Cambridge Jobcentre use wrong "medical evidence criteria" for LCWRA instead of correct DWP "Medical evidence including fit notes" and "Closing the health journey when a fit note has expired
Cambridge Jobcentre Uses Wrong "Medical Evidence Criteria" for LCWRA Instead of Correct DWP "Medical Evidence Including Fit Notes" and "Closing the Health Journey When a Fit Note Has Expired"
Please sign my petition to make the DWP stop deleting complaints without your knowledge: Sign the Petition on 38 Degrees
Introduction: Cambridge Jobcentre's Fictitious Guidance
In another instance of Cambridge Jobcentre's dishonesty, they have once again referenced guidance that does not exist. The correct guidance documents are "Medical evidence including fit notes" and "Closing the health journey when a fit note has expired." Previously, they applied fictitious criteria to terminate a Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) claim for my partner—a matter that remains before the Upper Tribunal. This arose because the Cambridge office failed to initiate her health journey during the COVID-19 pandemic, a mistake that affected many individuals. In this case, however, there is absolutely no excuse. They know, or ought to know, that the correct guidance must be applied, and they should also be aware of their obligation to respond to Mandatory Reconsiderations (MRs).
The Dispute: Expired Fit Notes and Ignored Acceptable Evidence
This case concerns a situation where one piece of my medical evidence expired, but others did not. Legally, I was not required to submit new medical evidence at that particular time. Nevertheless, two weeks passed. During this period, I was being bombarded by the local council, who were attempting to evict me. Despite this distress, I still provided two pieces of medical evidence, both of which were accepted simultaneously on 25 June 2025.
However, when my claim was rejected in December based on one of the pieces of evidence, I immediately requested a Mandatory Reconsideration. They never responded. Consequently, I had to request that the Tribunal treat my appeal as a request for a Mandatory Reconsideration. It was at this stage that Cambridge Jobcentre fabricated statements.
The falsehood is that Cambridge Jobcentre invented guidance that does not exist to keep the LCWRA claim struck out. They have used this fabricated guidance before. I have not in any way attempted to bait them or report them to the police for misconduct in public office; in any case, the police refuse to register this as a crime, treating such incidents with the same insignificance as lost keys.
The Mythical "Medical Evidence Criteria"
Cambridge Jobcentre claims they are applying "medical evidence criteria" — a set of rules that does not exist outside of their own office. The last time they employed this falsehood was against my partner in 2024, when they claimed they could not accept GP letters. They were lying then, and they are lying now. A simple internet search for official DWP medical evidence criteria shows that these documents typically reside on sites like Rightsnet or the official UK Parliament website. I have provided links to both, and I will upload the specific documents I reference here.
Below, I break down the specific misrepresentations made by Cambridge City Jobcentre in my Mandatory Reconsideration notice, explaining why each assertion is false.
The Mandatory Reconsideration Timeline Analysed
The Mandatory Reconsideration notice states:
Timeline of events
“8 April 2025 - You made a claim to Universal Credit (UC) and first declared medical evidence for your current health journey.”
This statement is correct. However, they deliberately use the generic term "medical evidence" to gloss over the fact that I had uploaded my ADHD and Dyslexia diagnoses. The DWP typically expects a fit note. This is the first indicator of their deceptive framing.
The notice continues:
“30 October 2025 - Your medical evidence expired.”
This is incorrect; only one of my pieces of medical evidence had expired.
The notice continues:
“23 October 2025 - A fit note expiry notification was issued to your UC journal.
13 November 2025 - A fit note expired, final reminder was issued to your UC journal.
27 November 2025 - You were notified that the deadline to provide a fit note had been extended.”
This timeline is accurate, but it is procedurally incomplete. What actions are staff supposed to take after this? For instance, did they conduct a medical evidence check or a complex needs assessment?
DWP Guidance on Closing a Health Journey
According to official DWP guidance on closing a health journey:
Closing the health journey when a fit note has expired
“...If the claimant does not have good reason, DWP determine whether the claimant has complex needs or vulnerabilities which would impact their ability to submit medical evidence.
In complex needs cases, a home visit or other supportive measures can be used to contact the claimant and discuss their health condition.
Where DWP are not aware of any complex needs or any reason that the claimant would not be able to submit medical evidence, the claimant is removed from the health journey.”
The Gatekeeping of the Mandatory Reconsideration
The Mandatory Reconsideration notice continues:
“8 December 2025 - You first made contact about the decision.”
This is incorrect. This was the date the deadline for my fit note expired, at which point I lodged a formal complaint. According to the DWP's own Gatekeeping Memo, this complaint should have been automatically treated as a request for a Mandatory Reconsideration. The relevant section of the memo states:
“DWP staff are advising customers they must specify they want an MR. 'Mandatory Reconsideration' is DWP terminology. It is not necessary for the customer to use those exact words in order to raise a dispute.
If a customer advises us they disagree with a decision, want us to look at it again, ask for a review, ask to appeal, etc., the request should be treated as a request for an MR, whether it is made in writing or verbally.”
The Gatekeeping Memo can be viewed on Rightsnet.
The notice continues:
“25 February 2026 - You submitted an appeal against the decision.”
This is slightly incorrect. I submitted an appeal requesting that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) treat my submission as a Mandatory Reconsideration request, and the date recorded is inaccurate.
The notice continues:
“29 May 2026 - A formal request for a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) was raised. An MR is needed before an appeal can progress. You have stated the following in your request: You have acceptable medical evidence provided in the form of diagnosis for Dyslexia, ADHD, and they do not expire. You quoted a piece of case law where the tribunal had stated a GP letter was acceptable medical evidence and where a backdated fit note served to bridge a gap.”
This is partially incorrect. Crucially, there is no such legal mechanism as a "formal" request for a Mandatory Reconsideration. Any expression of disagreement suffices. This summary represents DWP gatekeeping at its worst: they failed to address the MR originally because they know that "an MR is needed before an appeal can progress." It is bureaucratic narcissism to ignore a dispute, force the claimant into a corner, and then claim no request was ever made.
I do indeed have acceptable medical evidence in the form of diagnoses for Dyslexia and ADHD, neither of which expire. This behavior appears deliberate. The DWP has long had a reputation for bureaucratic box-ticking that can ruin lives, but Universal Credit has escalated the acceptable level of administrative hostility.
What Counts as "Acceptable Medical Evidence"?
The decision maker has access to the guidance I provided in my appeal, in my journal, and on the internal DWP intranet. They can easily verify whether an ADHD or dyslexia diagnosis expires:
Acceptable Medical Evidence Guidance
“From the eighth day of a claimant being unfit for work (after the period of self-certification expires), the claimant or their representative must provide acceptable medical evidence.
Acceptable medical evidence includes a:This list is not exhaustive, and any evidence provided by the claimant must be considered.”
- Statement of Fitness for Work
- doctor's letter
- terminally ill form - DS 1500 or SR1
- Benefits Assessment for Special Rules in Scotland (BASRiS) form
- hospital inpatient form - Med 10
- psychiatric hospital admission form / hospital discharge letter
- private medical certificates
- other evidence
The DWP guidance goes further to clarify when a doctor's letter is appropriate:
Doctor's Letter
“A claimant may produce a letter from their doctor, consultant or other medical practitioner confirming a health condition or disability which limits the amount, type and duration of the work they can do.
This is most likely when an in-work claimant's capability to work is restricted (but not prevented) by a manageable condition or disability and a fit note would not be suitable.”
Lifelong Conditions and Expiry Rules
How long is a diagnosis valid for if a health condition is lifelong, such as dyslexia or ADHD? The DWP guidance addresses this directly:
Period Covered by the Medical Evidence
“Agents must accept medical evidence regardless of the duration stated on it by the healthcare professional (including indefinite) even when:Provided the medical evidence covers the day on which the claimant reported the health condition or disability on their Universal Credit claim, it will be accepted. This will either be self-certification or acceptable medical evidence from day 8 of the illness or disability.”
- a claimant presents medical evidence issued by a healthcare professional some time before they declare a health condition on Universal Credit
- it's the first piece of evidence the claimant presents
Furthermore, the reminder system is specifically designed for fit notes, not for other forms of medical evidence. The DWP guidance states:
“1 week before a claimant's fit note is about to expire, they will be reminded through their online account to provide a new one.”
Crucially, the duration of general medical evidence is distinct from that of a standard fit note:
“Healthcare professionals will issue medical evidence to a claimant (for a clinically appropriate period for the health condition) in accordance with their own professional standards.”
The Fabrication of DWP Guidance
While administrative errors can happen, what followed is much more concerning. The decision maker—a public officer—appears to have fabricated guidance. They cited an imitation that does not correspond to the actual DWP guidance. This fabricated criteria was used to deny my Mandatory Reconsideration, despite my repeatedly pointing out the correct rules.
They wrote the following fictitious text:
"Failing to Provide Medical Evidence Criteria"
“From 29 November 2023, you are treated as not having Limited Capability for Work (LCW) or Limited Capability for Work and Work Related Activity (LCWRA) if you fail to provide medical evidence without a good reason and it can be shown that:
- 3 weeks have passed since the first request and
- A further 1 week has passed since the second request and
- good reason has not been given, or accepted, for the delay in point 2.
The actual DWP guidance, which can be downloaded from the UK Parliament website, states otherwise:
DWP Guidance: Medical Evidence Including Fit Notes
Under the actual guidance:
Claimant's Fit Note Expires
“2 weeks after a claimant’s fit note has expired, if they have not provided new medical evidence or reported they are no longer ill, they are sent a second reminder in their online account.
1 week after the second reminder, the claimant is removed from the health journey unless one of the following applies:
- they have provided new acceptable medical evidence
- they have given good reason for not providing medical evidence
- they have complex needs which mean a home visit or additional supportive actions need to be taken”
By omitting the safeguards for "complex needs" from their decision, they deliberately closed the door on my claim. I say deliberate because I provided the correct guidance to them multiple times, and it is publicly available. An LCWRA award is vital to me because it officially establishes my disabled status to DWP staff, rather than forcing me to rely on individual discretion.
Adversarial Culture and Legal Roadblocks
In my experience, the administrative environment at Cambridge Jobcentre—and indeed many others—tends to be adversarial rather than supportive. There is a documented culture of skepticism and hostility towards benefit claimants.
Challenging misinformation within a large bureaucracy like the DWP is incredibly difficult. The institutional incentive is to delay rather than resolve complaints or act fairly. The only recourse is either a Judicial Review or a First-tier Tribunal. Both paths are exhausting. Furthermore, the court system, often aided by the Government Legal Department (GLD), can be highly difficult for unrepresented claimants to navigate.
It is notable that law enforcement agencies rarely investigate public officers who fabricate rules to deliberately cause financial loss or distress, despite this fitting the definition of misconduct in public office. The systemic human cost of these delays and decisions is rarely treated with the legal urgency it deserves.
Tribunal Failures: Errors of Fact and Law
Unfortunately, First-tier Tribunals also make errors. This happened twice in my partner's case. She was told by Cambridge Jobcentre that GP letters were unacceptable. At her first tribunal, the judge decided within five minutes, claiming to have reviewed all 1,000 pages of the bundle, and ruled in favor of the DWP. The tribunal staff repeatedly asked if I represented an organization and refused to confirm whether they had received our evidence bundle. When I requested an adjournment, the judge remarked that I simply did not like her decision, ignoring the fact that key procedural facts were being misrepresented.
The subsequent judge erred as well. Despite having two Upper Tribunal decisions before her showing that GP letters are acceptable medical evidence, she made an official finding of fact that the GP letter had not been provided to the DWP. This finding directly contradicted the DWP's own Mandatory Reconsideration notice, which acknowledged receipt of the letter. Tribunal judges should know that claimants can submit evidence covering the period in question. Although she had read the relevant Upper Tribunal decisions, she failed to ask us any questions about the evidence before making her judgment. Even if we attribute this to inexperience rather than bad faith, the result is that the case has been delayed for four years and is now heading to the Upper Tribunal, all because Cambridge Jobcentre invented non-existent criteria.
That a fabrication causing four years of administrative delay, stress, and financial hardship is not treated as criminal is deeply frustrating. It has all the hallmarks of intentional misconduct targeting a disabled individual.
Recommendations and Action Steps
If you are going through this process, I urge you to contact your MP. Write to them, call them, or send a letter. While some may ignore the request, parliamentary escalation is often one of the few effective ways to bypass bureaucratic roadblocks.
Upper Tribunal Precedents to Cite
Here are the two key Upper Tribunal decisions confirming that GP letters are acceptable medical evidence:
- EE v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Unpublished)
- The Upper Tribunal confirmed that sick notes are not always necessary for LCWRA back-dating. More details can be found on Disability Rights UK.
- KS v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] UKUT 15 (AAC)
- Decision by Judge Church on 14 January 2025. The full judgment is available on the gov.uk website.
Common DWP Misconceptions to Challenge
I will update this post as more information on DWP gatekeeping tactics becomes available. To be clear:
- An "unbroken chain of fit notes" is not a legal requirement.
- Requiring fit notes to the exclusion of all other medical evidence is not permitted.
- Having LCW merely to work fewer hours is a misunderstanding of the status.
Disclaimer - This article does not constitute legal advice.
Please consider signing my petition to introduce a statutory duty to track and notify DWP complaints:
Sign the Petition on 38 Degrees
Comments
Post a Comment