(mental health problems)Two win sickness benefit test legal challenge

rogerblack wrote: »

What exactly they have won is unclear.
As I understand it, no decision on what the DWP should do going forward (or if they need to do anything) has been made.
Merely that the treatment of the claimants (who probably were assessed around this time last year) may have been unfairly treated.

We will learn what this ruling 'really' means - once the DWP supplies them evidence on the current procedure, and the court comes to a decision on what the DWP needs to do in future.

Ask Ravi, you can get him here

rogerblack wrote: »

What exactly they have won is unclear.
As I understand it, no decision on what the DWP should do going forward (or if they need to do anything) has been made.
Merely that the treatment of the claimants (who probably were assessed around this time last year) may have been unfairly treated.

We will learn what this ruling 'really' means - once the DWP supplies them evidence on the current procedure, and the court comes to a decision on what the DWP needs to do in future.

Even if the DWP withdrew its COA next step we / they would still be in a position where the appellant would need 'citing' of a summary of legal grounds, how many would be capable of that ? Where, now that the GOV & MOJ have de-funded all the welfri's and CAB's, are people going to get that kind of help ? Its god awful enough for the likes of you and I, how the heck those struggling with MH type illness[es] are expected to manage an appeal or a 1T without legal help I've no idea.

Its a start, an a~n~other Jack Russell nipping at the hanging bits of an unfair and unjust denial of peoples rights under the law.

woodbine wrote: »

from what i have read in recent months even if you do submit "evidence" its possible they dont even read it

Where have you been hiding? :rotfl:

In 2010 I had a 2 months battle to get them to eventually provide a prepaid taxi.

A letter of support for a home visit and a 2nd letter off my counselor was sent in with the ESA 50 to ATOS.

It was only after numerous calls to not only the general appointment line but also to the testing center and 10 assessment appointment re-arrangements later did I get that offer.

At 1st I was asked to send in a GP letter - you have one already!

Quickly changed to we have not read your/we must request your file back/there has been no decision yet - why not?

The funniest conversation I had was when 1 cancellation led to a new appointment arriving 5 days later for exactly the same date and time as the one just canceled. Got to give the ATOS girl balls for trying to argue that one.

Oh and in my 2nd the nice physio stated on sitting down I've not read your ESA 50 so tell me what's wrong!

They not be big on a readin nor a thikin these folks :T

I have read the judgement.
Main points.
The DWP at the moment rarely as a general practice request further medical evidence from doctors or other healthcare professionals.

The DWP are under a duty from the first time the claim hits them, till it is decided - by the equalities act.
This means that they have to consider if specific groups of disabled people, as well as individuals are disadvantaged by the process. (In this case those with mental health problems)

They _DO_NOT_ routinely request FME if the claimant appears likely to be eligible only for the work-related group. Only if there is strong evidence they are eligible for the support group, have a declared risk of suicide, or have an appointee. It is _NOT_ obtained as a general practice where it may help the HCP prepare their report, or when the claimant is expected to fall into the work-related group.

This may be a breach of the equalities act - as the fair solution may be to not send the ESA50, or perform the medical, and place the claimant into a group directly, as it's clear they should be there, rather than not obtaining FME and just chugging through the normal process.

In our judgment, the present practice relating to FME, has the result that in a significant number of claims by claimants with MHPs the existence and impact of the Difficulties result in those claimants, and thus that class of claimants, being placed at a disadvantage that is more than minor or trivial and/or suffering an unreasonably adverse experience:
i) by being required to complete an ESA50 when this is not needed,
ii) in the completion of the ESA50,
iii) by being required to attend a face-to-face examination / assessment when this is not needed,
iv) during a face-to-face examination / assessment, and
v) during the final decision-making process and the communication of that decision by the DWP decision-maker.
In our judgment, if appropriately directed FME was made available earlier in the decision-making process in respect of claims by claimants with MHPs, it is likely that, in a significant number of such claims:
i) the HCP would be better informed before requiring an ESA50 and at the face-to-face to examination / assessment, with the result that the decision-making process in respect of the class, and the way in which it is perceived by claimants with MHPs as a class, would be improved because the Difficulties would be better addressed and so avoided or reduced, and
ii) the DWP decision-maker would also be better informed in his or her assessment of the claim, the recommendations of the Atos HCP and his or her approach to the acknowledged vulnerabilities and difficulties of claimants with MHPs as a class and so individuals within it.

The general tone is that they are unable to make a decision at this time because the DWP has not adequately responded to their questions on current practice, and they do not have the knowledge to make a correct recommendation on when FME should be sought.
They do not agree that FME should always be sought, for cost and other reasons, but disagree strongly with the governments case that the system is fine as it is.
They request that the government come back with recommendations on how to change the guidelines for requesting further medical evidence throughout the process for those with mental health conditions.

(Above comments based on a draft version - though it seems unlikely to undergo wholesale changes)