(Original post by Notoriety)
I'd thought that -- in the sense, if he'd had his MH diagnosed and communicated his difficulty to DWP, they might have kept him on ESA. LCW+WR here he comes; wonder if it'd be enough to cover his debts. If he had appealed, that's no easy fix -- 9+ months wait to get to the tribunal.
Tbh, I have never seen the risk to health test successfully used. How often/easily do DWP give that and what type of evidence do they require?
The DWP gives it very rarely and, at least in ATOS days, an individual assessor needed management approval to give it, which drove a coach and horses through the idea that the assessment represented an individual assessor's professional judgement.
Tribunals award it fairly frequently and not just to suicide risks.
There are people with a track record of failure to cope with a little voluntary work. There are people where a lot of time and effort has been invested in getting them off the booze or clean of drugs and they are teetering on a knife edge. Most people with heart conditions and the like are encouraged to be active, but there are a few who really should be wrapped in cotton wool.
Finally, Regs 29 and 35 are the only bits of the entire system where actual employability is relevant. There are a few people where there is actually no job left that they have the skills to do which they are physically capable of doing.
If, for one reason or another (not necessarily health reasons), you can't say, monitor a CCTV system, work in a call centre, shop or cashiering booth (say in a carpark or amusement arcade), or look after a child, you are left with manual labour of one sort or another and if the claimant lacks the physical ability to do that without risk to health, Reg 29 is inevitable