case involves a chap found fit for work some time ago, but who has a history of MH problems...basically, he is now on JSA (for c 2yrs)and wants to find work. Initially he had a DEA but this was withdrawn... JCP said he had to attend a Work Psychologist...he did...the Psych says he needs to attend an organisation such as MIND, seek help from Community MH Team and develop strategies to "help himself cope with work". JCP inform him they will no longer help him until he basically meets the CMHT, has a support worker and works with the CMHT. So he sees GP, who refers him to CMHT...CMHT state he does not meet criteria for MH services...but he goes to MIND, and continues to get support from them.

JCP - despite all his efforts to comply - refuse to help him or appoint a DEA to his case. He is clearly caught here, and seems that JCP are trying to fob him off (they'v also hinted he should go back on Incap). We are looking at DDA challenge...however, I am looking for some specific guidance (if poss):-

What duty is there to refer to DEA at all? If a duty exists, from where does it derive?

Are such conditions as imposed by JCP here following specific procedure, guidance, or regulation?

Many thanks in anticipation

Fri 11-Apr-08 02:20 PM by Paul_Treloar_

I can't help for now I'm afraid but I am meeting someone from DWP who deals with welfare to work next Thursday, so I'll try to find out some more then and let you know what i find out.

thanks for that...I can't seem to find anything 'tall

Pete, been for my meeting but didn't see who i was supposed to unfortunately. However, the person that I did meet with said that as far as he was aware, there should be no reason at all for your client being denied to opportunity to engage with a DEA in the circumstances that you describe.

His suggestion was to contact the local District Manager to take this up, as it seems to go against all of the current thrust of welfare reform, to deny someone an opportunity when they are actively trying to do something to move closer to, or into, work.

Sorry i can't offer anything more specific but this person wasn't the W2W person i expected and thus wasn't able to provide me with anymore. I did leave a list of queries though, so if anything more does come to light, I'll let you know.

Starting from a different point: a decision as to whether a person is capable or incapable of work applies to ALL social security benefits (except industrial injuries and SSP). So, if your chap has been found fit for work following a PCA, then he is fit for work for the purposes of JSA.

A Jobseekers' Agreement may contain action which the claimant will take 'to improve his prospects of finding employment'. Did your client agree to all this? The type of activities suggested appear much more related to improving his health than improving his chances of obtaining work. There are appeal rights if a claimant disagrees with the contents of a jobseekers' agreement.

I suggest that you read the commentary to Reg 171A of SSCBA 1992 in Bonner, Hooker and White, which explains the application of a determination of (in)capacity. The contents of a jobseeker's agreement are laid out in Reg 31 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regs.

Sorry: should read s.171A. (I was too slow to edit.)

thanks for the suggestions, and your attempts to clarify, Paul.
All sensible, all relevant...I'm heartened to think that someone from JC+ sees that the scenario is perverse. Unfortunately, I speak to members of DWP etc everyday who virtually acknowledge the perversity of much process, procedure, delay and decision making in their ranks...
The Legal challenge we are looking to run under DDA in that sense is as a sword not a shield (as someone once said). The purpose of my posting was to fathom out what duty is owed in terms of the appointment of a DEA, and under what prescribed circumstances (on request?, do you have to be eligible?, what makes you eligible?) sorry to go on, and I do appreciate the responses, but I am still somewhat lost.
Peter