repeatedly and reliably

I have been looking at the WCA descriptors and also the reply to a Fo of I request and response from DWP to a member of the public reproduced here

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/migration...o_esa#incoming-54269

DWP verified that if a person cannot do a task reliably or repeatedly they should
be considered to be unable to do it at all

That is wording which ought to be helpful to many B and W subscribers who can do
certaIn things occasionally or for a short while but not always.

For example, the social interaction descriptors. What of the person who manages
the occasional essential appointment but at great strain and exp[erience of intense fear or anxiety,. but cannot otherwise answer the door or the phone most of the time. For instance
the socially phobic person who has no companion to take to the ATOS assessment and so
goes anyway . The 'managed to get here alone' argument would be denying them
a appropriate level of points, but 'reliably and repeatedly' should be emphasised
perhaps both in the ESA50/ requests to have the casde looked at again/ or in appeal

Or the person who can manage personal actions
some of the time but has regular days of debilitating anxiety or depression. Surely
the wording reliably applies there too, as in fact it does appear in the descriptor
for the support group.

Just food for thought

Gordon wrote:

XFACTOR

I cautiously agree.

This is not something new, these principles are covered in the ESA Claim guides, but it is important to realise that any decision or recommendation based on this will be subjective to the person doing the assessment, and therefore cannot be guaranteed.

The problem is that there is no clear definition of what "reliably", "repeatably", and to add one of my own, "reaonably" mean.

This does not mean that a claimant cannot argue their case based on these points, but I would not rely on it, unless they have no choice.

Gordon

I still find it surprising how much of English law is based on the word "reasonable/reasonably", but it certainly isn't unique to benefit law. I think barristers have been making a handsome living out of it for decades (or possibly centuries).

"Safely" must already have it's long list of case law and I think that "reliably", "repeatably" are destined to join it - at least as long as we have the ESA rules in place.

I'm very sure that Atos cannot be relied upon to interpret those words in anything like a manner which a "reasonable" person would adopt. I would be more hopeful of a tribunal taking a sensible approach. Perhaps Jim knows the form on this one.

This does mean that anyone who needs the "RRS" rules - or the "in a reasonable time" clause - to qualify for ESA (and especially SG) should be prepared to have to go to appeal on this one. This is bad news for anyone who has significant fatigue issues (ME/CFS, of course but also MS, Fibro and a number of other conditions) - but not very bad news since the clauses are still there to be used.