Incapacity Benefit Wrongly Stopped - Failed Medical

Oldernotwiser · 2 September 2009 at 5:57PM

healy wrote: »

In alot of cases they are fair, they just do not qualify, otherwise everyone would be successful at appeal.

I remember being appalled when my mother tried to claim AA for osteo arthritis as she was almost completely housebound because of it; I thought the system was useless. It was only when I joined MSE that I realised that AA had no mobility component and the decision was correct.

Many people who apply don't understand what they're applying for and this is as much of a problem as out and out fraud.

cit_k · 2 September 2009 at 6:09PM

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The fact that they seemed relevant to you doesn't mean that they actually were. I agree with SDW on this.

Even if not relevant, the answers as given by the claimaint should be recorded on the report.

There should not be a situation whereby the examiner ever records the opposite of what the claimaint stated. Or where they record what the claimaint stated, and use it on one page, but state the exact opposite on another part of the report. Contradictions like that do occur (as stated by the president of the appeals service, so even if you dont beleive me or the other poster, surely you dont think the president of the appeals service is making it up?)

healy · 2 September 2009 at 6:10PM

cit_k wrote: »

True, but success rates at IB tribunals is around 45 percent if unrepresented, and 58 percent if unrepresented - source

So if you dont go alone, over half the cases are won.

So that would mean that over half of the "unfair" decisions you describe were in fact fair and correct.

This in turn reduces your 40% failure rate to a 20% incorrect failure, which means 80% are correct which is the majority as I said in my earlier post.

cit_k · 2 September 2009 at 6:12PM

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I appreciate that they're extrapolating a percentage figure from a sample of claims but that still doesn't mean that the figures are correct.

To give an example, if you analyse 1000 claims and find that 5 of them are fraudulent then this would suggest a fraudulence rate of .5. However, if there are another 5 cases that are fraudulent but they don't know about then the rate is actually double. You can't prove something that you don't know about.

Yes, there will always be fraud that is undetected, however, when you look at the media, and see all the anecdotal comments where people people say they know several people on the fiddle etc, you would naturally be able to assume that both the dwp, the national audit office, and everyone else that collects stats about these things would be able to detect more than 0.5 percent fraud from a sample of cases investigated in depth.

cit_k · 2 September 2009 at 6:17PM

healy wrote: »

So that would mean that over half of the "unfair" decisions you describe were in fact fair and correct.

This in turn reduces your 40% failure rate to a 20% incorrect failure, which means 80% are correct which is the majority as I said in my earlier post.

They were unfair and incorrect for several months till they were proved fair and correct by the tribunal.

Yes a 20 percent chance is not a majority, so your correct the 'majority' are fair, however it is still, when you think about it a 1 in 5 chance of being unfair.

Which is pretty high, I guess I must be that 1 in 5 every time I go to the medical.

healy · 2 September 2009 at 6:28PM

cit_k wrote: »

They were unfair and incorrect for several months till they were proved fair and correct by the tribunal.

Yes a 20 percent chance is not a majority, so your correct the 'majority' are fair, however it is still, when you think about it a 1 in 5 chance of being unfair.

Which is pretty high, I guess I must be that 1 in 5 every time I go to the medical.

No they were not unfair and incorrect because they have been confirmed fair and correct by the tribunal so they were always fair and correct.

It just seems to me as I said before that you must be very unlucky to be in that 1 in 5 minority, as I have never heard of anyone being so unlucky. It is a fact that tribunals are less harsh and more thorough than some Doctors/Nurses.

I do not think 1 in 5 is that high because there are going to be some Doctors with their own agenda.

cit_k · 2 September 2009 at 6:33PM

healy wrote: »

No they were not unfair and incorrect because they have been confirmed fair and correct by the tribunal so they were always fair and correct.

It just seems to me as I said before that you must be very unlucky to be in that 1 in 5 minority, as I have never heard of anyone being so unlucky. It is a fact that tribunals are less harsh and more thorough than some Doctors/Nurses.

I do not think 1 in 5 is that high because there are going to be some Doctors with their own agenda.

How can they have been fair and correct?

Its 58 percent of people than *win* their case at tribunal - ie they went to tribunal claiming they were turned down for IB unfairly - then the tribunal agreed and reversed the DWP decision and granted them IB.

The decision was therefore originally unfair and incorrect, as benefits were incorrectly stopped, until the tribunal where 58 percent of claimaints (who take a representative) win their case.

cit_k · 2 September 2009 at 6:35PM

healy wrote: »

I do not think 1 in 5 is that high because there are going to be some Doctors with their own agenda.

1 in 5 is high - can you imagine if 1 in 5 people were wrongly convicted?

or 1 in 5 people were given the wrong medicines?

or 1 in 5 people were falsely given speeding tickets?

or 1 in 5 people were fired from their workplace for false allegations?

strawberry_cupcake_2 · 2 September 2009 at 6:39PM

Can I just ask something? Healy, why do you think you are qualified to comment on what happened during my tribunal? You weren't there, how comes you know so much? Also, I was in receipt of IB for a long term condition spanning 5 years, and always received enough points at previous medicals, so they change the questions, does that mean my condition has changed? erm no.