Incapacity Benefit Wrongly Stopped - Failed Medical

alwayshavingago

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

alwayshavingago

are they the only places that do the medicals?? cos i dont see myself being able to travel to any on my own

They are not the place you go for a medical - that will be in a near by town closer to you. They are the regional Admin centres ie who you deal with for a complaint the last one is the customer services base.

System

alwayshavingago wrote: »

They are not the place you go for a medical - that will be in a near by town closer to you. They are the regional Admin centres ie who you deal with for a complaint the last one is the customer services base.

Ahh right thanks. got a bit confused there! sorry

healy

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

alwayshavingago

are they the only places that do the medicals?? cos i dont see myself being able to travel to any on my own

No they are the regional offices, there are many other examination centres in the different towns and cities throughout the Country.

alwayshavingago

cit_k wrote: »

1 in 5 is high - can you imagine if 1 in 5 people were wrongly convicted?

or 1 in 5 people were given the wrong medicines?

or 1 in 5 people were falsely given speeding tickets?

or 1 in 5 people were fired from their workplace for false allegations?

Did you make a complaint in your case?
Are you going to make a complaint?

cit_k

I have complained via a mp before, and he passed on the complaint to dwp/atos, atos investigated and asked the examiner if what I said happened actually did happen. Obviously the examiner said no, and ATOS took the word of the examiner over the claimaint.

Not complained about the others (never had the strength left after an appeal) but may do so after my next appeal (and include details of previous ones).

edit - I have told the dwp of my concerns, about atos and the fact the same thing always happens, but the response is just, you have to undergo the medical. Nothing is ever done about it, the situation is always the same. Although, having two tape recordings of seperate medicals should prove interesting, especially if the examiners deny any wrong doing at all, then I produce the recordings....

healy

cit_k wrote: »

How can they have been fair and correct?

Its 58 percent of people than *win* their case at tribunal - ie they went to tribunal claiming they were turned down for IB unfairly - then the tribunal agreed and reversed the DWP decision and granted them IB.

The decision was therefore originally unfair and incorrect, as benefits were incorrectly stopped, until the tribunal where 58 percent of claimaints (who take a representative) win their case.

You said : They were unfair and incorrect for several months till they were proved fair and correct by the tribunal.

I thought that you were talking about those that failed the medical and then failed at the tribunal.

58% is the success rate with a rep, the overall success rate is less than 50%, nearer 45%.

healy

cit_k wrote: »

1 in 5 is high - can you imagine if 1 in 5 people were wrongly convicted?

or 1 in 5 people were given the wrong medicines?

or 1 in 5 people were falsely given speeding tickets?

or 1 in 5 people were fired from their workplace for false allegations?

I dont agree, it is a different subject.

healy

strawberry_cupcake wrote: »

Can I just ask something? Healy, why do you think you are qualified to comment on what happened during my tribunal? You weren't there, how comes you know so much? Also, I was in receipt of IB for a long term condition spanning 5 years, and always received enough points at previous medicals, so they change the questions, does that mean my condition has changed? erm no.

I have not made any comment on your tribunal.

Are mixing me up with another poster?

cit_k

healy wrote: »

I dont agree, it is a different subject.

How is it different?

A medical assessment is a form of trial, it is the secretary of state/dwp vs the claimaint, with the onus of proof on the dwp to prove the claimaint fit for work.

If 1 in 5 are getting an unfair assessment (trial) how is that any different than any other situation, such as a magistrates trial or a employment hearing? All of them have appeals, all of them affect the person in some way if they are found guilty/not guilty.

What would be an unnaceptable level to you then? If 1 person out of every five is acceptable, what would be a high level that would cause concern?

And why is 1 in 5 not a concern when it is a 'benefit' claimaint, yet it seems like it would be if it was not a benefit claimaint, 1 in 5 people getting fired would be a concern for example, but not 1 in 5 losing benefits? Why is that?

healy

cit_k wrote: »

How is it different?

A medical assessment is a form of trial, it is the secretary of state/dwp vs the claimaint, with the onus of proof on the dwp to prove the claimaint fit for work.

If 1 in 5 are getting an unfair assessment (trial) how is that any different than any other situation, such as a magistrates trial or a employment hearing? All of them have appeals, all of them affect the person in some way if they are found guilty/not guilty.

What would be an unnaceptable level to you then? If 1 person out of every five is acceptable, what would be a high level that would cause concern?

And why is 1 in 5 not a concern when it is a 'benefit' claimaint, yet it seems like it would be if it was not a benefit claimaint, 1 in 5 people getting fired would be a concern for example, but not 1 in 5 losing benefits? Why is that?

I did not say it was acceptable.

I have said what I want to say in my previous posts and only responded because you picked up on my correct post. I am not looking for a longwinded discussion.

You do not seem to understand that this is not a discussion board and you seem intent on turning it into one.