The Autumn Statement 2023

JonnycJonny

Does anyone know if the proposals also apply to Activity 2 - Unable to transfer from one seat to another without assistance from another person or is it purely limited to Activity 1 - Mobilising ?

Albus_Scope

apple85 said:

I imagine charities like scope will be reading these documents several times through before attempting to post a summary of the situation going forward?

Correct @apple85 Scope will be putting out a press release once they've read through everything properly and the website will be updated accordingly.  But unfortunately these things take time. 

  So a big thank you for going through everything with a fine toothed comb.

poppy123456

JonnycJonny said:

Does anyone know if the proposals also apply to Activity 2 - Unable to transfer from one seat to another without assistance from another person or is it purely limited to Activity 1 - Mobilising ?

It’s not activity 2.

apple85

Votadini said:

carbow32 said:

"Active Psychosis" worries me a bit.  I am on a high dose of anti psychotic and as such I am not in active psychosis but even with the medication the pressures of employment would trigger an attack.  So would I have to go to work because my psychosis is not active, for it to become active to then go back into LCWRA to get well again .. can see a magic merry go round on the horizon.

That only applies to a change to the 'substantial risk' descriptor in the WCA so will only effect assessments, and if I'm reading it right will also only apply to new claims.

Hope this helps.

I think this may come down to how you fill out a esa50/uc50 form (aka the wca)

right now charities have been hugely successful in giving advice to claimant which is why 1 in 7 have been successfully ticking the ‘substantial risk’ box today compared to 5-10 years ago.

given time charities will have time to form advice to the ‘tightening’ and renaming to ‘active psychosis’

the other thing is we don’t know what part tribunal judges may play in all this as they are independent from the dwp and gov - so anyone who fails getting an award (or a lower one) if these wca reforms are implemented should 100% (consider) going to tribunal and add precedent for the rest of us

also I think the ‘50% rule’ that dwp decision makers and tribunal judges use is remaining (I can’t say with 100% certainty but I’m 90% sure)

ella1992

I'm so worried this will effect me I get capability work I work 15hours a week I'm scared il lose my lrcwa money i would be left so poor 

Votadini

ella1992 said:

I'm so worried this will effect me I get capability work I work 15hours a week I'm scared il lose my lrcwa money i would be left so poor 

If we take these proposals at face value then you can continue working 15 hours a week, keep receiving your LCWRA and you'll never be assessed again. So on the face of it it's good news for existing claimants who are capable of doing some work.

JonnycJonny

Thank you Poppy.

Though unable to mobilise unaided ( and I cannot self propel ) the medical assessor took into account my inability to transfer without assistance and based his LCWRA recommendation on Activity 2 rather than Activity 1 - at least that is what was written in the Medical report ESA85.

Meg24

The idea that the only MH that presents susbstantial risk in the face of sanctions & pressure from conditionality and work preparations is that of 'active psychosis' is monumentally ignorant. For starters, not all severe mental illness has psychosis as a symptom at all and yet many of us die from suicide or suffer with self harm. Many people with severe personality disorders, major depressive disorders, generalised anxiety and panic disorders, the list goes on and on, many of us currently have LCWRA because having to comply with conditionality would substantially worsen our mental health. Also, they say explicitly that they will not remove LCWRA for people whose physical health would be worsened by WRA, but not mention of someone's MH, only tjat they will keep the substantial risk for psychosis, so people presumably under section in hospital. They say they will consult with clinicians, why the hell didn't they do this already before drawing up these plans, any first year psychology student could have put them straight.

AtlasShoulders

"86. The White Paper set out our long-term proposals to remove the WCA and introduce a new UC health element, using the PIP assessment as a single health and disability functional assessment. Those reforms will require primary legislation, which is why we have set out these proposals today to bring forward changes that can be delivered more quickly. We know the WCA acts as a financial disincentive for disabled people and people with health conditions who want to try work. People fear if they try work and it doesn’t work out, they risk losing their additional financial support upon reassessment. The commitment that no one with an existing LCWRA decision today will be reassessed, except in a few limited circumstances, means that they can try work without fear of losing their LCWRA financial support."

Interesting use of the word "today" when talking about changes happening in 2025. Does this mean that LCWRA reassessments are permanently suspended from today, and will not resume in the New Year?

Grissom123

Here's a press release from DWP:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-chance-to-work-guarantee-will-remove-barriers-to-work-for-millions

Albus_Scope

"And of around 8 million jobs advertised online between April and October 2023, over 20% were either remote or flexible, compared to less than 4% over the same time period in 2016."

Now this is twisting the truth somewhat.  As an ex jobseeker this year, many jobs said they were WFH, but still expected one or two days in the office each week.  

Votadini

An important caveat for those on income related ESA.

Those who are on income related ESA who work 16 hours or more a week will leave the benefit. While they cannot return to income related ESA they can claim UC if they are eligible.

So basically a total disincentive for anyone on IRESA to do any more than 15 hours a week as it would result in their claim being closed and them having to apply for UC as a new claim under the stricter new rules and lose the alleged guarantee of no further assessments.

Fletch69

From the gov.uk website document as link posted above, does it mean what was said by hunt:

1)Applies to new claimants only.

2) Those currently in lwrca shouldn't worry unnecessarily.

Or have I oversimplified!

poppy123456

Votadini said:

An important caveat for those on income related ESA.

Those who are on income related ESA who work 16 hours or more a week will leave the benefit. While they cannot return to income related ESA they can claim UC if they are eligible.

So basically a total disincentive for anyone on IRESA to do any more than 15 hours a week as it would result in their claim being closed and them having to apply for UC as a new claim under the stricter new rules and lose the alleged guarantee of no further assessments.

I disagree, sorry. That’s actually nothing new because permitted work rules say you can work less than 16 hours. If they work 16 hours or more then entitlement to ESA ends. To get around this they can claim UC while still claiming ESA and remain working less than 16 hours per week.

As they are transferring from ESA their UC would honour that, so if they are in the Support Group they would be entitled to the LCWRA element from the start of their claim. Which means they do not need to go through another WCA. 

They would also be entitled to the work allowance, which means a certain amount of earnings received each month will be ignored before any deductions apply. 

Permitted work rules apply to all ESA whether that’s contributions based, New style or Income Related. 

Of course someone claiming either contributions based or New style ESA whether theres any entitlement to UC will depend on their circumstances. 

Albus_Scope

Fletch69 said:

From the gov.uk website document as link posted above, does it mean what was said by hunt:

1)Applies to new claimants only.

2) Those currently in lwrca shouldn't worry unnecessarily.

Or have I oversimplified!

I'm seeing this paragraph which I think is important;

"These changes will not affect existing claimants whose circumstances remain the same, reflecting the need to ensure a continuity of service for them, and will mean that these claimants will not lose money as a result of the changes."


So it does look like things wont change if you have LCWRA already.   But we cannot say this is fact yet.

Votadini

AtlasShoulders said:

"86. The White Paper set out our long-term proposals to remove the WCA and introduce a new UC health element, using the PIP assessment as a single health and disability functional assessment. Those reforms will require primary legislation, which is why we have set out these proposals today to bring forward changes that can be delivered more quickly. We know the WCA acts as a financial disincentive for disabled people and people with health conditions who want to try work. People fear if they try work and it doesn’t work out, they risk losing their additional financial support upon reassessment. The commitment that no one with an existing LCWRA decision today will be reassessed, except in a few limited circumstances, means that they can try work without fear of losing their LCWRA financial support."

Interesting use of the word "today" when talking about changes happening in 2025. Does this mean that LCWRA reassessments are permanently suspended from today, and will not resume in the New Year?

Unfortunately not, the documents make it clear these changes will only be effective from 2025.

And I'm not sure why people think reassessments are currently suspended. A friend who I helped with her last WCA in 2019 received an ESA 50 two days ago.

Grissom123

The way I've read this is that these changes will affect new claims and those already reducing LCWRA won't have to undergo work capability assessments except under certain circumstances and will be offered the "chance to work guarantee" which they say is voluntary.

zane

Hi I was born learning disability since was test when child I also got mental health I cant work can’t handle money and so I am worried cut my benefits next year because of this I get esa , pip
but no tax credit I can’t work so will benefit axe for me next year or 2028 

Votadini

poppy123456 said:

I disagree, sorry. That’s actually nothing new because permitted work rules say you can work less than 16 hours. If they work 16 hours or more then entitlement to ESA ends. To get around this they can claim UC while still claiming ESA and remain working less than 16 hours per week.

As they are transferring from ESA their UC would honour that, so if they are in the Support Group they would be entitled to the LCWRA element from the start of their claim. Which means they do not need to go through another WCA. 

They would also be entitled to the work allowance, which means a certain amount of earnings received each month will be ignored before any deductions apply. 

Permitted work rules apply to all ESA whether that’s contributions based, New style or Income Related. 

Of course someone claiming either contributions based or New style ESA whether theres any entitlement to UC will depend on their circumstances. 

Nonetheless, if a claimant on IRESA doesn't make a UC claim the guarantee that is being offered to them is much more limited than for UC or CBESA claimants. UC claimants will be able to reclaim without penalty within 6 months, for new style and CBESA it's 12 weeks. Both can work unlimited hours, whereas IRESA claimants will only be able to work the current permitted hours and if they are exceeded their claim will close with no recourse to reapplying.

Becky93

Albus_Scope said:

"And of around 8 million jobs advertised online between April and October 2023, over 20% were either remote or flexible, compared to less than 4% over the same time period in 2016."

Now this is twisting the truth somewhat.  As an ex jobseeker this year, many jobs said they were WFH, but still expected one or two days in the office each week.  

This is the problem that's not getting talked about enough. Where are all these exclusive WFH jobs going to materialise from. Is there going to be any incentives for employers to offer them (which have not yet been mentioned). If say 400,000 are ruled fit for work because they can work from home, where is that number of exclusive wfh jobs coming from?

That then ties in to why people will be deeply mistrusting, as they rule you fit for work you take a benefits cut, but many of the people they are ruling fit for work will struggle to find work under the restrictions their disabilities place on them, most of them I would have thought.