Letter from the Customer Compliance Team

Garry_Anderson

Breast_Cancer_Survivor wrote: »

Im just going by the things ive read on these forums & by how the woman from the DWP reacted when I told her my OT needed to be present, ive also had dealings with the DLA so know how these people judge on appearences, ie I look completely normal.
I am autistic & have communication & social problems so talking to anyone I don't know face to face is an issue let alone someone who I feel will be waiting for me to say something that might wrongly implicate me as commiting fraud.

Dear BCS - I was 'stitched up' by one of their visitors and have documentary proof of this - take no chances - have your OT there

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

Thanks for your reply Garry, I really appreciate you taking the time.

Im sorry to hear that you got stitched up on your visit, that just makes me even more determined to have my OT with me, unfortunately due to work commitments she won't be available for another week or so which I don't think will go down well.

I had to cancel the 1st appointment they gave me as I only had 3 days notice, they didnt specify a time either, just that it would be between 10am & 4pm, I presume these are also tactics to catch you off guard.

In the meantime im paranoid that they are watching me, im struggling with the whole waiting to know what they are going to say & what will happen to me situation and im becoming more stressed & anxious by the day.

I know that they have a duty to check up on any reports they receive but im sure there must be a better way to go about it, it doesnt seem very sensible to do this to people like myself who have genuine mental health problems already.

I hope you manage to sort your situation out, many thanks again.

Garry_Anderson

Dear BCS - my 'run in' with them happened in 1998 - they don't give me much trouble any more - though things have got worse for everybody else on the new benefits since.

Like I have stated before - to members that would like to misrepresent me - it is not a conspiracy - just a mindset that is more about reducing incapacity claimants and saving money i.e. meeting targets:

Quote from July 2006: The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report. The report shows that, based on current performance, rolling out the Government's Pathways to Work initiative across the whole country might reduce the number of IB claimants by no more than half a million, well short of the intended target.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

Even though they altered the rules to deny many sick people benefits:

Quote: In 1999, New Labour introduced its first Welfare Reform Act. All new claimants had to attend a compulsory work focused interview. Mansel Aylward, now chief medical officer of the DWP, devised a new personal capability assessment (PCA). The emphasis was no longer on entitlement, but on what a person is capable of doing. The task of administrating the PCA was contracted out and is now run by the US corporation Atos Origin. Its computerised evaluation of claims driven by clearance time targets has resulted in significant numbers of rejected claims, particularly for those with mental illness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/17/epluribusunum

Which leads to things like this:

Quote: 'Ludicrous' benefits system declares spinal patient fit for work

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/homenews/Ludicrous-benefits-declares-spinal-patient-fit-work/article-1038047-detail/article.html

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Dear BCS - my 'run in' with them happened in 1998 - they don't give me much trouble any more - though things have got worse for everybody else on the new benefits since.

Like I have stated before - to members that would like to misrepresent me - it is not a conspiracy - just a mindset that is more about reducing incapacity claimants and saving money i.e. meeting targets:

Quote from July 2006: The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report. The report shows that, based on current performance, rolling out the Government's Pathways to Work initiative across the whole country might reduce the number of IB claimants by no more than half a million, well short of the intended target.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

Even though they altered the rules to deny many sick people benefits:

Quote: In 1999, New Labour introduced its first Welfare Reform Act. All new claimants had to attend a compulsory work focused interview. Mansel Aylward, now chief medical officer of the DWP, devised a new personal capability assessment (PCA). The emphasis was no longer on entitlement, but on what a person is capable of doing. The task of administrating the PCA was contracted out and is now run by the US corporation Atos Origin. Its computerised evaluation of claims driven by clearance time targets has resulted in significant numbers of rejected claims, particularly for those with mental illness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/17/epluribusunum

Which leads to things like this:

Quote: 'Ludicrous' benefits system declares spinal patient fit for work

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/homenews/Ludicrous-benefits-declares-spinal-patient-fit-work/article-1038047-detail/article.html

I think we all get your point now but I do not see the need to keep quoting the same old stuff again and again especially when it is not relevant to the OPs thread.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

Obviously one of the reasons for these home visits is to check people are really entitled to their benefits, some people say it's to make sure you are receiving everything your entitled to but I don't think that is the main reason.

I myself would like nothing more than to be able to go to work like normal people do, it's certainly not fun being stuck at home all day by yourself feeling depressed & miserable.

The reality of the situation is that I have Asperger's, I was born with Asperger's & I will always have Asperger's as do my 2 son's, my eldest has to attend a special school for boy's with Autistic Spectrum Disorder's.

I am unable to sustain a job, a relationship, I have problems looking after my own children, tbh I feel like a complete failure, it's support we need not judgement.

The benefit system isn't set up for people like me, considered too able for benefits but not able enough to employ, we fall through the gaps & don't really fit in anywhere.

I don't want special treatment, I just want to be listened to by the DWP & for my individual situation to assessed on it's own merit's, I need help & support from someone and id much rather it was from someone I know, ie my current boyfriend.

If the current rules don't cater for everyones needs then the rules need to be changed or at least amended to include all kinds of disabled people not just the one's you can see.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

I think we all get your point now but I do not see the need to keep quoting the same old stuff again and again especially when it is not relevant to the OPs thread.

Heals mate - it is highly relevant - these are *facts* confirming she is justified thinking she could be 'stitched up' with enthusiastic DWP staff trying to meet targets and keep their manager happy

Oldernotwiser

Breast_Cancer_Survivor wrote: »

If the current rules don't cater for everyones needs then the rules need to be changed or at least amended to include all kinds of disabled people not just the one's you can see.

There aren't a great number of invisible disabled people!:D

lil_me

I'd make the appointment with them asap, maybe if you can communicate efficiently with your partner he could be there? He can also answer the questions about him they will possibly ask. If you keep putting it off they may stop your benefits until it is done (I have known it to happen) They don't usually come out for no reason or without some form of evidence. Based on the facts you give them it is up to them to decide if you and your partner are living 'as a couple would' this doesn't always come down to overnight stays, as an example forces employees are classed as living with their partner. The interview is usually recorded if under caution.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Heals mate - it is highly relevant - these are *facts* confirming she is justified thinking she could be 'stitched up' with enthusiastic DWP staff trying to meet targets and keep their manager happy

It is not relevant to the OPs situation. The stuff that you keep posting do not confirm she will be "stitched up" with staff trying to meet targets and keeping their manager happy. They are there to check the situation not to falsify anything. You are paranoid.

dmg24

BCS, whilst Garry_Anderson's intentions may be good, he does have a habit of scaremongering. I would take his posts with a pinch of salt.