test.
Despite the fact that the judgment still lies with the tribunal there are a few factors which can be regarded in increasing the chances of approval. Initially, I consider that it is not beneficial to press out each and every probable point rather I advise my client to be honest and be sensible when taking the test. Additionally, it's of great essence that I have faith in the authenticity of my client. If perhaps on my side I already see maybe a trace of uncertainty, what more with the tribunal? It will help if appropriate medical evidence could be presented although securing them will require a mixture of chance and skill. Additionally, it is actually worth studying the ESA50 enquiry form and the "health care professional" (HCP) report with the client. Review exactly what the client stated in his application with the HCP and what the actual remarks of the latter were. Discovering informative inaccuracies and correcting it are a good idea in convincing the tribunal that they must reassess the application.
Meanwhile, I find that most of the clients that have obtained nil points can certainly pass the separate test to be put into the "support group". Whenever it gets approved, the client will be spared of "work-focused interviews" as well as other demands to carry out "work-related activity" hence preventing financial sanction. Actually staying in the support group marks a financial advantage in contrast to "work related activity group" because the latter will just have a year entitlement effective April 2012. After which, they may apply for means-tested benefits for instance income related ESA, housing benefit or council tax benefit which unfortunately they might be unable to qualify either in the event their spouse or they have various other sources of income for instance pension or some other earnings.
My own concern in many of the appeals is to actually move the case into a support group and it's rather rewarding should the decision maker will recognize the medical evidence presented by my client without resorting to tribunal hearing.
At any rate, a part of achievement can also be viewed when the case is recommended to be place in front of the tribunal by which it will be heard by two panels made up of a judge and a doctor. Since the ESA appeal tribunal is likewise human, both could have a different procedure to the evidence offered to them. A few members may be more even-handed than the others therefore the chance of success increases. On the other hand, several may have a problem with "giving benefit of the doubt" and this kind can consequently affect the result of the case.
Because I always attend hearings, I've observed that a few representatives choose to just make a submission before the tribunal. This might help since it is possible to annoy the tribunal instantly if the representative speaks a lot. However depending on my experience, I choose not to give submission. Judges usually ask question not actually offered to them in writing and therefore answers to which must be as certain and also detailed to influence them completely. I do not consider "trying it on" and recommend claims. Instead, I go after appeals which I believe have merit.
To become eligible for ESA the candidate should pass 15 points limit. People that have been rejected usually obtain advice in order to appeal their particular case yet still fall short. All the same, it's very seldom with regards to my personal past experience is concerned to never locate the needed 15 points whenever I assist my clients in coping with the test.
Despite the fact that the judgment still lies with the tribunal there are a few factors which can be regarded in increasing the chances of approval. Initially, I consider that it is not beneficial to press out each and every probable point rather I advise my client to be honest and be sensible when taking the test. Additionally, it's of great essence that I have faith in the authenticity of my client. If perhaps on my side I already see maybe a trace of uncertainty, what more with the tribunal? It will help if appropriate medical evidence could be presented although securing them will require a mixture of chance and skill. Additionally, it is actually worth studying the ESA50 enquiry form and the "health care professional" (HCP) report with the client. Review exactly what the client stated in his application with the HCP and what the actual remarks of the latter were. Discovering informative inaccuracies and correcting it are a good idea in convincing the tribunal that they must reassess the application.
Meanwhile, I find that most of the clients that have obtained nil points can certainly pass the separate test to be put into the "support group". Whenever it gets approved, the client will be spared of "work-focused interviews" as well as other demands to carry out "work-related activity" hence preventing financial sanction. Actually staying in the support group marks a financial advantage in contrast to "work related activity group" because the latter will just have a year entitlement effective April 2012. After which, they may apply for means-tested benefits for instance income related ESA, housing benefit or council tax benefit which unfortunately they might be unable to qualify either in the event their spouse or they have various other sources of income for instance pension or some other earnings.
My own concern in many of the appeals is to actually move the case into a support group and it's rather rewarding should the decision maker will recognize the medical evidence presented by my client without resorting to tribunal hearing.
At any rate, a part of achievement can also be viewed when the case is recommended to be place in front of the tribunal by which it will be heard by two panels made up of a judge and a doctor. Since the ESA appeal tribunal is likewise human, both could have a different procedure to the evidence offered to them. A few members may be more even-handed than the others therefore the chance of success increases. On the other hand, several may have a problem with "giving benefit of the doubt" and this kind can consequently affect the result of the case.
Because I always attend hearings, I've observed that a few representatives choose to just make a submission before the tribunal. This might help since it is possible to annoy the tribunal instantly if the representative speaks a lot. However depending on my experience, I choose not to give submission. Judges usually ask question not actually offered to them in writing and therefore answers to which must be as certain and also detailed to influence them completely. I do not consider "trying it on" and recommend claims. Instead, I go after appeals which I believe have merit.
About the Author:
If you would like professional esa tribunal representation at competitive rates, then contact South Wales Disability Matters now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment