Calling all ESA Appeals Experts! Failed medical

healy

NASA wrote: »

The guy quotes himself in his signature - its not exactly the sign of someone with modest impressions of himself - you should know by now that what Gary says is FACT!!!:p

He is deluded, as you say what he says is FACT and what everyone else says WRONG! I think most people can see who is correct here.

nogginthenog

Although their is no tangible,concrete proof pertaining to ESA medicals and appeals and wrongdoing, due to the newness of the system.
Benefit rights advisors are seeing disturbing patterns appear, and are keeping a eye on things.
Only time and evidence will tell.

NASA_2

nogginthenog wrote: »

Although their is no tangible,concrete proof pertaining to ESA medicals and appeals and wrongdoing, due to the newness of the system.
Benefit rights advisors are seeing disturbing patterns appear, and are keeping a eye on things.
Only time and evidence will tell.

Such groups/organisations/individuals usually have a vested interest so their 'findings' should not be accepted as fact either.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

He is deluded, as you say what he says is FACT and what everyone else says WRONG! I think most people can see who is correct here.

Yep - you wrote, "Contracts are usually given to the cheapest bidder, nothing to do with targets" - and you are clearly wrong.

Quote; "In awarding contracts, there are two options: lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender. The latter is equivalent to the Government’s value for money objective and should be the option chosen."

So - contracts ARE NOT awarded to the "cheapest bidder" - but those giving value for money are chosen i.e. those firms that help reach economical objectives e.g. reaching target cuts.

Garry_Anderson

nogginthenog wrote: »

Although their is no tangible,concrete proof pertaining to ESA medicals and appeals and wrongdoing, due to the newness of the system.
Benefit rights advisors are seeing disturbing patterns appear, and are keeping a eye on things.
Only time and evidence will tell.

Nog - we have seen enough examples - just on this forum - to know there is something seriously wrong with so-called 'medical' testing e.g. nil points suddenly becoming over 15 to qualify for benefits i.e. sick people are being defrauded of legal right to entitlements.

These are not objective tests.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Yep - you wrote, "Contracts are usually given to the cheapest bidder, nothing to do with targets" - and you are clearly wrong.

Quote; "In awarding contracts, there are two options: lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender. The latter is equivalent to the Government’s value for money objective and should be the option chosen."

So - contracts ARE NOT awarded to the "cheapest bidder" - but those giving value for money are chosen i.e. those firms that help reach economical objectives e.g. reaching target cuts.

I am not wrong and you repeating things will not change that.

Contracts are awarded to the cheepest bidder, ask anyone who works for the Civil Service.

The quote you have given mentions nothing about cutting benefits therefore as ever you have no proof.

alwaysonthego_2

healy wrote: »

cheepest bidder.

Cheep cheep (the birdy song) da da da der der da!

(sorry Mr H, love you really).


GA is the same old,same old!!

healy

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Cheep cheep (the birdy song) da da da der der da!

(sorry Mr H, love you really).


GA is the same old,same old!!

Yes I know, I kept thinking that does not look right, but the penny did not drop!

I think it is old age or GA syndrome!

alwaysonthego_2

healy wrote: »

Yes I know, I kept thinking that does not look right, but the penny did not drop!

I think it is old age or GA syndrome!

Nice one the GA syndrone, like it.

Mr H you are not too old, remember you still have your own teeth!

healy

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Nice one the GA syndrone, like it.

Mr H you are not too old, remember you still have your own teeth!

I think you intended to say syndrome!

Na na na na!