I/B stopped.............help

Garry_Anderson

atomicsheep wrote: »

rom house of commons hansard : Bridget Prentice: The overall success rate at incapacity benefit appeal hearings was:

• 45.09 per cent. from April 2007 to March 2008;

• 43.44 per cent. from April 2008 to October 2008.

Where the appellant had representation, the success rate was:

• 58.37 per cent. from April 2007 to March 2008;

• 57.58 per cent. from April 2008 to October 2008.

Prior to April 2007, this information was not recorded.

Presumably they mean the breakdown of those with representation.

So - the overall figure for success has not changed much - in the mid 40's - Healy was wrong - what a surprise

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Presumably they mean the breakdown of those with representation.

So - the overall figure for success has not changed much - in the mid 40's - Healy was wrong - what a surprise

The success rate with representation is nearly 60% so I was not wrong.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

This affects the income of sick people - it is important information that they should be told.

I am sure certain people here do not want to hear how the system is corrupt - but those on the recieving end need to know they will not get a fair hearing and no allowances will be made for their poor health.

Where are the figures published about pass rates - the last ones I got were getting worse for claimants:

Medical tests for year : Sick people going for tests disallowed benefit : Percentage
1996 : 103,087 : 15
1997 : 205,748 : 20
1998 : 217,557 : 22
Source: Hansard 12 November 98, Col: 295

When this is appealed against to Independent Tribunal Service.

ITS Year : Sick people going for appeal disallowed benefit : Percentage
1996 : 20,448 : 53
1997 : 29,443 : 57
1998 : 28,670 : 60
Source: Hansard 25 March 1999, Col: 391

You keep saying the same things, I think you have made your point already.

People do get a fair hearing at tribunals.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

The success rate with representation is nearly 60% so I was not wrong.

That is New Labour propaganda and spin - again no surprise - the actual overall figure is:

• 45.09 per cent. from April 2007 to March 2008;

• 43.44 per cent. from April 2008 to October 2008.

BTW: People do NOT get a fair hearing at tribunals - I have been and know the truth.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

That is New Labour propaganda and spin - again no surprise - the actual overall figure is:

• 45.09 per cent. from April 2007 to March 2008;

• 43.44 per cent. from April 2008 to October 2008.

BTW: People do NOT get a fair hearing at tribunals - I have been and know the truth.

Ok on the figures quoted 43.44 to 57.58% are successful at appeal, I said 50-60% which was an approx. figure, I cannot see a large difference.

The vast majority of people DO get a fair hearing at tribunals, I know this for a fact, you are just one person that does not represent the whole Country.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

Ok on the figures quoted 43.44 to 57.58% are successful at appeal, I said 50-60% which was an approx. figure, I cannot see a large difference.

The vast majority of people DO get a fair hearing at tribunals, I know this for a fact, you are just one person that does not represent the whole Country.

Nope - that is more spin - you were wrong and I was right - most fail.

Some examples why the Tribunal is not fair and why my case is representative of why claimants fail.

1. The burden of proof was on me - when the rules (03027.2) state once benefit has been awarded the burden then shifts to the Adjudication Officer (AO).

2. The AO role was called amicus curiae (friend of the court 05328) - yet the AO sent court misrepresented evidence - more a prosecutor than impartial advocate.

3. I was not given answers to questions needed to defend myself - before or during the case.

4. Nobody from DWP/BA turned up - so the ITS chairman put forward the oppositions case.

Is it really his job - he was presenting their flawed evidence, also making excuses for this by talking about a lack of resources in the DWP/BA.

A cosy relationship, it must be very helpful to them - perhaps they were keen to keep contract.

This a new definition to the meaning Independent - and I thought it meant autonomous, unfettered, or separate.

Am I wrong to expect this, especially when they call me a fraud or a cheat?

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Nope - that is more spin - you were wrong and I was right - most fail.

Some examples why the Tribunal is not fair and why my case is representative of why claimants fail.

1. The burden of proof was on me - when the rules (03027.2) state once benefit has been awarded the burden then shifts to the Adjudication Officer (AO).

2. The AO role was called amicus curiae (friend of the court 05328) - yet the AO sent court misrepresented evidence - more a prosecutor than impartial advocate.

3. I was not given answers to questions needed to defend myself - before or during the case.

4. Nobody from DWP/BA turned up - so the ITS chairman put forward the oppositions case.

Is it really his job - he was presenting their flawed evidence, also making excuses for this by talking about a lack of resources in the DWP/BA.

A cosy relationship, it must be very helpful to them - perhaps they were keen to keep contract.

This a new definition to the meaning Independent - and I thought it meant autonomous, unfettered, or separate.

Am I wrong to expect this, especially when they call me a fraud or a cheat?

If you want to pedantic about, based on those figures slightly less than half fail overall but more than half pass with a rep. So you are still not correct because most to implies a large figure not a small figure. These figures relate to IB, the success rate with DLA is higher.

As I said the majority of people DO have a FAIR hearing at a tribunal. Your case is not the experience of the vast majority. You are just one person and that cannot give a clear picture when many thousands of appeals are heard each year.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

If you want to pedantic about, based on those figures slightly less than half fail overall but more than half pass with a rep. So you are still not correct because most to implies a large figure not a small figure. These figures relate to IB, the success rate with DLA is higher.

As I said the majority of people DO have a FAIR hearing at a tribunal. Your case is not the experience of the vast majority. You are just one person and that cannot give a clear picture when many thousands of appeals are heard each year.

More spin from you - latest figures show an average 44.265 pass and 55.735 fail i.e. claimants are around 25% more likely to fail.

My experience *proves* that there are actual *systemic faults* with the tribunal process - why do you pretend that you don't understand?

dmg24

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

No - just the late 90's - that is why I asked - they don't seem to like publishing it unless forced to - for some reason

So why not request this information under the FOI Act, rather than spouting the same old rant everytime?

Garry_Anderson

dmg24 wrote: »

So why not request this information under the FOI Act, rather than spouting the same old rant everytime?

This sort of information should be published as a matter of course on their website.

BTW: Rants aren't objective, well-reasoned and coherent - you clearly missed some lessons at school