Submitting information with ESA50?

[matt v atos]

It's because our ESA50 and supporting evidence is enough to decide without an assessment which group we go in. I sent quite a bit of evidence in with mine.

 

How do you know this !

[matt v atos]

I totally agree Rae and Nystagmite.....also having had experience of the system, I found that on the occasion I sent extra evidence on the illness/conditions, along with my answers to the descriptors, it did make a difference. It cannot be not worth sending anything that may be relevant.

 

I sent extra evidence on the illness/conditions, along with my answers to the descriptors, it did make a difference. how do you know this !

[Guest]

I don't see it matters how or if anyone "knows this" or not, if experiences of submitting with extra info has been successful where previously when extra info wasn't submitted a fail or further investigation happened then it makes sense to supply it anyway. Why your so keen to put it down is a puzzle. It cant harm a claim so why pick at it.

[antone]

How do you know this !

 

Because it's completely obvious, perhaps?

[matt v atos]

I don't see it matters how or if anyone "knows this" or not, if experiences of submitting with extra info has been successful where previously when extra info wasn't submitted a fail or further investigation happened then it makes sense to supply it anyway. Why your so keen to put it down is a puzzle. It cant harm a claim so why pick at it.

 

Because posters are claiming it helped with no evidence it does.

You have to explain how your conditions and problems fit the descriptors. They only go by the descriptors.

[Guest]

well that's kind of what I meant antone, well said in 4 words.

[Guest]

Methinks this is a wind up .....cant be arsed now. anyone with any sense will submit as much as poss.

[RaeUK]

matt. As I have already said in my earlier replies, I know for a fact that supporting evidence formed an important factor. This is because I talked to the DWP at my BDC and we discussed the importance of supporting evidence for the ESA50. They actively encouraged the submission of further supporting evidence that I had received after the submission of the ESA50 to them. The DWP couldn't have made it any clearer and were very helpful.

 

EDIT: Ruby, I was coming to that conclusion as well which is why this is my last post on this subject. We get rid of one ...

[matt v atos]

I have read tons of post where a shed load of evidence has been submitted 0 points.

[RaeUK]

They weren't all by a poster called 'cleaver' by any chance?

[Guest]

highly likely

[bigissue]

"Special Circumstances" That is a new one on me !

 

I was placed in the Support Group on ESA due to special circumstances Regualtions 35 and 27 I think pertain to this.

 

Certain claimants to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity

 

35.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—

 

(a)the claimant is terminally ill;

 

(b)the claimant is—

(i)receiving treatment by way of intravenous, intraperitoneal or intrathecal chemotherapy; or

(ii)recovering from that treatment and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant should be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity; or

©in the case of a woman, she is pregnant and there is a serious risk of damage to her health or to the health of her unborn child if she does not refrain from work-related activity.

 

(2) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work-related activity as determined in accordance with regulation 34(1) is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—

(a)the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement; and

(b)by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity.

 

Of course it happens that people are treated unfairly or that ATOS doesn't read the extra infomation or in fact the ESA50 but we all know the system is bad and unfair but that does not detract from the principle of submitting additional information.

 

However like the others I do think you are being deliberatly contrary here.

[Nystagmite]

I have read tons of post where a shed load of evidence has been submitted 0 points.

 

It depends on what the evidence is. It's not enough to just say "I'm blind". You'd have to send in evidence which explains what problems being bind causes you. The people who read your forms aren't mind readers.

[matt v atos]

I am dealing in facts the ESA50 does not take supporting evidence into consideration The decision maker may look at it.

[matt v atos]

I was placed in the Support Group on ESA due to special circumstances Regualtions 35 and 27 I think pertain to this.

 

Certain claimants to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity

 

35.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—

 

(a)the claimant is terminally ill;

 

(b)the claimant is—

(i)receiving treatment by way of intravenous, intraperitoneal or intrathecal chemotherapy; or

(ii)recovering from that treatment and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant should be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity; or

©in the case of a woman, she is pregnant and there is a serious risk of damage to her health or to the health of her unborn child if she does not refrain from work-related activity.

 

(2) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work-related activity as determined in accordance with regulation 34(1) is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—

(a)the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement; and

(b)by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity.

 

Of course it happens that people are treated unfairly or that ATOS doesn't read the extra information or in fact the ESA50 but we all know the system is bad and unfair but that does not detract from the principle of submitting additional information.

 

However like the others I do think you are being deliberatly contrary here.

 

Of course it happens that people are treated unfairly or that ATOS doesn't read the extra information or in fact the ESA50 but we all know the system is bad and unfair but that does not detract from the principle of submitting additional information. That is my point.

[matt v atos]

It depends on what the evidence is. It's not enough to just say "I'm blind". You'd have to send in evidence which explains what problems being bind causes you. The people who read your forms aren't mind readers.

 

You have to explain how your conditions and problems fit the descriptors. They only go by the descriptors.

[RaeUK]

You have to explain how your conditions and problems fit the descriptors. They only go by the descriptors.

That's a given. You then need to support your contention with evidence. Now, what's the technical term for that again? Oh yes, 'supporting evidence'. You know, the sort of 'supporting evidence' the letter accompanying your ESA50 asks you to submit. And the type the DWP request.

Unfortunately, you seem to have a propensity to sound like a troll ...

[Guest]

seconded

[matt v atos]

And for all the members who jumped on my post regarding supporting evidence I was pointing out you can send all this stuff but the fact is its not taken into consideration I agree If it was me I would send it anyway I was pointing out there is no hard evidence that it helps your claim and no one has proof that it did so far if anyone has then please share it.

[matt v atos]

That's a given. You then need to support your contention with evidence. Now, what's the technical term for that again? Oh yes, 'supporting evidence'. You know, the sort of 'supporting evidence' the letter accompanying your ESA50 asks you to submit. And the type the DWP request.

Unfortunately, you seem to have a propensity to sound like a troll ...

 

the letter accompanying your ESA50 asks you to submit. And the type the DWP request. Yes but its not looked at the decision maker may look at it.

You have to explain how your conditions and problems fit the descriptors. They only go by the descriptors.

[antone]

And for all the members who jumped on my post regarding supporting evidence I was pointing out you can send all this stuff but the fact is its not taken into consideration I agree If it was me I would send it anyway I was pointing out there is no hard evidence that it helps your claim and no one has proof that it did so far if anyone has then please share it.

 

Oh, good grief. It doesn't hurt your case, and clearly, obviously helps in some (but not all) cases. There is no good reason not to send supporting evidence if you have it.

[matt v atos]

Oh, good grief. It doesn't hurt your case, and clearly, obviously helps in some (but not all) cases. There is no good reason not to send supporting evidence if you have it.

 

Clearly you didn't read my post

And for all the members who jumped on my post regarding supporting evidence I was pointing out you can send all this stuff but the fact is its not taken into consideration I agree If it was me I would send it anyway I was pointing out there is no hard evidence that it helps your claim and no one has proof that it did so far if anyone has then please share it.

[antone]

Clearly you didn't read my post

And for all the members who jumped on my post regarding supporting evidence I was pointing out you can send all this stuff but the fact is its not taken into consideration I agree If it was me I would send it anyway I was pointing out there is no hard evidence that it helps your claim and no one has proof that it did so far if anyone has then please share it.

 

I read your post. Believe me, I read your post. I'm trying to figure out your point.

 

I know that this supporting evidence is taken into account because I know DMs and I watched the processes they followed. ESA claimants have strong evidence that it's taken into account because those who send it are more likely to be awarded ESA without a WCA than those who don't. Hard and fast proof? Sorry. I can't present a scientific survey. But so what? As you yourself acknowledge, it's a good idea to send whatever you have.

[matt v atos]

I read your post. Believe me, I read your post. I'm trying to figure out your point.

 

I know that this supporting evidence is taken into account because I know DMs and I watched the processes they followed. ESA claimants have strong evidence that it's taken into account because those who send it are more likely to be awarded ESA without a WCA than those who don't. Hard and fast proof? Sorry. I can't present a scientific survey. But so what? As you yourself acknowledge, it's a good idea to send whatever you have.

What about claiments who send in shed loads of supporting evidence ie doctors ect anyway dont know how many times I have to say this the ESA50 is not interested in supporting evidence its not set-up that way ESA claimants have strong evidence that it's taken into account I've not seen this.

[RaeUK]

... I was pointing out there is no hard evidence that it helps your claim and no one has proof that it did so far if anyone has then please share it.

 

Always happy to give someone the benefit of the doubt, matt. But what part of my posts are you failing to understand? I cited my case and the fact that I spoke directly to the DWP about it and we had a discussion about the importance of supporting evidence and how it related directly to me finally going straight to the Support Group. Not sure what else you'd like as proof, I can't exactly drive to Chippenham and kidnap the poor guy so he can tell you in person ...

 

... the ESA50 is not interested in supporting evidence ...

^^^ This is completely incorrect.