It seems so wrong that the government wants to mainly concentrate on the substantial risk...

Ross1975

category when WCA reassessments begin in or after April 2026.

I would've thought people under substantial risk would be the most vulnerable serious cases and so surely we should be left until last or just left alone completely?

I'm under substantial risk myself and I'm worried sick.

worried33

The Labour party see's it as something being exploited, when they introduced ESA, originally regulation 35 was very tight criteria. But during the early Tory years of government changes were made to allow more people into LCWRA via regulation 35.
If you look at the actual ESA descriptors, they are extremely harsh, I expect not many people qualify for LCWRA via the descriptors. As an example for mobility they can pretend you have a wheel chair and just assess you on upper body. They just ignore whether you can even practically use one or have been advised to have one or not. I stopped fighting it on my WCA's as they were giving me LCWRA anyway via regulation 35.

Remember Kendall's own words "I think some people are taking the mickey".

The Tories in their last couple of years after they started to be affected by reform, were also starting to think along the same path, however the Tories were going to protect regulation 35 for physical health, specifically mobility. They were planning to target mental health awards moving them to regulation 26 instead (LCW).

On paper Labour say these reassessments will be under the same criteria, although the words only specifically mentioned descriptors, and I am not convinced regulation 35 is a descriptor in itself. The editor of b&w gave me his opinion when I emailed him that regulation 35 criteria wont change on the reassessments.

Also consider its something recommended by discretion of the assessor, the descriptors are black and white you meet the condition or you dont, regulation 35 (and 26) I expect are seen as more likely to not get the same result on a reassessment so would be an easier target to cut numbers.

— I think I meant regulation 29 not 26, might have remembered things wrong.