We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Incapacity Benefit Wrongly Stopped - Failed Medical
Comments
-
Garry_Anderson wrote: »[/I]
I see nobody on the other side of this argument fighting for the rights of those sick claimants written off - but then again, you wouldn't expect them to
The acknowledgement of clear evidence is something some people are unwilling, or unable, for some reason to do.
Its easier to try to bury a subject, or deflect it for some, than to admit the facts sometimes.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
Oldernotwiser wrote: »For pity's sake, get a life!
In fact, throw in GA and get two lives!
You forgot Strawberry Cupcake!0 -
Not when it comes to tribunals...
Those will be more statistically accurate than the reports about medicals, as many people only post about medicals when their is a problem.
But the amount of those posts (re medicals) does indicate a clear problem...
But when their is a problem with a medical they post about the tribunal, and usually, in the main, come in to discuss if they won or lost the tribunal.
So as far as tribunals go, readers get a more balanced view.
However, boards like this by their very nature will always attract more problems than happy posts in general over a wider range of issues, that is their purpose....
ps - re tribunals, something has changed, for some reason the tribunal benchbook that used to be available for the public to read, in order to ensure due and fair process was being carried out is now no longer in the public domain...
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?func=view&catid=10&id=9788&limit=6&start=6#9846
I wonder why they would want to stop members of the public from finding out if a tribunal followed the rules?
I wonder why the tribunal benchbook has rules for everything including "ABSENCE OF APPELLANT" & "ABSENCE OF (APPELLANT) REPRESENTATIVE" - and yet no rules for ABSENCE OF PRESENTING OFFICER.
The so-called 'independent' judge takes it upon themself to represent the DWP and 'prosecute' the appellant - with the appellant unable to ask questions about his case of which the 'judge' (LOL) has no knowledge e.g. why certain decisions were made and what steps were taken to verify information etc.0 -
Oldernotwiser wrote: »What are you on?
Most of us have been arguing that people with disabilities shouldn't be written off; you're the one that seems to be saying that someone with a disability should never have to work!
Not if they are too ill to work - the so-called 'medical' tests are clearly poor method of deciding who is well enough.
I refer to those that Cit-K draws attention to - those sick people that are not well enough to appeal wrong decisions - at least one of which we have seen on this forum.0 -
Garry_Anderson wrote: »[/I]
I see nobody on the other side of this argument fighting for the rights of those sick claimants written off - but then again, you wouldn't expect them to
Absolute rubbish:rolleyes:
I and others I work worth are doing this all the time but in a constructive and responsible way.
No doubt you believe that any one working in Welfare Rights is wasting their time and are deluded in believing that they are making a difference.0 -
Garry_Anderson wrote: »I wonder why the tribunal benchbook has rules for everything including "ABSENCE OF APPELLANT" & "ABSENCE OF (APPELLANT) REPRESENTATIVE" - and yet no rules for ABSENCE OF PRESENTING OFFICER.
The so-called 'independent' judge takes it upon themself to represent the DWP and 'prosecute' the appellant - with the appellant unable to ask questions about his case of which the 'judge' (LOL) has no knowledge e.g. why certain decisions were made and what steps were taken to verify information etc.
The DWP case is already made and contained within the evdence in the Schedule of evedence (or bundle).
Do you belive this is really what happens at a Tribunal was this at your Tribunal what was it 11 years ago?0 -
Garry_Anderson wrote: »Not if they are too ill to work - the so-called 'medical' tests are clearly poor method of deciding who is well enough.
I refer to those that Cit-K draws attention to - those sick people that are not well enough to appeal wrong decisions - at least one of which we have seen on this forum.
Then you're talking about writing people off by saying they should stay on benefits. Some of us are talking about fighting for people's right to work!0 -
Oldernotwiser wrote: »Then you're talking about writing people off by saying they should stay on benefits. Some of us are talking about fighting for people's right to work!
There is a possibility Jesus may return and grant a mass miracle to 1 million on incap, but I seriously doubt it.
In the meantime, there remains the case that the DWP will (as they themselves admit) write people off, who cannot work, and will be unable to get any benefits.
People should have the right to work, if they are able, but they should not be incorrectly assessed or labelled and slung into work when its going to make things worse for their condition.
Most of the threads in question are not about people saying I am fit for work, please help me with my fight for work - they are about how they have *already* been mistreated by the benefits system, and unfairly assessed in their opinion.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
I refer to the DWP who, once appealant is too ill to claim JSA, ESA or IB, are no longer of any concern i.e. the "sick claimants written off".alwayshavingago wrote: »Absolute rubbish:rolleyes:
I and others I work worth are doing this all the time but in a constructive and responsible way.
No doubt you believe that any one working in Welfare Rights is wasting their time and are deluded in believing that they are making a difference.0 -
Originally Posted by Garry_Anderson
I wonder why the tribunal benchbook has rules for everything including "ABSENCE OF APPELLANT" & "ABSENCE OF (APPELLANT) REPRESENTATIVE" - and yet no rules for ABSENCE OF PRESENTING OFFICER.
The so-called 'independent' judge takes it upon themself to represent the DWP and 'prosecute' the appellant - with the appellant unable to ask questions about his case of which the 'judge' (LOL) has no knowledge e.g. why certain decisions were made and what steps were taken to verify information etc.alwayshavingago wrote: »The DWP case is already made and contained within the evdence in the Schedule of evedence (or bundle).
Do you belive this is really what happens at a Tribunal was this at your Tribunal what was it 11 years ago?
Duh!
1. Why nothing in benchbook about absence of presenting officer - when everything else is covered e.g. late claimant.
2. What about claimants right to question the evidence e.g. how a decision was made and what was done to verify - how can lack of due care and negligence be demonstrated if nobody answers these questions.
3. My 'judge' acted as 'prosecution' against me and made excuses for the DWP not showing up 'very busy people' etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards