ESA/UC initiating completing tasks - support group

Hi Bear1980,

There is no simple " one size fits all " answer to your question analysing the meaning of --13 (a) Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 sequential personal actions. 15 points
This is because on consulting the official WCA handbook you will see there are several parameters for example paragraph 2.3.1.12 " Inferences may also be drawn from the nature of the claimant’s condition or other factors. "
Also judges at Tribunal Hearings have come to different interpretations of the Starting and Finishing descriptor.
I would read the BenefitsandWork guide from page 84 on Starting and Finishing. www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/?dlp=678a01b92885e

Here is the relevant section from the WCA handbook---
Initiating and completing personal action (which means planning, organisation,
problem solving, prioritising or switching tasks).
Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2
sequential personal actions
This LCWRA descriptor describes a severe restriction of an individual’s ability to understand
how to co-ordinate actions in the correct sequence such that they successfully complete
any personal actions in a logical order.
The ability to complete personal actions was the subject of an appeal. The First-tier Tribunal
cited ability to wash and brush teeth as evidence that no activity 13 descriptors applied. The
Upper Tribunal Judge held that habitual actions such as washing and brushing teeth
should not be considered in isolation when determining whether a claimant was able
to initiate and complete personal actions, as their performance did not demonstrate the
claimant’s mental, cognitive, and intellectual functions.
Consideration of Activity 13 must relate to all the tasks of planning, organisation, problem
solving, prioritising, or switching between tasks. Evidence need not be found of a single
action involving all these tasks. Evidence from one action may demonstrate inability in
respect of one task, evidence from another action in respect of another task, and so on.
Inferences may also be drawn from the nature of the claimant’s condition or other factors.
The personal action considered need not be complicated, as long as all the tasks are taken
into account. The UT Judge gave an example of the action of dressing. This may be routine
if the person only puts on clothes got ready by someone else, but could equally demonstrate
the tasks, e.g., choosing and getting ready appropriate clothes (planning and organising),
deciding what to do if clothes need washing or ironing (problem solving and prioritising),
and doing those before dressing if necessary (switching tasks).
The action must be effective. This may include where an action must be completed before
the person can move on to the next action. Actions are undertaken for a purpose and if that
purpose cannot be achieved, the action is ineffective. Effectiveness needs to be considered
in the context of the purpose of the test which is to decide whether it is reasonable to require
the person to work.
Consideration should be given as to whether a person can co-ordinate actions in the correct
sequence such that they successfully complete any personal actions in a logical order.

An example of two sequential personal actions might be opening a tin of soup, and heating it up before putting it into a bowl to eat. There must be evidence of "effective" personal action that would allow a person to complete the activities of normal day to day living.

The level of disability in this category is severe. Confirmation of this should be sought, and information about diagnosis, medication and level of Healthcare Practitioner input should be consistent with a severe disability. Personal action may include self care, dressing, using the phone or other basic tasks such as making meals or going out.

David