Does substantial risk include effect of less money

Hi everyone hope you are all as well as can be expected.

Had an "assessment" in September and just had the decision to move me from support to WRAG come through. Once the statement of reasons arrived (I had to phone up for it as I received jobcentre appointment first, followed by letter informing me of change in money with no statement of reasons to be seen) I found part of the decision was the "not a substantial risk to mental or physical health".

I am after clarification on whether the substantial risk includes the effects of a reduction in money. I hasten to add this is not the main point of my argument but it is significant. I suffer from fibromyalgia - moving from support to WRAG means I will be getting over £30 a week less in money. This means I will not be able to afford to put the heating on. This means I will get cold. When I get cold I cannot move because of pain and stiffness. Being cold and not being able to move makes my asthma more severe increasing my chances of chest infections and pneumonia.

Now I know this pattern is screamingly bloody obvious to the ordinary person but I do not know if there is legal recognition of its impact or if legally they only consider the effect of doing more activity not the effect of having less money. Again I emphasize that this is not the main point of my arguments I am simply wondering if it is worth including at either mandatory reconsideration or the appeal if it goes that far.

Thanks for any input

I am aware I will get nowhere arguing it by myself I am trying to get clarification on the law with regards to laying a foundation for others healthier and more energetic to possibly push for a judicial review.

If the law clearly states that criteria only relate to the impact of physical changes of work-related activity then obviously it is no go - if however the law is worded the same as my statement of reasons then it leads to a grey area. Namely, a client may not suffer a significant risk from the extra activity if their income remains the same, or may not suffer a significant risk to a drop in income if their activity level remains the same but is at risk if the 2 are combined.

I do have clear other grounds for reconsideration - according to the statement of reasons I have severe problems mobilizing but can repeatedly mobilize 50 meters so I cant work but can do work-related activity. There is also the case of the last time I upped my activity 3-4 hours a week it led to a very severe flare-up so even without the money thing I am at risk from work-related activity.

I am interested as to whether the legal bit has already been fought - because if it hasn't then some eager young law student should be able to get their teeth into it.