- Posts: 1
× Members
ESA Regulation 35 (2) (b)
- A Jones
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
6 years 7 months ago #200108 by A Jones
ESA Regulation 35 (2) (b) was created by A Jones
Hi everyone, would appreciate some advice/suggestions. My hubby has serious mental health issues, these have become increasingly worse and distressing, culminating in a severe psychotic episode this summer – thanks to the stress of over two years of dealing with ESA & PIP. This month he had an appointment with a consultant psychiatrist, and is beginning to receive treatment/support.
Now another ESA50 form has arrived and I am so worried –I can see it’s triggering a deterioration already. I have contacted the consultant who is more than happy to provide supporting letter, I have said that there is a serious risk to himself and others – (tbh hubby will not be able to cope with a F2F). He’s currently in ESA support group
The consultant said he will send me a copy of his supporting letter and he is happy to amend the letter accordingly.
What I’m asking please has anyone got or can suggest a draft letter that would be suitable or what it needs to contain? Thanks
Now another ESA50 form has arrived and I am so worried –I can see it’s triggering a deterioration already. I have contacted the consultant who is more than happy to provide supporting letter, I have said that there is a serious risk to himself and others – (tbh hubby will not be able to cope with a F2F). He’s currently in ESA support group
The consultant said he will send me a copy of his supporting letter and he is happy to amend the letter accordingly.
What I’m asking please has anyone got or can suggest a draft letter that would be suitable or what it needs to contain? Thanks
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51293
6 years 7 months ago #200132 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic ESA Regulation 35 (2) (b)
A
We don't have a template letter as it needs to be specific to your husband and his problems but the following explains the requirement.
Unlike the other ESA Descriptors where historical evidence can still be used, the two Substantial Risk Regulations require that current medical evidence is supplied.
First there must be a specific named condition or bodily disablement that leads to the risk.
The risk must be substantial. Decision Makers are told
"A risk is substantial where the harm or damage to the person’s health would be serious, and could not be prevented or mitigated. It is not minor or trivial. It may be immediate, or in the longer term. The risk of harm has to be caused by the individual claimant’s physical or mental health condition, and be triggered by being required to work or found not to have LCWRA."
For Regulation 29 the risk must be related to a requirement to work this includes activities that would be associated with working such as travelling to and from a place of employment.
The risk must not be reasonably mitigated by prescribed medication or reasonable adaptions that an employer might be expected to make.
For Regulation 35 the risk must be associated with Work Related Activity, to be clear this does not mean working, there is a list of WRA in the ESA Claim guide due to Mental Health problems.
The following is the DWP guidance.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upl...e/430908/m-17-15.pdf
Gordon
We don't have a template letter as it needs to be specific to your husband and his problems but the following explains the requirement.
Unlike the other ESA Descriptors where historical evidence can still be used, the two Substantial Risk Regulations require that current medical evidence is supplied.
First there must be a specific named condition or bodily disablement that leads to the risk.
The risk must be substantial. Decision Makers are told
"A risk is substantial where the harm or damage to the person’s health would be serious, and could not be prevented or mitigated. It is not minor or trivial. It may be immediate, or in the longer term. The risk of harm has to be caused by the individual claimant’s physical or mental health condition, and be triggered by being required to work or found not to have LCWRA."
For Regulation 29 the risk must be related to a requirement to work this includes activities that would be associated with working such as travelling to and from a place of employment.
The risk must not be reasonably mitigated by prescribed medication or reasonable adaptions that an employer might be expected to make.
For Regulation 35 the risk must be associated with Work Related Activity, to be clear this does not mean working, there is a list of WRA in the ESA Claim guide due to Mental Health problems.
The following is the DWP guidance.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upl...e/430908/m-17-15.pdf
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: A Jones
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris