Housing Benefit suspended (ESA)

Peter Parker wrote: Thank you for your help Gordon. Would it be possible for a moderator to look at my Grounds for Appeal privately and advise based on their opinion of the content? I meet two of the criteria to be considered for the Support Group based on what the Manadatory Reconsideration letter says among the Suppport Group descriptors.

I'm afraid not, there is no facility for us to do this.

If you do not want to explain your personal circumstances, could you at least indicate the SG Descriptors that you believe that you meet, I can then try to explain the requirement. If that will help.

Gordon

Peter Parker wrote: Coping with Change and Dealing with other people are the two descriptors.

Dealing with each Descriptor

14 (a) Cannot cope with any change to the extent that day to day life cannot be managed.

Ideally you need to show the cannot at any time cope with changes to your normal routine, you need to take this literally and in this context assume that "cannot" means "never", this may be a tough ask (see below) and those assessing you will be looking for examples of change where you have coped.

You need to explain what happens when change does impact on your life, although the Descriptor does not refer to work specifically, if you can show how those issues would impact on your ability to work. Remember, ESA refers to work in a very broad sense so to use a silly example; if you were a bricklayer then you should not assume that an office job would not be something that you couldn't do.

There is Case Law, not for this Descriptor, but for one that uses similar wording that accepts that "cannot" does not always have to mean "never" if the claimant is substantially affected. The Judge did not state what they meant in using the word "substantial" but you should assume you would be required to meet a standard far higher than on average. If I was to use a percentage then it might be at least 85%-90% of the time.

16 (a) Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual.

The advice for this Descriptor is very similar.

You should initially treat "always precluded" as meaning never. Again those looking at you claim will be looking for the exceptions to this and why you might be able to deal with those situations.

I can't see whether you attended a face to face assessment, if you did then this will definitely count against you, it also raises the issue if you make an appeal of whether you could/should attend a hearing, something you will need to decide on.

Again it should be possible to argue that "always precluded" does not mean never.

One thing you might want to consider is that the Descriptor refers to "social situations", when dealing with other people do you differentiate between those that you are meeting socially and those where you consider the meeting to not be social. I remember another member explaining that they could meet with their GP regularly because they saw it as a professional meeting and not a social one and because of that they were able to partition their normal response.

You do need to show that the distress caused in these situations is always "significant", unlike "cannot" and "always precluded" I do not think that there is room for you to try and argue that a lesser reaction is acceptable.

Also, one of the differentiators between the 15 point Descriptor and the 9 point one is the removal of "someone unfamiliar", you need to explain how you manage with friends and family (assuming you do).

I hope this helps.

Gordon