Incapacity Benefit Wrongly Stopped - Failed Medical

Oldernotwiser

nogginthenog wrote: »

When every pregnant woman has to fill in a long complicated form, and have a compulsery DWP interview to recieve ANY tax payers money.

To prove she's pregnant or what?

bestpud

nogginthenog wrote: »

When every pregnant woman has to fill in a long complicated form, and have a compulsery DWP interview to recieve ANY tax payers money.
Then i might believe the benefits CRACKDOWN is working on a level playing field ........and not just picking a easy target.

But they have targeted lone parents too - and rightly so imo!

We can't have certain claimant groups left untouched, as all that will happen is those no longer entitled to IS for being a lone parent will move onto ESA!

nogginthenog

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

To prove she's pregnant or what?

WHAT?...DEFFO
How about means testing for starters.

OR maybe just to tell people they will get no benefits after the second child. for example.
or
Just officially to record the family situation,

nogginthenog

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Which is reflected in the figures, surely? An 87% success rate must be called a "vast" percentage?

So why the millions upon millions of £s Witch hunt against a vunerable group of our society.

bestpud

nogginthenog wrote: »

WHAT?...DEFFO
How about means testing for starters.

OR maybe just to tell people they will get no benefits after the second child. for example.
or
Just officially to record the family situation,

And give the benefits to whom?

They do means test, don't they?

Or, are you talking about child benefit?

nogginthenog

bestpud wrote: »

And give the benefits to whom?

They do means test, don't they?

Or, are you talking about child benefit?

Every benefit.........every single benefit, to be vetted the same way and in the same manner as disability/sickness benefits.

bestpud

nogginthenog wrote: »

Every benefit.........every single benefit, to be vetted the same way and in the same manner as disability/sickness benefits.

Well, you can't vet well people in the same way you do those who are ill/have a disability?

We can only means test, and check they aren't a couple when claiming to be single etc, which is what they do...

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely we all want fewer people on benefits?

Ideally, those entitled to benefits should get them - that could mean fewer, or more on benefits. It would be nice to get fewer on benefits, but the point of benefits is to support those that need them. There are many ways the government could do that, but it would involve removing the likes of the investment bankers (freud) from the equation, and getting some people involved who actually understand the system (unlike freud).

You cant realistically set a number and fit claimaints around it (well the government can, and has with its 1 million of IB target) and expect the numbers of people sick or disabled to change (apart from on paper).

All the government can do, is redefine the meaning of sick and disabled, in order that less people qualify for sickness benefits.

It does not make those people any less sick or disabled than they were before the change, just a lot worse off, financially, and often mentally. (Not to mention the cost to the ecomony they always seem to forget to figure into their equations).

strawberry_cupcake_2

the exact same thing that happened to the OP happened to me last year, it took 14 months to get to tribunal, and on the day the judge was biased against me, and although when he intereviewed me I answered enough questions (truthully) which would result in me receiving more points, he conveniently "forgot" to record those answers on his report, hmmmmmm, naughty, naughty, so guess what I failed ......again! Fair justice? Dont insult me, its a stitch up.

Thats it though, I wont reappeal, I haven't got the energy or the constitution for it now, I know when I am (unfairly) beaten. One day, someone WILL blow the whistle on this, and I for one, cant wait.

robpw2

strawberry if you feel the judge was biased you shouldhave applied for judicial review -its not an appeal just means that they would had to look at the case again