Mandatory Reconsideration advice needed (LCWRA descriptor 14, daily aggression)

Dimang

Hi all, 
Following the face-to-face WCA I had just over 2 weeks ago, the decision was made today to put me in the LCW group. 2 hours before it was made, someone from the decision making team called me to confirm a few things.

To be honest I did prepare for the face-to-face  WCA but I did not prepare enough. I understood this after the WCA. It was after the WCA when I had a proper look at the WCA handbook and read all the information in it that is associated with this particular descriptor. Once I did, it became clear that I should have been placed in LCWRA group (based on the information in this document).

It also became clear that although I didn’t completely mess it up, I could have done a better job proving to them that I should be in LCWRA group based on the descriptor. For instance, when I initially filled in the UC50 form, I stated that my aggression is FREQUENT (NOT DAILY). BUT I did NOT mention on the form that I only leave house 2-3 times a week and that I do also get aggressive inside the house as well, but it does not affect anybody, because I am renting a room in a house where the other 4 rooms are empty (they haven’t been decorated yet since the landlord bought the house recently).

So based only on the UC50 form it was totally right from them to not place me in the LCWRA group.

However, during the face-to-face assessment I explained why I stated in the UC50 form that the aggression is FREQUENT, NOT DAILY (i.e. what I said above about only leaving the house 2-3 times a week and the aggression inside the house not affecting anyone but me). So, although there is some inconsistency between the UC50 form and what I said in face-to-face WCA, I explained the reason for it. I also explained it to the person that called me today.

Also, during the face-to-face assessment the nurse did very little to find out about the aggression. She literally asked me for just one example, and I had to provide the other ones without being asked to do so (kind of pushing them in, in a way).

After I finally had a proper look at the WCA Handbook (after the assessment), 2 things became clear:

1)   The assessor did not do her job properly. For instance, she was supposed to find out about the history and frequency of the aggression episodes (says it in the Handbook). She absolutely did NOT bother doing that.

2)   I should have been placed in LCWRA group. All the things associated with the descriptor that are written in the document are applicable to me (such as aggression having to be the result of underlying health condition, which in my case is severe depression that causes severe insomnia, that makes me behave that way). I was never like that before the mental health problems started.

So both me and the assessor could have done a better job. I mentioned it to the person who called today before decision was made.

I know the success rate of Mandatory Reconsiderations is quite low, but I am convinced that it is irrelevant if you know the truth is on your side. Or at least it should be irrelevant (in an ideal world).

Also, I just wanted to mention, I am not some sort of crazy idiot/bully who walks around the streets looking for trouble. This is absolutely not the case. But when I get even a slightest provocation (for example someone clearly looking at me for more than a few seconds), things go out of control. It always leads to the other person walking away because they realize they should not be trying to deal with me or if they don’t walk away it leads to  fighting. I have received some good beatings myself due to the fighting. I mentioned this to the assessor and the person who called today as well.

Just a few more things to mention. I did mention to the assessor that I do not threaten women for example. They do get insulted by me when I feel like they deserve it and they do get encouraged by me to call their partner to sort things out, but I do not threaten or touch women, it is embedded in me, it is the way I was brought up. I also mentioned to the assessor that although I am not proud of it, in the sense that it does not make me feel better or worse, the episodes are uncontrollable.

Also, in the Handbook, it gives examples of specific illnesses that can cause such behaviour, but it does not say anywhere that you have to have that specific illness.

I have requested a mandatory reconsideration via journal and I would appreciate if someone could give me some advice on how best to approach it. Is there anyone here in LCWRA group based on this descriptor?

I would really appreciate if people wouldn’t judge me, I may sound extremely nasty, but as I said I haven’t always been like this. Several major things have happened in my life that have made me a broken depressed person. I am not going to say what exactly happened, as I don’t want even a single person to feel sorry for me either, it only makes things worse for me…

I do realize that it is a long read, but without providing any details I would not get much advice… Also I may have repeated few things twice in the text, it is not easy to focus when you get such poor sleep on a daily basis. And in terms of the sleep, just to give an idea of how bad it is, Zopiclone 7.5 mg does not work for me at all. So I have even stopped asking for it. It did in the past. And it’s not because I have built tolerance to it, I have had very long breaks from it when I was occasionally taking it before…

Anyway, I am going to use all my common sense to try to be placed in the LCWRA group, but if someone could give some specific hints, it would be very appreciated.

I hope DWP are not expecting aggressive people to be walking around the streets attacking everyone they see for this descriptor to be applicable to them, as clearly such people wouldn't be claiming benefits (unless it was possible from a prison cell or coffin).  

poppy123456

It's not the assessors job to prove you qualify, it's your responsibility. I will agree that using the work "frequent" didn't help you at all. For descriptor 14 it specifically states "daily."

14. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Has, on a daily basis, uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.

If you didn't give at least a couple of real world incidents for this descriptor when you filled out the form then you should do that now by sending them more information, even though you've already gone ahead and requested the MR. You should also include detailed information such as where you were, what exactly happened, did anyone see it and what the consequences were.

Filling out the form is your chance to give as much information as possible. By doing this you're giving yourself the best chance of a decision in your favour. Many people make the mistake of not giving enough of information at this stage. You shouldn't rely on the assessment itself because there's never enough of time to cover every single thing in the time given.

The WCA stats for UC say that 65% of people are found to have LCWRA and only 19% are found to have LCW but there's no stats for the MR. For ESA WCA the stats are the very very similar, they are both exactly the same process. 48% of people that are requesting the MR have a decision in their favour for Support Group so i would expect the stats here to be similar too. MR Stats for PIP are much much lower.

I've been claiming ESA for 10 years and have only ever read the WCA handbook once, because i didn't find it very helpful if i'm honest. I've been in the Support Group the whole time, never had an issue.

Dimang

poppy123456 said:

It's not the assessors job to prove you qualify, it's your responsibility. I will agree that using the work "frequent" didn't help you at all. For descriptor 14 it specifically states "daily."

14. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Has, on a daily basis, uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.

If you didn't give at least a couple of real world incidents for this descriptor when you filled out the form then you should do that now by sending them more information, even though you've already gone ahead and requested the MR. You should also include detailed information such as where you were, what exactly happened, did anyone see it and what the consequences were.

Filling out the form is your chance to give as much information as possible. By doing this you're giving yourself the best chance of a decision in your favour. Many people make the mistake of not giving enough of information at this stage. You shouldn't rely on the assessment itself because there's never enough of time to cover every single thing in the time given.

The WCA stats for UC say that 65% of people are found to have LCWRA and only 19% are found to have LCW but there's no stats for the MR. For ESA WCA the stats are the very very similar, they are both exactly the same process. 48% of people that are requesting the MR have a decision in their favour for Support Group so i would expect the stats here to be similar too. MR Stats for PIP are much much lower.

I've been claiming ESA for 10 years and have only ever read the WCA handbook once, because i didn't find it very helpful if i'm honest. I've been in the Support Group the whole time, never had an issue.

Thanks for the reply. I totally understand that I was quite careless filling out that form. I should have done some research on how to fill it in in order to maximize the chances of getting what I really should be getting, but I didn't do it. My fault.
But to be completely honest, it's also related to my health. I tend to do things carelessly quite often. Maybe I should also mention this...  The decision has been made now and any new info I give them will have to be via MR, won't it? Could you confirm please? And then the appeal if MR does not work... 
In terms of stats, the success rate for MR is said to be 14%-16% by several sources (including the one you provided a link to in my other thread). The same source also mentions that MRs were introduced to discourage people from appealing, and it provides the percentages of people who went for the appeal before MRs for introduced and after they were introduced, and this percentages are very different. It also says the appeal success rate is about 60%. So I suppose I still have good chances and there is probably no need to panic, as long as I approach things very carefully this time. 

poppy123456

I didn’t give any links to the WCA stats in your previous threads. I only gave you a link to the LCWRA descriptors.  They are definitely not lower than the PIP Mr stats, which is currently 23% success rate, therefore the majority of MR decisions for PIP remain the same. 

I actually forgot to post a link to the stats for UC WCA, which you can see here. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-work-capability-assessment-april-2019-to-june-2023/universal-credit-work-capability-assessment-april-2019-to-june-2023

It doesn't say the stats for the MR but as i advised in my previous comment, the stats for ESA WCA are very similar to UC, which you can see here. The MR is about 48% success rate. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/esa-outcomes-of-work-capability-assessments-including-mandatory-reconsiderations-and-appeals-september-2023/esa-work-capability-assessments-mandatory-reconsiderations-and-appeals-september-2023

Both those links are the official Government stats. Neither of them show stats for Tribunal. I would expect it to be much higher than 60%. PIP Tribunal success rate stats are about 68%.

It’s the MR request first, which you said you’ve already requested that. If the decision doesn’t change at that stage it’s Tribunal.

Anyway, i wouldn't worry too much about the stats, you should concentrate on the reasons why you think you should have been awarded LCWRA as that's more important than stats.