Representation at an ESA Appeal

My wife has now been sent the standard enquiry form for her ESA appeal and I am wondering whether or not to put my name down as her representative. I am considering this as she has considerable problems with her memory and thought processes due to the high level of epilepsy medication she has to take. I am concerned that she will not be able to answer all the questions at the tribunal and if I am her representative, then I will be able to do so, on her behalf. I am also her full time carer.

I am, however, concerned that this may not be acceptable to the tribunal, so I was wondering what advice was available on this issue.

Also the DWP have stated in the ESA85A, that the decision not to place my wife in the support group was based on the ESA50 she completed, the ESA113 and the Med3.

I understand that the MED3 is the statutory statement of fitness for work completed by a G.P. and yet I cannot see our G.P. having completed one of these as he has never seen Gaynor in the 15 months we have been registered with him. So we asked the DWP by phone if they had one of these and they said 'n'o they did not have one on file. So it appears that the information in the ESA85A is incorrect and the only information the DWP used to make their decision was the ESA113 in which our GP stated he could not comment as he had never seen my wife. They ignored all my wife's comments in the ESA50, as she stated that she could not mobilise for the 50 meters without assistance due to significant pain etc and could not self propel her wheelchair.

Is this lack of the MED3 relevant to the appeal, ie should we bring this to the attention of the tribunal as they seem to have not used any medical evidence to back up their assumption that my wife can self propel a wheelchair.

boo wrote: My wife has now been sent the standard enquiry form for her ESA appeal and I am wondering whether or not to put my name down as her representative. I am considering this as she has considerable problems with her memory and thought processes due to the high level of epilepsy medication she has to take. I am concerned that she will not be able to answer all the questions at the tribunal and if I am her representative, then I will be able to do so, on her behalf. I am also her full time carer.

I am, however, concerned that this may not be acceptable to the tribunal, so I was wondering what advice was available on this issue.

Also the DWP have stated in the ESA85A, that the decision not to place my wife in the support group was based on the ESA50 she completed, the ESA113 and the Med3.

I understand that the MED3 is the statutory statement of fitness for work completed by a G.P. and yet I cannot see our G.P. having completed one of these as he has never seen Gaynor in the 15 months we have been registered with him. So we asked the DWP by phone if they had one of these and they said 'n'o they did not have one on file. So it appears that the information in the ESA85A is incorrect and the only information the DWP used to make their decision was the ESA113 in which our GP stated he could not comment as he had never seen my wife. They ignored all my wife's comments in the ESA50, as she stated that she could not mobilise for the 50 meters without assistance due to significant pain etc and could not self propel her wheelchair.

Is this lack of the MED3 relevant to the appeal, ie should we bring this to the attention of the tribunal as they seem to have not used any medical evidence to back up their assumption that my wife can self propel a wheelchair.

Hi b,

You can put yourself down, as your wife's Rep :, however they will still wish to pose questions to your wife personally. You may wish to pre-warn the Tribunal of any limitations that your wife may have with regards to this, and reiterate it at the hearing.

Hopefully the panel will take this into account.

The issue of a MED 3 being mentioned as evidence that the ATOS HCP has used in making their recommendations, even though a MED3 has never been issued, seems to be quite common.

I think that it may be down to the LiMA software generating such phrases, and the ATOS HCP not ammending them.

It is still worth a mention though, as it is a factually incorrect statement.

As it seems that they are stating that the decision to award WRAG, was made as a result of evidence included in The ESA50 only, if this evidence points to the fact that your wife should have been placed into the SG, you could query what other evidence they have used that contradicts the evidence given by your wife in the ESA50.

There is caselaw here, which more or less states that they should accept the evidence given by the claimant as being correct, unless they have further evidence that contradicts it.

I was reading this on rightsnet with regards to uncorroborated evidence, and will post the thread later if I find it, the actual case cited was :

R (SB) 33/85

bro58

bro58 wrote:

boo wrote: My wife has now been sent the standard enquiry form for her ESA appeal and I am wondering whether or not to put my name down as her representative. I am considering this as she has considerable problems with her memory and thought processes due to the high level of epilepsy medication she has to take. I am concerned that she will not be able to answer all the questions at the tribunal and if I am her representative, then I will be able to do so, on her behalf. I am also her full time carer.

I am, however, concerned that this may not be acceptable to the tribunal, so I was wondering what advice was available on this issue.

Also the DWP have stated in the ESA85A, that the decision not to place my wife in the support group was based on the ESA50 she completed, the ESA113 and the Med3.

I understand that the MED3 is the statutory statement of fitness for work completed by a G.P. and yet I cannot see our G.P. having completed one of these as he has never seen Gaynor in the 15 months we have been registered with him. So we asked the DWP by phone if they had one of these and they said 'n'o they did not have one on file. So it appears that the information in the ESA85A is incorrect and the only information the DWP used to make their decision was the ESA113 in which our GP stated he could not comment as he had never seen my wife. They ignored all my wife's comments in the ESA50, as she stated that she could not mobilise for the 50 meters without assistance due to significant pain etc and could not self propel her wheelchair.

Is this lack of the MED3 relevant to the appeal, ie should we bring this to the attention of the tribunal as they seem to have not used any medical evidence to back up their assumption that my wife can self propel a wheelchair.

Hi b,

You can put yourself down, as your wife's Rep :, however they will still wish to pose questions to your wife personally. You may wish to pre-warn the Tribunal of any limitations that your wife may have with regards to this, and reiterate it at the hearing.

Hopefully the panel will take this into account.

The issue of a MED 3 being mentioned as evidence that the ATOS HCP has used in making their recommendations, even though a MED3 has never been issued, seems to be quite common.

I think that it may be down to the LiMA software generating such phrases, and the ATOS HCP not ammending them.

It is still worth a mention though, as it is a factually incorrect statement.

As it seems that they are stating that the decision to award WRAG, was made as a result of evidence included in The ESA50 only, if this evidence points to the fact that your wife should have been placed into the SG, you could query what other evidence they have used that contradicts the evidence given by your wife in the ESA50.

There is caselaw here, which more or less states that they should accept the evidence given by the claimant as being correct, unless they have further evidence that contradicts it.

I was reading this on rightsnet with regards to uncorroborated evidence, and will post the thread later if I find it, the actual case cited was :

R (SB) 33/85

bro58

Hi b,

Found it, here :

www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewreply/17249/

bro58

N.B. Just to remind you here, that even if you mange to totally discredit the ESA85A Report, this will not in itself necessarily give your wife an award in The SG, at appeal.

That's great advice thanks. I think it is spot on as they have clearly not shown any evidence to refute my wife's statement made in the EAS50.

I will post what happens on the forum, assuming we eventually get a date for the hearing.