× Members

Reconsideration

  • bro58
11 years 4 months ago - 11 years 4 months ago #94152 by bro58
Replied by bro58 on topic Re:Reconsideration
Skyblues wrote:

Sorry to be a pain but on page 16 of my asos medical report it says under exceptional circumstances - the non-functional descriptors were not considered for this case as curtailment applied.
What does this mean?

Thanks


Hi Sb,

In some cases, where a claimant cannot score the 15 points or more cumulatively to qualify for WRAG, they can gain entry to the WRAG under "Exceptional Circumstances" (E C) rules ESA Reg 29, here :http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/29/made

These are classed as Non Functional Descriptors, (NFD)

Likewise with the SG, if you don't qualify by meeting one or more of the SG descriptors, you may qualify under E C, as in NFD ESA Reg 35 : www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/35/made

So what they are basically saying is, you do not qualify for WRAG or SG, under Reg 29 or Reg 35, EC NFD.

bro58
Last edit: 11 years 4 months ago by bro58.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • bro58
11 years 4 months ago - 11 years 4 months ago #94153 by bro58
Replied by bro58 on topic Re:Reconsideration
bro58 wrote:

Skyblues wrote:

Sorry to be a pain but on page 16 of my asos medical report it says under exceptional circumstances - the non-functional descriptors were not considered for this case as curtailment applied.
What does this mean?

Thanks


Hi Sb,

In some cases, where a claimant cannot score the 15 points or more cumulatively to qualify for WRAG, they can gain entry to the WRAG under "Exceptional Circumstances" (E C) rules ESA Reg 29, here :http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/29/made

These are classed as Non Functional Descriptors, (NFD)

Likewise with the SG, if you don't qualify by meeting one or more of the SG descriptors, you may qualify under E C, as in NFD ESA Reg 35 : www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/35/made

So what they are basically saying is, you do not qualify for WRAG or SG, under Reg 29 or Reg 35, EC NFD.

bro58


The "curtailment" bit, means that the ATOS HCP did not have to consider whether you qualified for WRAG under ESA Reg 29, as you had already reached the qualifying threshhold of 15 points in the "Functional Descriptors".

bro58
Last edit: 11 years 4 months ago by bro58.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • bro58
11 years 4 months ago - 11 years 4 months ago #94154 by bro58
Replied by bro58 on topic Re:Reconsideration
bro58 wrote:

bro58 wrote:

Skyblues wrote:

Sorry to be a pain but on page 16 of my asos medical report it says under exceptional circumstances - the non-functional descriptors were not considered for this case as curtailment applied.
What does this mean?

Thanks


Hi Sb,

In some cases, where a claimant cannot score the 15 points or more cumulatively to qualify for WRAG, they can gain entry to the WRAG under "Exceptional Circumstances" (E C) rules ESA Reg 29, here :http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/29/made

These are classed as Non Functional Descriptors, (NFD)

Likewise with the SG, if you don't qualify by meeting one or more of the SG descriptors, you may qualify under E C, as in NFD ESA Reg 35 : www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/35/made

So what they are basically saying is, you do not qualify for WRAG or SG, under Reg 29 or Reg 35, EC NFD.

bro58


The "curtailment" bit, means that the ATOS HCP did not have to consider whether you qualified for WRAG under ESA Reg 29, as you had already reached the qualifying threshhold of 15 points in the "Functional Descriptors".

bro58


WRAG, Limited Capability for Work, (LCW) Functional Descriptors :

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/228/schedule/1/made?view=plain

SG, Limited Capabilty for Work Related Activity, (LCWRA) Functional Descriptors :

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/228/schedule/2/made?view=plain

bro58
Last edit: 11 years 4 months ago by bro58.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago - 11 years 4 months ago #94155 by PrstnKaren
Replied by PrstnKaren on topic Re:Reconsideration
Thank you for your help.
I will try to prove no8 applies (by my word and that of my daughter)but do I need to challenge the other inaccuries as I already have 30 points?
Last edit: 11 years 4 months ago by slugsta.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • bro58
11 years 4 months ago #94157 by bro58
Replied by bro58 on topic Re:Reconsideration
Skyblues wrote:

Thank you for your help.
I will try to prove no8 applies (by my word and that of my daughter)but do I need to challenge the other inaccuries as I already have 30 points?


Hi Sb,

By "no8" I gather that you mean SG Descriptor 8 :

8. Absence or loss of control over extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder, other than enuresis (bed-wetting), despite the presence of any aids or adaptations normally used.

At least once a week experiences:
(a)
loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder; or

(b)
substantial leakage of the contents of a collecting device
sufficient to require the individual to clean themselves and change clothing.

I am not quite sure regarding your other query.

" but do I need to challenge the other inaccuries as I already have 30 points?"

It is possible to gain many more points that the 30 that you have and still only be placed in The WRAG.

To qualify for The SG you must qualify under at least one of The SG Functional Descriptors, (As you may notice some of the SG descriptors are the same as certain WRAG descriptors that score the maximum 15 points).

May I suggest that you review our ESA Claims Guides for physical and/or mental heath conditions, here :

ESA Guides

As much of what we are discussing is explained therein.

There is also an ESA Appeals Guide on the same page.

bro58

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago #94237 by slugsta
Replied by slugsta on topic Re:Reconsideration
SkyBlues, I notice that you talk about 'soiling' whereas the descriptor specifies 'extensive evacuation of the bowels'. I am afraid that you might need to go into embarrasing detail in order to prove you meet this descriptor :(

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bearer

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: bro58GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.