Signed off by my GP


N

Niteawk

I have been signed off by my GP for a month, does this mean I must claim IB?
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Marvin

I have been signed off by my GP for a month, does this mean I must claim IB?
IB has been replaced by ESA for new claims.
ESA = Employment and Support Allowance
 
K

King of the R.O.U.S.'s

Hi
IB has been replaced by ESA for new claims.
ESA = Employment and Support Allowance
I'm on IB still, are there any pro's or con's for each?

~Inigo
 
R

Robbie

King said:
Hi


I'm on IB still, are there any pro's or con's for each?

~Inigo
Overall ESA is a lot stricter. If you've been on IB for 12 months or
more there's nothing that comes to mind (under ESA it is possible to go
on to a higher rate of benefit quicker than on IB). However the
"medical" under ESA is a lot stricter. In addition the list of
exemptions for people who may be exempt from the "medical" under ESA is
much smaller.

The vast majority of people on IB would be worse off, or at least no
better off, under ESA.
 
K

King of the R.O.U.S.'s

Robbie said:
Overall ESA is a lot stricter. If you've been on IB for 12 months or
more there's nothing that comes to mind (under ESA it is possible to go
on to a higher rate of benefit quicker than on IB). However the
"medical" under ESA is a lot stricter. In addition the list of
exemptions for people who may be exempt from the "medical" under ESA is
much smaller.

The vast majority of people on IB would be worse off, or at least no
better off, under ESA.
OK Thanks, do you know if there are plans to move everybody over
regardless, or will they keep the two running side by side (yet more
worries to stress over).

~Inigo
 
R

Robbie

King said:
OK Thanks, do you know if there are plans to move everybody over
regardless, or will they keep the two running side by side (yet more
worries to stress over).

~Inigo
The original plan was to migrate all IB claims to ESA by about 2012 to
2013 but there is some doubt about whether this will be able to happen
by then. The first batch of IB claims to be transferred over to ESA is
planned to be IB paid to under 25s and that is intended to start to
happen from this year.
 
S

Ste

Overall ESA is a lot stricter. If you've been on IB for 12 months or
more there's nothing that comes to mind (under ESA it is possible to go
on to a higher rate of benefit quicker than on IB). However the
"medical" under ESA is a lot stricter. In addition the list of
exemptions for people who may be exempt from the "medical" under ESA is
much smaller.

The vast majority of people on IB would be worse off, or at least no
better off, under ESA.
It's actually a very complex picture. ESA may as well be called
"Employment Seekers' Allowance", because the fundamental shift is
towards a Jobseekers' Allowance for the sick.

There are a lot of people who would lose out by moving from IB to ESA,
but there are also winners - it is, in general, slightly more generous
to older claimants than IB, and it is also (in some circumstances)
substantially more generous to those also receiving DLAc at the middle
or higher rates.

However, the losers in general are younger claimants, and those with
milder (physical and/or mental) health problems.

Certainly, my understanding is that the new 'medical' is substantially
*less* strict than the PCA for the purposes of receiving ESA
Employment Support Component (i.e. Jobseekers' for the sick), but is
substantially more strict for those receiving ESA Support Component
(i.e. like IB, with no requirement to participate in work-related
acitivity).

Overall, there are both winners and losers in financial terms, but the
definite losers in non-financial terms are those who are for all
intents and purposes unemployable, but whose condition is not serious
enough to warrant the Support Component, and who will therefore be
required to attend the JC regularly and participate in work-related
activity, with all the consequential stress and strain of that.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Ste

The original plan was to migrate all IB claims to ESA by about 2012 to
2013 but there is some doubt about whether this will be able to happen
by then. The first batch of IB claims to be transferred over to ESA is
planned to be IB paid to under 25s and that is intended to start to
happen from this year.
I believe the migration actually began last year. The method of
migration basically appears to be to disallow benefit and dare the
claimants to appeal - and, for a variety of obvious reasons, the
majority will not appeal.

Incidentally, a DWP study from a few years ago showed that in-house
decisions in respect of IB are very poor quality, with more appeals
succeeding than not. Recently there is said to have been an even
greater spike in that trend, with anecdotal evidence to suggest that
the DWP are routinely ignoring claimants' GPs who say outright that
their patient is not capable for work, are routinely ignoring DWP
files on claimants' medical history, and also making the appeals
process for claimants arduous and bureaucratic, with staff ordered to
give no help or advice to such claimants.

Personally, I wouldn't expect anything less of the DWP.
 
C

Clive Martin

In message
Ste said:
It's actually a very complex picture. ESA may as well be called
"Employment Seekers' Allowance", because the fundamental shift is
towards a Jobseekers' Allowance for the sick.

There are a lot of people who would lose out by moving from IB to ESA,
but there are also winners - it is, in general, slightly more generous
to older claimants than IB,
Hardly. The only way I can see that being the case is if someone
received cESA and the Support Component where previously they had been
getting IB without any age-related addition (£89.50 vs £84.50). You
have to factor into that the loss not only of age-related additions but
also of the adult dependant's increase.

The only significant way in which cESA is more generous than IB is
because it will be paid at the equivalent of the full long-term rate
much more quickly (in most cases) than IB.
and it is also (in some circumstances)
substantially more generous to those also receiving DLAc at the middle
or higher rates.
No it isn't. What it does do is provide access to the Enhanced
Disability Premium (EDP) within ibESA automatically to those on the
Support Component. The EDP is only payable within IS to those on DLA
care at the higher (NOT middle or higher) rates. So there are a few who
might see their means-tested income rise (for a single person, from
£86.35 to £102.10, a gain of £15.75 p.w.). But there is no disability
premium with ibESA, so there is therefore no access to the couple rate
of the disability premium for those couples where one is sick and the
other isn't. Again, there are some short-term winners from the payment
of ibESA at higher rates earlier than the disability premium within IS.
However, the losers in general are younger claimants, and those with
milder (physical and/or mental) health problems.

Certainly, my understanding is that the new 'medical' is substantially
*less* strict than the PCA for the purposes of receiving ESA
Employment Support Component (i.e. Jobseekers' for the sick), but is
substantially more strict for those receiving ESA Support Component
(i.e. like IB, with no requirement to participate in work-related
acitivity).
This is confused. The Personal Capability Assessment for IB/IS becomes
the Work Capability Assessment for cESA/ibESA. It is considerably
harder. The DWP intend 30% of those who meet the PCA to fail the WCA.

The route to the Support Component is tougher than that to exemption
from the PCA (the DWP estimates that of those who would have been PCA
exempt in any year, about 6,000 less will be eligible for the Support
Component).
Overall, there are both winners and losers in financial terms,
Well yes but Robbie is right and your whole take on the issue is wrong.
Overall ESA is intended to be, and will be, much cheaper for the
government than IB/IS for sick people. That is the whole point of it.
ESA will save the government £50 million p.a. in 2009/2010 rising to
£215 million p.a. in 2019/2020.
but the
definite losers in non-financial terms are those who are for all
intents and purposes unemployable, but whose condition is not serious
enough to warrant the Support Component, and who will therefore be
required to attend the JC regularly and participate in work-related
activity, with all the consequential stress and strain of that.
That is certainly correct.

Look I have no wish to engage in usenet feuding with you or stalk you
around this group. You are clearly perceptive, you write well, and you
have some knowledge of these subjects. So what you write will be
convincing to the lay reader. But everything you post here is wildly
adrift. Bizarre.

Clive
 
S

Ste

Hardly. The only way I can see that being the case is if someone
received cESA and the Support Component where previously they had been
getting IB without any age-related addition (£89.50 vs £84.50).  You
have to factor into that the loss not only of age-related additions but
also of the adult dependant's increase.
Agreed. All I've said on the subect is that it is a "complex picture",
and that ESA is "slightly more generous to older claimants". You're
right that it is not more generous "in general", rather it is more
generous only in narrow circumstances, while in general older
claimants will either receive the same amount as under IB, or indeed
will receive substantially less if they lose the age additions.

No it isn't.  What it does do is provide access to the Enhanced
Disability Premium (EDP) within ibESA automatically to those on the
Support Component.  The EDP is only payable within IS to those on DLA
care at the higher (NOT middle or higher) rates.  
Not true. Those on IS receiving DLAc at the middle rate will currently
receive the disability premium, while of course those on IB do not
receive a disability premium under any circumstances.

My understanding is that under ESA, the same regime applies as with
IS, meaning those receiving DLAc at either the middle or higher rates
will receive a disability premium on top.

So there are a few who
might see their means-tested income rise (for a single person, from
£86.35 to £102.10, a gain of £15.75 p.w.).  But there is no disability
premium with ibESA, so there is therefore no access to the couple rate
of the disability premium for those couples where one is sick and the
other isn't.  Again, there are some short-term winners from the payment
of ibESA at higher rates earlier than the disability premium within IS.
I'm confused here. My understanding is that there *are* disability
premiums under ESA.

This is confused.  The Personal Capability Assessment for IB/IS becomes
the Work Capability Assessment for cESA/ibESA.  It is considerably
harder.  The DWP intend 30% of those who meet the PCA to fail the WCA.
Again, my understanding is that the WCA is (at least in some respects)
substantially broader, especially with respect to mental health and
behavioural problems which appear to be the modern equivalent of lower
back pain.

However, I take your point, which is that those with milder levels of
incapacity will probably not meet the new test at all, and hence it is
more strict in that way (and I accept what I said was misleading in
that respect).

The route to the Support Component is tougher than that to exemption
from the PCA (the DWP estimates that of those who would have been PCA
exempt in any year, about 6,000 less will be eligible for the Support
Component).
Agreed, which is in accordance with what I said.

Well yes but Robbie is right and your whole take on the issue is wrong.
Overall ESA is intended to be, and will be, much cheaper for the
government than IB/IS for sick people.  That is the whole point of it.
ESA will save the government £50 million p.a. in 2009/2010 rising to
£215 million p.a. in 2019/2020.
I don't think anyone was talking about the cost to the government, but
I agree government savings are the real motivation.

That is certainly correct.

Look I have no wish to engage in usenet feuding with you or stalk you
around this group.  You are clearly perceptive, you write well, and you
have some knowledge of these subjects.  So what you write will be
convincing to the lay reader.  But everything you post here is wildly
adrift.  Bizarre.
I'm not actually the feuding kind. Feel free to stalk me - we can each
mop up the parts that the other gets wrong. And again, I don't feel my
post here is "wildly adrift" - I think it captures well the
fundamentals of ESA and the broad consequences for claimants of IB,
which for the majority is unequivocally "less money, more Jobseeking".
 
C

Clive Martin

In message
Ste said:
Not true. Those on IS receiving DLAc at the middle rate will currently
receive the disability premium, while of course those on IB do not
receive a disability premium under any circumstances.
You don't seem to realise that there are 2 premiums here.

The Enhanced Disability Premium is payable to those who receive DLA
higher rate care.

The Disability Premium is payable to those who receive ANY rate of DLA.

Those who receive IB CAN receive a disability premium within IS, by the
qualifying route that they receive IB at the long-term rate.
My understanding is that under ESA, the same regime applies as with
IS, meaning those receiving DLAc at either the middle or higher rates
will receive a disability premium on top.
Oh dear.

Under IS, those receiving ANY rate of DLA care get a disability premium.

There are NO disability premiums within ibESA.
I'm confused here. My understanding is that there *are* disability
premiums under ESA.
There are NO disability premiums within ibESA.

"Q: Is it true that there is no disability premium payable in ESA?

A: Yes. Although income-related ESA does have applicable amounts
including personal allowance and premiums as part of the calculation,
there is no disability premium, even where the claimant has been sick
for 52 weeks or more, gets DLA, etc. There is no direct replacement for
the premium, but we understand that the policy intention is that the
absence of the premium is compensated for by the additional component
payable after the initial 13 week assessment phase, ie either the
work-related activity component (£24 a week) or the support component
(£29 a week)."

www.cpag.org.uk - Employment and Support Allowance Q&A

You don't understand how the Disability Premium works, you don't
understand how the Enhanced Disability Premium works and you don't
understand which premiums are available under ibESA. So I'm sorry but
frankly you are just not in a position to make any pronouncements about
who is or is not better off when getting ibESA rather than IS.

I'm not actually the feuding kind. Feel free to stalk me - we can each
mop up the parts that the other gets wrong.
Of course I'd be happy for you, or anyone else, to correct anything that
I get wrong - "bonus dormitat Homerus"!

What I am suggesting is that you master the temptation to post
convincing, well-written and apparently definitive and well-thought out
advice on subjects which you clearly don't understand at all well.


<SNIP>

Clive
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Ste

You don't seem to realise that there are 2 premiums here.
I am aware there is more than one disability premium. However I think
I've managed to confuse the issue through loose use of language.
[snip]
I'm not actually the feuding kind. Feel free to stalk me - we can each
mop up the parts that the other gets wrong.
Of course I'd be happy for you, or anyone else, to correct anything that
I get wrong - "bonus dormitat Homerus"!
Haha, touche!

What I am suggesting is that you master the temptation to post
convincing, well-written and apparently definitive and well-thought out
advice on subjects which you clearly don't understand at all well.
I admit that my understanding of ESA was fuzzy, and I had been
resisting the need to sit down and study the DMG and instead I have
been relying on what I've gathered from various overviews of the new
regime (which were apparently misleading). You are right that I
shouldn't have opened my mouth before being sure as to the veracity of
my statements.

However, I have now referred to the DMG, and my understanding now is
that you are decidedly correct on every point that you have made.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Signing off 20
signed off 3
sign off for a week 8
Signed off and on again 10
signing off weekends 0
Resigning after signing off? 4
UK Budget holders and sign off 1
signing off at weekend/evening 5

Top