You can appeal just now. You are not appealing the decision to stop your IB - that's stopping anyway, this was a migration assessment. You are appealing the decision not to award you ESA. As you have had that decision, you can appeal against it. This will not affect your IB. Whether you will receive payment of ESA pending the appeal will depend upon your income. If you satisfy the criteria for income based ESA (the income/capital limits) then you should receive ESA at the assessment rate until the outcome of the appeal once IB stops - provided that your GP continues to certify you as unfit for work throughout. Make sure however that you ask them to do this in your appeal letter. There is a lot of information contained in Honeybee13's sticky in the benefit subforum about appeals, which should assist you in wording your appeal submission.

You can't remove posts. We (Site Team) can remove them but will only do so where compelling legal reasons exist or if there has been a breach of the forum rules. Given your additional info, I can see no reason why you would have a recoverable overpayment. Even if they did not amend your award when they should have done, if you have provided the correct information of changes on the same day that they change occured, any overpayment arising from them not changing the award in a timely manner is not recovered.

He can do all three. The problem is that during an appeal, he won't be entitled to receive any money pending the decision - this is only for people who have attended an assessment and not been granted sufficient points. If he plans to appeal, he needs to do this straight away as he only has one month from the date of the decision to do so. Calling back in two weeks to see if they will reconsider? - that's very bad advice given by the contact centre, unless of course he had already requested a reconsideration and they are giving that as a timescale to call back for an update. A new claim will not secure payment until after a successful assessment, if the last decision was made in the last 6 months - unless there is a significant deterioration of the condition or he is claiming on a new condition. He can apply for a Crisis loan however they will not be able to pay him for an indefinate period and there will come a point where they will refuse to pay any more. He can phone ESA again and request a call back from the ESA department itself. When you call that number you are getting through to a contact centre anywhere in the country, not the actual department that processes benefit. The contact centre have basic access to computerised records for general enquiries only, they have no access to his paper file and are unable to trace physical paperwork. If ESA are able to locate his letter they can then decide whether they will perform a reconsideration based on that or not. However the issue that I forsee is that they may decline to revise the decision in his favour by stating that they do not schedule appointments (ATOS does this and this is stated in letters he should have been sent previously). Their argument will be that he knew an appointment letter had been sent to him and that he did not do enough to ensure that he attended. Not saying it's right but I have seen that argument used before. There is another option. That is submitting an appeal and claiming JSA on a restricted jobsearch in the interim period. I do not like to advise people to do this but it may be his only alternative. It is a last resort though. I'm sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

Sorry but we can have no way of knowing if you are going to have an overpayment or underpayment based on the information you have given. There could be an overpayment of working tax credit if he received it and did not declare that he was no longer working and was receiving JSA. There could be an underpayment of child tax credit if his earnings were over estimated. Not knowing the earnings, the time periods or the elements of the award does not give us anything to advise on. Unfortunately we cannot advise on timescales either - some people will get a new award notice relatively quickly and others will wait longer.

The decision maker is employed by DWP and works in an office that processes the benefit. They are not employed by ATOS. It is the HCP who is employed by ATOS, who are contracted by DWP to carry out assessments on their behalf to be submitted to DWP decision makers to aid them in coming to a determination on a claim. Zydec, you are going about this in the right way (the grounds of evidence not taken into account), include on that no report from an ATOS HCP was in existance at the date of decision because the HCP visit did not take place until two days later. I would also suggest that you submit a seperate complaint to the DWP in relation to this, requesting a full written explanation.

No. Crisis Loans for household items were scrapped in April of 2011. They are only now awarded for replacement household items in the event of a disaster, such as a flood, or for immediate living expenses. There is no other help available from the Social Fund for people who are not in receipt of a qualifying benefit (SSP, CTC and CHB are not qualifying benefits). For people who are receiving qualifying benefits there are budgeting loans. Have you tried freecyle or freegle? These are websites which are free to join and where people give away their stuff for free rather than putting it in landfill. If there are no offered ads for the items you are looking for, you can put up a wanted ad.

No, not at all osdset. We just have to be careful that people don't think that the DWP absolutely have to follow this first tier tribunals decision for all future claims, because they don't. If a person believes that their case is foolproof (when its not), they may rely on it too heavily and be disappointed. People should argue it (it's definately something I would encourage people to argue, he makes some great legal points), but they should know that they may not be successful because the DWP are not bound to apply the decision of the first tier in another individual's case to their case.

Just to clarify, first tier tribunals do not set binding precedent, so although the DWP must apply the judgment to that particular case, the DWP and another first tier tribunal are not bound by the rules of precedent to apply the judgment to other claims. I would still argue the point and encourage others to do the same; it is absurd that anyone should be penalised because of delays which are not caused by them. Just bear in mind that this decision cannot be relied upon in the same way that case law can be, because it can be departed from.

When she declared it to the jobcentre, what was the purpose of this, and when was it declared? This is what is crucial in respect of whether or not it is recoverable.

They can only appeal to the upper tier tribunal on a point of law. It is very rare that they do this.

'Care' can be very wide ranging. It can be heavily involved personal care such as bathing/dressing or it can be attention, supervision, prompting. You need to provide the care for at least 35 hours per week to be eligible for carers allowance and can only claim it if she is on the mid or high rate of DLA care element, or receives attendance allowance or Constant Attendance Allowance at or above the normal maximum rate with an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, or basic (full day) rate with a War Disablement Pension. If she does not receive any of those benefits, you cannot claim Carers Allowance.

I do apologise - SKJP is absolutely correct about the SMS. Allow me to clarify. It's not the DWP fraud who can access SMS (though they can access many other things such as bank accounts, DVLA records, credit records etc). It's HMRC that can access SMS. Sometimes DWP and HMRC run joint investigations so although the DWP would not directly obtain the information, it could be obtained by HMRC as part of a joint investigation. However, information from email and SMS would only be used in extreme cases of organised fraud. Organised fraud being the type where people invent identities, children and addresses in order to defraud millions of pounds. It won't be obtained in cases of fraud involving an offence which is minor in comparison.

DWP did not take the videos down; they don't have the authority to do that. It was at the insistence of Senior Officials at the Ministry of Justice. They are not disclosing why. I suspect it was probably pulled as a result of complaints submitted about the video not being a true portrayal. There was much huffing and puffing around the net about the video making out that a tribunal only lasts a few minutes and about the less comfortable questions claimants can be asked not being shown, in addition to whines of it not taking account of some conditions! Someone even moaned that it showed the panel had more interest in what the neighbour had to say - but the neighbour was actually helping the guy's case, acting as his rep! People didn't seem to understand that it wasn't meant to be showing a begining to end tribunal hearing, nor was it meant as a 'one size fits all' video - it was merely there to give an indication of what to expect. Admitedly I was concerned about some inaccuracies as I posted above but the benefits of the video far outweighed the (very minor) faults. I suppose some people just like to spoil it for others.

The staff who assess your initial entitlement do not have access to anything other than the information you provide and the information shared by other government or government contracted departments. Anything else requires your consent for disclosure at the initial claim stage. The Fraud Investigation Service part of DWP have authorised officers who can access just about anything about you, including SMS history. Because they are seeking the information for the detection of a criminal offence, they do not require your consent and organisations are legally obliged to disclose the information, but there are strict rules about when they can access data. They cannot just do it on a whim. Whether they have the power to compel you to interview really depends on what context of interview we are talking about. If you have to attend an interview as a condition of your claim - for example, a work focussed interview at the jobcentre or attend an interview for a job you have applied for - and you do not go, you could lose your benefit or have a sanction applied to it. In terms of interviews under caution, they cannot make you go to one of them and if you do go, you are free to leave at any time. But if they have enough information they can suspend your benefit whether or not you attend.

Normally it does cost £10.00 but the DWP don't charge for SAR's.

I'm totally flummoxed by this. In most situations where a benefit is backdated or arrears paid, that includes any auto-entitlements (payments that you don't have to apply for) that the person should have received. It is totally unjust in my opinion that because the letter was not issued until 26th September that you should fail to qualify. You were 'in receipt of' the relevant benefit at the qualifying date. I would do as I stated - request a statement of reasons (this is to get it in writing). In your request, it might be an idea to ask them on what piece of guidance or legislation they are relying so that it can be looked into further. I usually deal with working age benefits and am struggling to find anything concrete on the WHD. I'm shocked that your MP's caseworker has referred you to the CAB - there is nothing wrong with the CAB, and I would encourage you to go there because representation would be good - but it is an MP's job to raise queries like this on behalf of his or her constituents!

As flumps says, it can be a whole host of different things that can trigger an investigation. Scans - these are computerised data matches between different government departments. Any discrepancy between the information held in one department to another will be thrown up. When a human being checks the details on physical paperwork using only their eyes. A new claim, a change of circumstances or whatnot against other information held or information that they are able to obtain and they find a discrepancy or a contradiction. When a customer makes a telephone call and during the course of that call makes a statement which does not match up to the information held. Random checks - random checking is carried out. We have recently seen a massive rise in this and a new system has been set up as of July last year to pull even more random checks. When ordinary members of the public, the police, medical profession or anyone not connected with the DWP report a potential fraudster. All cases are investigated - to a degree. The fraud investigation service deals with all reports. Cases where there is little evidence of fraud, or where it is thought to be mallicious are usually downgraded to be dealt with by the compliance team. These are the same people who will sometimes carry out random checks. If compliance cannot find anything, the investigation closes with no action taken. The claimant will be unaware of the report. If compliance find something they may either deal with it themselves, or if it is more serious, refer it back to the Fraud Investigation Service. FIS can make numerous enquiries without the claimants consent or knowledge and again, sometimes an investigation closes without further action and without the claimant knowing.

I'll try to explain this but it's awkward putting it into type. The directgov page states: What that means is that you must have got only the Guarantee Credit element of Pension Credit on the qualifying date of 11th September 2011. A person can qualify for benefit without getting it (eg - if they have not applied for benefit). They can also receive a physical payment of a benefit but not be 'getting' the benefit at the date the payment is physically received. Directgov tends to put things into plain English. In plain English 'got' or 'getting' usually (in the case of DWP) means 'in receipt of'. The date of a physical payment essentially means very little. When benefits/pensions are calculated, they are to cover a specific period of time. But the physical payment can be in advance or in arrears. It's very difficult to explain it online, it's much easier face to face. Let me put it into a few examples to demonstrate what I mean: Example 1 JSA is paid two weeks in arrears. If I were to sign on today (26/3/12), I would receive the money in my account on thursday (29/3/12). But because JSA is paid in arrears, this is to cover the period ending with my signing date, so the period of payment is from 12/3/12 to 25/3/12. I am 'in receipt of' JSA from 12/3/12 to 25/3/12 Example 2 Pension credit is paid in advance for some and in arrears for others. In this example, we'll look at an advance case. I get a payment in my account today. It is a weeks worth of Pension, paid weekly in advance. It is to cover the period 2/4/12 to 8/4/12. I am 'in receipt of' Pension Credit from 2/4/12 to 8/4/12 (even though those dates have not arrived yet). Example 3 I applied for Income Support on 1/4/11. My claim is refused and no payment is forthcoming. I appealed against the decision and on 23/07/11, the case is heard by a tribunal who find in my favour. On 3/9/11, DWP finally calculated my arrears and issued me a payment. It credited in my account on 6/9/11. I received payment on 6/9/11. It's to cover the period of 1/4/11 to 3/9/11. I was 'in receipt of' IS from 1/4/11 to 3/9/11. So you see, the date the payment hits your account is largely irrelevant to the date that you are 'in receipt of' or 'getting' as DWP puts it in plain English. In your case, I would argue that the date the payment hit your account is completely irrelevant - it is the period of time (dates from and to) that the payment was intended to cover, that matters. If it meant the physical date of payment, that mean that only people who got a physical payment credit in their account on 11th September 2011 would qualify. As claimants 'paydays' are determined by the last two digits of their NI number this would present an unjust absurdity. What about people who are paid by girocheque? A girocheque is delivered by first class post and should arrive within 3 working days. It has a one month expiry date. There is no way of determining its exact date of arrival and the only way of proving the date of encashment is for DWP to request the girocheque from their girobank after encashment. Are they seriously suggesting that it has to be proven what date each girocheque was cashed for the purpose of the WHD? Course not, that would be ridiculous. In addition to contacting your MP, I would strongly urge you to write to them asking them to provide you with a written statement of reasons for their decision and include a SAR requesting prints from your record showing the payment details of your record for the month of september. These prints are relatively self explanatory but if you do need help, I am more than happy answer any questions or to take a look at them if you want to scan and email them (with your personal details removed).

Your wife has been given incorrect information, as Nystagmite pointed out. You are absolutely correct that a 'top up' of income related ESA can be paid if you have less than the 'applicable amount' - the amount that the law says you need to live on. The amount that the law says you need to live on (the 'applicable amount') varies depending on your circumstances. A single person's applicable amount will be different to that of a couple. A non disabled person's will be different to a severly disabled person's. The amounts change every April as benefits are uprated. As the council have said you are receiving less than your applicable amount during a housing benefit calculation, it is probable that an income related top up of ESA could be paid. Because I do not know your income/capital information, or your ages I can't tell you what you should be getting. What I can say is that if your capital is under £6000 and you have no income other than your ESA, the amount of ESA you should be getting (and to which it can be topped up), bearing in mind that you are in the wrag would be £132.70. This does not take into account any additional disability premiums and assumes that both you and your wife are over 18. If you are entitled to premiums, it will be higher. If you have other income or capital above £6000, it would be lower. If you are only getting £94.25 then you are only receiving contributory based ESA (WRAG) for yourself. Sorry that I cannot be more specific but without knowing more, I cannot guess what you are eligible for. In the stickies, (the yellow coloured threads) at the top of the benefit forum, there is a thread called "Current Benefit Rates" - these are all the benefit rates from April 2011 up until April 2012. After April 2012 the thread will change to the new rates. You can view it against the information here to figure out what you should be getting. If you are not getting what you should be, contact ESA again. You will have to do it because you are the claimant - your wife can speak for you if you give your consent to the person on the telephone. Explain that you want to claim income related ESA. If you get the same response as before, insist on speaking to a manager. If the manager gives you the same response tell them that you would like a call back from the ESA office that deals with your claim - insist upon it. When you phone ESA you are not actually speaking to people who are trained in ESA processing (how to decide a claim), but are speaking to people who are trained to answer general enquiries on ESA and give information about an ongoing claim that is held on the computer. These people (most of them) will have no idea about the inns and outs of ESA claims which can be quite complex. If you manage to begin making a claim, tell them that you want to claim the income related element from today and are requesting it be backdated to today, because you tried to claim today but were misadvised by the DWP enquiry line that you could not claim. You should not be at financial detriment (even if it is only a few days) because an official acting for the DWP gave you incorrect information.

You will be sent a pack from tax credit called your 'annual review pack' Once received, you can either complete the review form or review over the telephone. The cut off date is usually the end of July.

Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC has decided to merge both the in-house prosecution divisions of the Department of Work and Pensions and the Department of Health with the Crown Prosecution Service. The move will begin on 1st April. Prosecutions for the DWP and DH will be dealt with by one team, called the 'CPS welfare, rural and health prosecutions division'. It is believed that prosecutors will be based in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds, Liverpool and London. I don't know if Scotland prosecutions will be moving to CPS, COPFS or staying where they are, nothing has been mentioned in relation to Scottish cases specifically, but as the legal systems of England and Wales is different to that of Scotland, it is possible that Scotland cases would not be moved to the CPS. Will update if I hear any more.

Excellent find - well done. It's very good for people to actually see what a tribunal room looks like, and how the process is done. There are a lot of people who are put off at an early stage because they think it's going to be too much like a court hearing. I like how they demonstrate the importance of telling the tribunal things that you may not feel comfortable discussing or think doesn't matter. It's often these things which can make or break an appeal. Slightly concerning though that they seem to think decisions on eligibility for ESA are made by jobcentres - maybe this accounts for the vast amount of appeal results that seem to be delayed in getting to a benefit centre. Also concerning is that it makes it seem that a person can easily get a letter from their doctor, They don't point out that doctor is not obliged to do so or that the doctor may charge for it.

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) does not have sanctions for being dismissed from a job. It is a sickness benefit and can only be paid if his GP certifies him as unfit for work. If his GP does this, he would be able to claim ESA at an assessment rate of £67.50 per week until April where it rises to £71.00 per week (assuming he is over 25 - for under 25's there is a lower rate) - this will continue until he has an assessment by ATOS who will determine whether he has limited capacity for work. This is supposed to take place within 13 weeks but in reality it rarely does. If he is determined by ATOS to have limited capacity for work, his benefit will increase and he will be placed in the work group where he must undertake work related activity unless he also has limited capacity for this also in which case he'd be placed in the support group and not be expected to partake in activities. If the ATOS assessment determines that he does not have limited capacity for work, his ESA would stop. He would then be looking at appealing or claiming another benefit. DLA can only be paid if his disability gives rise to care and mobility needs. He will not get this solely on the fact that he has anger issues or alcoholism. There must be care or mobility needs arising from it. These are the benefits he could apply for if he meets the criteria. If his GP does not believe he is unfit for work (and by that it must be unfit, full stop - not just unfit for bar work) or if he does not have a condition that gives rise to care or mobility needs then JSA is the only benefit he can claim. It is likely that a sanction would be imposed for JSA. A sanction is where he must still satisfy all of the conditions for JSA but he will not be paid any money. The maximum period that they can impose a sanction for is 26 weeks. I say that it is 'likely' not only because his employment was terminated for gross misconduct but because of the several warnings that he had for similar instances before he was dismissed. Good cause is unlikely to be accepted because of this. It is by no means a certainty that he would be sanctioned but more likely in my experience than not because of the circumstances. If it's a case of he is fit for work but is just unable to receive payment of JSA because of the misconduct and is looking for another way to claim benefit, our help is extremely limited in respect of benefit advice and the best advice we could give is for him to seek and secure alternative employment that will not impact on his illness. One thing perhaps worth mentioning is that he can appeal against a decision to sanction and if he has evidence of an illness which doesn't preclude him from work per se but did interfere with his ability to perform in the role from which he was dismissed he may be able to present an argument. He can also submit a claim hardship payments if sanctioned but I cannot guarantee that he would be accepted for hardship payments. He would not be eligible for any Social Fund assistance (i.e Crisis loans) if he was sanctioned. If an appeal is unsuccessful, hardship is unsucessful and he doesn't qualify for the other benefits mentioned, the only way he can eat is by visiting a food bank. It's unclear whether he does have a condition or doesn't have a condition but is generally having a tough time of it and choosing to drink alcohol which fuels his temper. If he does not have a condition and is perfectly able to function unless he chooses to drink (by that I mean if he makes the choice to drink, not if he is addicted to alcohol which is very different) then I would give you some advice also - wash your hands. I understand you are trying to help and for that you should be commended - but if a person does not have a condition and starts to lean on you to support them, and you pick up the pieces every time, you go from being a supporter to an enabler which could well come with its own set of consequences for you and your family. Bear in mind that you are no longer an employer of this man and owe him no duty of care. Be careful and look after yourself and your family.

Not necesserily. It's not possible to say what will happen in your particular case until you get your new award notice specifying what you are actually entitled to. How they recover the overpayment depends on your actual entitlement. If you are entitled to full tax credit, they will recover the overpayment by reducing your ongoing payments by 10% If you are entitled to a reduced rate of tax credit, they will recover the overpayment by reducing your ongoing payments by 25% If you are only entitled to the family element of child tax credit, it is only then that they can recover at 100% of your ongoing payments (effectively stop paying you). They can also impose a penalty on top.

We have to be extremely careful of potential libel claims. Telling the truth is only a defence to libel if you can prove that it's true. You may know that what you are saying is fact but in the absence of evidence, we don't and it is not just you that can be sued - CAG can be sued for posts that its members make and whether or not that suit would be successful is neither here nor there. It costs a lot of money to defend a claim. Tell your story but keep names out of it, to protect both yourself and the CAG, and we'll see if we can assist you.