ATOS rep

Poppie68 wrote: »

This isn't all about you and your fellow haters, their are posters that would like to ask ATOS questions as one posters has already done this and recieved an answer for.

You're right Poppie68, but sadly I fear the rep will be driven away by all the nasties, which only makes things more difficult for those that are trying to get help.

Erm, hello? ATOS are an example of moneysaving at it's absolute pinnacle! They see situations every day where they should give people money, and they just say no, despite any legal or medical indication to the contrary.

In humanistic terms, they are the equivalent of those that watch TV on a clunky old computer monitor from 1984, and then say that they don't have to pay the TV licence cos they don't have a 60" plasma with surround sound.

You can level may criticisms at them (and I highly encourage you to do so), but failing to moneysave is not one of them :-)

I guess the ATOS rep did not like me pointing out the law and how ATOS Healthcare continues to Violate the Data Protection Act despite a ruling by the information commissioner concerning their status as a Data Controller.

The also refuse to remove false claims on the ATOS Healthcare Website, despite an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling that the information was incorrect and misleading. Every other company in the UK have to comply with as ASA ruling, but ATOS think they are above UK law.

You can see how silly it was, according to my status on the left this is my first post, although I have been thanked 47 times in my first 10 posts here, the majority of which were not from newbies like myself. (All of which where deleted with the thread).

I know I am not really known around here, but my reputation on the net as a consumer affairs and human rights consultant somewhat preceded me.

I have taken on the likes of Ubisoft through to Microsoft and to date I have never lost. In fact on the latter I received a formal written/telephone apology from Head of Microsoft UK and later an apology from the then head at Microsoft Redmond. In that case I saved Microsoft $8billion in lawsuits and all the peeps in Europe finally got the WGA kits (XP Pro) they ordered.

ATOS IT/ATOS Healthcare are somewhat terrified of me, because as a disabled person they have not been able to remove me from my existing benefit for over a year. Despite 6 WCA's (I have not attended) and two BF223ESA forms for failing to attend.

(Coalition, DWP and ATOS would prefer you did not know this)

The fact still remains, if you refuse to sign the ESA50 or blank out all but the first 3 declarations. Then under the Data Protection Act your information cannot be legally shared with ATOS Healthcare, because they are a Data Controller (Third Party). The DWP did try to claim they where a Data Processor (Which does not require signed authority to share information) however the Information Commissioner Office take the standing that where an organisation "Offers an Opinion which on the balance of probabilities will alter a later decision". they are defined as data Controllers. Thus a signature of Authority is required and the DWP by law cannot make you sign away your rights.

A Secondary part of this is relating to the DWP decision making process in respect of claims being migrated from means test Incapacity benefit, Income support and or Incapacity Paid as Income support.

The Right of Supersession. (Coalition, DWP and ATOS would prefer you did not know this)

Under the Social Security Act 1998, the term 'revise' or 'revision' was replaced with 'reconsideration' and 'Supersession' (To supercede). This is very important as the rules around this addressed a matter in which the earlier decisions where found to be in contradiction of Natural Justice (The fundamental principle of Benefits decisions). Basically prior to 1998 when an award was in place, a claimants had to prove their continued entitlement, if they could not then the benefit was stopped. With the introduction of the reconsideration/supersession process, the premise shifted onto the state to prove that a claimant was no longer entitled.

It is an important shift in law. Now the Welfare Reform Acts do not repeal the 'Right of Supersession' (A major screw up by the ConDem's and the DWP) which means that the existing benefit awards cannot be amended or terminated without a supersession. However none of the the Incapacity Benefit Reassessment team decison makers, have been trained or employed in the capacity of being able to complete a supersession. Therefore all of the migrations to ESA and invitations to claims JSA if unsuccessful in being migrated are in fact in err of law as there is nobody legally qualified on behalf of the secretary of stand to amend or terminate the existing benefit.

That is why I am still in receipt of Incapacity benefit paid as Income support, over a year after they tried to migrate me. (I have never have a tribunal hearing either, as the DWP bottled out last time and carried out a 3rd reconsideration and reinstated the IB paid as IS again, despite the Welfare Reform Act stating the benefit is being terminated, it will be interesting to see how they legally do it as nobody is qualified to train Decision Makers to supercede anymore as the Government terminated their employment along with their departments).

We will see how much the mod's and the site owner bows to ATOS/DWP pressure. If this post is still here in a month then we can assume that they Genuinely want consumers/claimants to get information about the WCA, ATOS Healthcare and the DWP and their illegal activity.

Last count the failure to correctly use the right of superssion had resulted in the DWP defrauding disabled claimants by over £13Billion. That amount is rising day by day. I correctly state 'defrauding' as Department of Work and Pensions Policy division where legally informed of this err in law in February 2012 yet they still continue to illegal withhold benefits from the most vulnerable in society. In fact their only real response was to reword the ESA50 declaration to allow them to use the results of the WCA findings to remove other benefits retrospectively for up to 5 years. (Their are already numerous documented cases where the WCA has been silently used to terminate Disability Living Allowance for up to 5 years prior to application, it only became apparent to claimants how this was done, due to submissions to the appeal Tribunal made by the DWP).