'Would you work or claim benefit?' poll discussion

Jomo

GotNo£ wrote: »

So i'm entitled to get something back from the system without people like you whining that you are paying for it.

We all are, but only should if we HAVE to...god help us all if we all decided to get what we've all put in to the system!!

andyandflo

Just a few facts: Couple one aged 60 - Pension Credit £198.00 pw
Council Tax Benefit £ 30.00 pw
Mortgage Interest £110.00 pw
£338.00 pw - £1465 pm
Equivalent to over £25,000 pa gross, when taking work expenses into account.

And they say that being on benefit doesn't pay!!!

earthmother

Er - yes £198+£30+£110 = £338/wk, and £338*52wks = £17576/pa.

But considering that a) mortgage interest is a percentage, not a fixed rate, and b) there aren't that many retired couples still with a mortgage to pay, a more realistic figure is nearer the £12000 mark - or £1000 a month - quite a difference.

By the way - surely at 60 they can't both claim pension/pension credits - my father (62) has been told he can't claim anything, whilst my mother (61) can now claim her pension.

If that's wrong, I (and he) would love to know as he's working all hours in a minimum wage job (due to his trade slowly disappearing overseas), driving himself into the ground, to keep them afloat, and we all worry how he's going to finish these last few years.

mindymoo1

Quote Earthmother:
By the way - surely at 60 they can't both claim pension/pension credits - my father (62) has been told he can't claim anything, whilst my mother (61) can now claim her pension.

At the moment men are unable to claim their pension until a little later in life than women. Equal opportunities are being fazed in and men and women are now to retire at the same age....this age no doubt will be on the increase and I can just see myself, if I'm still alive, being 'allowed' to retire at 90yrs old

amus

[/QUOTE]

cit_k wrote: »

Yes, and the ATOS 'medical' reports tend not to give a stuff about many of the symptoms.



Are you sure your not a troll? A you really saying you work for the DWP, reading ATOS 'medical' reports for people with depression, ergo must be a decision maker?

If you are a decision maker, you must be a very bad one, as you should know that ATOS usually do not use doctors for mental examinations, as the legislation allows them to use bog standard nurses for mental exams. Which is cheaper, a nurse or a doctor, which easier to get hold of?

They are not even real medical reports anyway. They are based on the output of LIMA, and the medical is not about diagnosing a patient, they dont even check the patients medical history, you should know all this, if you dont, you seriously need to start learning more about your job.



And those that dont pass the medical, must be faking it? Despite the fact a high percentage on IB who fail then win at appeal? What about the fact the tribunal service has SLAMMED the quality of the decision making made by DWP decision makers, and the quality of the medical reports?

How come so many get to appeal in the first place, its because decision makers are not doing their job properly, there should NEVER be a situation where a case gets to appeal where the medical report easily discredited as being full of inconsistancies, its people like you whose job it is to stop that from happening, but for well over a decade, cases have been getting to tribunals that should have been stopped at the original decision, and certainly picked up at the reconsideration stage.

A Troll? Sorry Im afraid I dont engage in childish name calling. To be honest I dont really believe your response warrants a reply however I feel people like you who pretend to know everything about anything need to be rebuked. So there are a few things Id like to correct you on. First of all, one should not make assumptions. I am not a decision maker, although my job does involve dealing with the process of medicals from beginning to disallowance to recon to appeal stage, so I do work closely with DM's.

First of all, I am aware that BOTH doctors AND nurses are used to carry out examinations. Either way, they are QUALIFIED disability analysts. It matters not whether you think them 'proper' medicals, whether you like it or not these are what are used to assess a patients ability to work. By the way the legislation also allows nurses to do the physical exams as well.

Secondly, I am perfectly capable of doing my job and do not need to learn anything. You however should brush up on your facts before posting. Yes although the main purpose of the medical is not about diagnosing a patient but assessing their ability to work (so those who do not pass the medical are not necessarily faking it no, but have however been found capable of working). If you had ever read an ATOS medical for ESA purposes you would find two headings (amongst many others). These being 'CONDITION HISTORY' and 'CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS'. ATOS also write to the patients doctor for information about the customers medical history, prescribed medication etc. So pray do tell where you got your information from. If you work for ATOS you really need to learn more about YOUR job.

Thirdly, I dont talk nonsense about things I know nothing about (unlike some) so am unable to comment on IB as the office I work in does not deal with IB. I work on a new(ish) benefit called ESA which has been designed to replace the old, flawed IB system. So you may find as a result far fewer people are winning their appeals (on ESA). This benefit is designed to look at what a person CAN do instead of what they CANT do, therefore just because a person has a disability or illness does not necessarily mean they cannot work.

I cannot comment on other offices but when any inconsistencies are picked up in our office the file is sent back to ATOS for what is called a rework and a patients dr is contacted for further information if required. So I can assure you these are dealt with as far as possible where I work. Fortunately for the taxpayer, this works both ways and where inconsistencies are found on the part of the customer these are also dealt with. I will give a couple of examples. One customer stated in his questionairre he was unable to walk. He arrived for his medical 30 minutes late so was told he could not be seen. On hearing this he proceeded in literally 'kicking in' the walls at the medical centre. Not bad for someone who cannot walk huh?? When people with mental health conditions fail to attend medical exams we must ring them for their reasons why. Often these customers state 'they are unable to leave the house due to fear and anxiety'. Funnily enough though when we ring to get their reasons the response we often get is 'sorry love she's gone to her mates' or 'he's not in he's at the pub'.

So Im sorry if I offend all you do gooders out there when I state that I get frustrated with people fraudulently claiming disability benefits and lying about their condition, but when you do my job and day in day out come across situations such as the examples given above one does become a bit cynical.
And once again for the benefit of people who seem to always miss the point I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE GENUINELY UNABLE TO WORK CLAIMING BENEFIT. Thats who its there for, and maybe if we could get rid of all the scroungers and liars we would be able to pay those who deserve it more money.

And cit_K, perhaps when you have come up with a flawless system for distingushing between the genuine and non genuine claimants you could inform Yvette Cooper?

cit_k

My replies to Amus in bold. Amus original content in normal text

A Troll? Sorry Im afraid I dont engage in childish name calling.

No but you show your complete ignorance on subject to do with mental health, such as

There are so many people at the moment playing the depression card (and they know this is difficult to prove/disprove), guess what, when Im sat at home all day for weeks doing nothing I feel depressed and I dont feel like getting dressed and doing housework - its called getting oneself into a rut of laziness.

To be honest I dont really believe your response warrants a reply however I feel people like you who pretend to know everything about anything need to be rebuked.

Try reading my past posting history before spouting off, and you will see I know a considerable amount about the DWP/ATOS system......

So there are a few things Id like to correct you on. First of all, one should not make assumptions. I am not a decision maker, although my job does involve dealing with the process of medicals from beginning to disallowance to recon to appeal stage, so I do work closely with DM's.

I did state quite clearly that it was an assumption, from the evidence you provided, and you were free as you now are, to correct this, although you have not actually stated what your job title/description is, so its hard to comment fully...


First of all, I am aware that BOTH doctors AND nurses are used to carry out examinations.

So why not state this, instead of giving the false impression, that its doctors who do the exams at all times?

Either way, they are QUALIFIED disability analysts.

You are having a laugh? A 2 or 3 day course, does not qualified make, other than to satisfy the legislation, would you let a doctor treat you after only say 3 days training in the area concerned? 3 days or so, to cover EVERY single ailment/injury known to mankind?


It matters not whether you think them 'proper' medicals, whether you like it or not these are what are used to assess a patients ability to work. By the way the legislation also allows nurses to do the physical exams as well.

They are not proper medicals, thats accepted by everyone apart from you it seems.

Secondly, I am perfectly capable of doing my job and do not need to learn anything.

Strange attitude, how do you keep up to date with legislation changes, amendments, etc?
You however should brush up on your facts before posting.

I have considerably more experience of the system than many, certainly a lot more than the Mr Freud who wrote the welfare reforms, who did not even know that people on incapacity were subjected to ATOS assessments.

Yes although the main purpose of the medical is not about diagnosing a patient but assessing their ability to work (so those who do not pass the medical are not necessarily faking it no, but have however been found capable of working). If you had ever read an ATOS medical for ESA purposes you would find two headings (amongst many others). These being 'CONDITION HISTORY' and 'CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS'. ATOS also write to the patients doctor for information about the customers medical history, prescribed medication etc. So pray do tell where you got your information from. If you work for ATOS you really need to learn more about YOUR job.

I dont work for ATOS, Im not unethical, nor do I have a desire to sell my soul to a company like that....
My experience is on the sharp end, experiencing the failings of the system first hand.

You cant have done much research into the subject if you really believe medical reports from doctors etc are given much weight, that only happens in DLA claims, with IB/ESA the ATOS report outweighs all other forms of evidence.

If they write to your doctor at all times, why do you have to bring your medication with you to the examination, and why do they ask you about what you take? And ask for a brief overview of your medical history? Its becasue usually, they dont bother obtaining any evidence, unless the DWP supplies it to them, they wont go out of their way usually to get any.

Thirdly, I dont talk nonsense about things I know nothing about (unlike some) so am unable to comment on IB as the office I work in does not deal with IB. I work on a new(ish) benefit called ESA which has been designed to replace the old, flawed IB system. So you may find as a result far fewer people are winning their appeals (on ESA). This benefit is designed to look at what a person CAN do instead of what they CANT do, therefore just because a person has a disability or illness does not necessarily mean they cannot work.

So by that statement, you are simply showing you are repeating the media/DWP stance parrot fashion, and have no actual understanding of how the assessments are carried out? They use the same software LIMA for IB/ESA medicals, the procedures are the same, its always been about what you CAN do, despite legislation saying under IB its what you cannot do.....

Have you ever attended assessments to see them first hand?
Have you ever read the government reports that lists the flaws in the system?
Have you read the evidence from the president of the tribunal service slamming the quality of the assessments/reports and decision making process?
Have you read any evidence other than the daily mail, DWP propaganda?



I cannot comment on other offices but when any inconsistencies are picked up in our office the file is sent back to ATOS for what is called a rework and a patients dr is contacted for further information if required. So I can assure you these are dealt with as far as possible where I work.

So you dont get people going to appeal, and winning because the report is so full of holes a child could see through it? How come no one has yet noticed this miracle department where you work, which is completely out of the norm compared to other areas? It would stand out a mile on statistics, and in reports, they dont say the quality is lousy, apart from in this one office, which is perfect do they???


Fortunately for the taxpayer, this works both ways and where inconsistencies are found on the part of the customer these are also dealt with. I will give a couple of examples. One customer stated in his questionairre he was unable to walk. He arrived for his medical 30 minutes late so was told he could not be seen. On hearing this he proceeded in literally 'kicking in' the walls at the medical centre. Not bad for someone who cannot walk huh?? When people with mental health conditions fail to attend medical exams we must ring them for their reasons why. Often these customers state 'they are unable to leave the house due to fear and anxiety'. Funnily enough though when we ring to get their reasons the response we often get is 'sorry love she's gone to her mates' or 'he's not in he's at the pub'.

That can happen, people dont have to sit indoors all day you know, although ATOS like them to... I would treat any report about the behaviour of a claimaint as suspect if it came from a medical centre, they are notorious liars...

So Im sorry if I offend all you do gooders out there when I state that I get frustrated with people fraudulently claiming disability benefits and lying about their condition, but when you do my job and day in day out come across situations such as the examples given above one does become a bit cynical.

The less than 0.5 percent of fakers you mean?

And once again for the benefit of people who seem to always miss the point I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE GENUINELY UNABLE TO WORK CLAIMING BENEFIT. Thats who its there for, and maybe if we could get rid of all the scroungers and liars we would be able to pay those who deserve it more money.

You do, you dont understand how the system operates, nor do you understand mental health conditions, therefore you demonstrate the inability to properly differentiate between genuine and non genuine claimaints.


And cit_K, perhaps when you have come up with a flawless system for distingushing between the genuine and non genuine claimants you could inform Yvette Cooper?

She does not answer to emails, like many, including a certain lord who closed his email account during the welfare reforms so people could not put evidence forward.

If you read my past posts, you would clearly see that I have outlined several times ways to drastically improve the situation.

andyandflo

earthmother wrote: »

Er - yes £198+£30+£110 = £338/wk, and £338*52wks = £17576/pa.

But considering that a) mortgage interest is a percentage, not a fixed rate, and b) there aren't that many retired couples still with a mortgage to pay, a more realistic figure is nearer the £12000 mark - or £1000 a month - quite a difference.

By the way - surely at 60 they can't both claim pension/pension credits - my father (62) has been told he can't claim anything, whilst my mother (61) can now claim her pension.

If that's wrong, I (and he) would love to know as he's working all hours in a minimum wage job (due to his trade slowly disappearing overseas), driving himself into the ground, to keep them afloat, and we all worry how he's going to finish these last few years.

Hi, first point, you would be surprised how many of us over 60's still have a mortgage or have taken one out just before 60. My wife is 65 and I am 60 - both retired and she receives the Old Age Pension. Yes the female retirement age goes up slowly until it matches that of the male - 65, but that is years off!
We have a £100,000 mortgage - interest only. Anyone over 60 can claim Pension Credit even if they are receiving the Old Age Pension! Currently a couple where one is over 61, the minimum income from all sources that they should have is £198.45 + housing costs limited to a £100,000 mortgage debt. They will pay the interest only (so having a repayment mortgage is out of the question), currently I think at a rate set by the Government of around 6%. Our interest rate has been fixed at 4% so not only is the whole of the interest covered but the excess (6% -4%) is in fact reducing the debt.
At 60 I gave up my job due to illness (£25,000 pa) to claim benefits.
We moved to our new property a couple of years ago, knowing that the mortgage would be paid for us.
So yes with some carefull planning, we actually receive £198.45 each week, no council tax to pay and our mortgage is paid. We can live quite comfortably on £198.45 pw especially with all of the other add on benefits, free travel, discounted energy bills etc.
I am not the only one - and any CAB/Age Concern office would work it out for you, calculating for you 'the better off system'. For me I am just about the same as working, but with all of the free time available and no stress. Not to forget, only now needing to run just one car instead of two.
Everybody who is approaching 60 should be looking at the options open to them even to moving home to that 'dream, property! For those that moan about not having this and not having that, they should go out and seek advice, then plan your actions accordingly using the law to your best benefit. MP's do it - so why not the rest of us!!!

amus

No but you show your complete ignorance on subject to do with mental health

You call it ignorance I call it my own OPINION which I am entitled to.

Try reading my past posting history before spouting off, and you will see I know a considerable amount about the DWP/ATOS system......

Just because you know about DWP/ATOS from a customer point of view does not mean you know from an employee point of view. I dont profess to know of it from a customer point of view.

I did state quite clearly that it was an assumption, from the evidence you provided, and you were free as you now are, to correct this, although you have not actually stated what your job title/description is, so its hard to comment fully...

I do not need nor wish to tell you what my job role is, its irrelevant. I did quite clearly state one shouldnt make assumptions.

"First of all, I am aware that BOTH doctors AND nurses are used to carry out examinations."

So why not state this, instead of giving the false impression, that its doctors who do the exams at all times?

I did not give the impression that Doctors do this all the time. If you read my original post you will see I was not giving a comprehensive lesson on the proceedures of ATOS, I was simply replying to the poster who suggested I get all of my knowledge from the daily mail (which funilly enough you also suggest. I dont read the Daily Mail - tell me why is it when people like you come across others with opinions you dont like you assume they're extracted from this newspaper - as if people who have opinions which differ from your own are unable to think for themselves). Again, the fact is that doctors do carry out the medical assessments as well as nurses so the original statement that I have read hundreds of reports compiled by qualified doctors remains true.

Either way, they are QUALIFIED disability analysts.

You are having a laugh? A 2 or 3 day course, does not qualified make, other than to satisfy the legislation, would you let a doctor treat you after only say 3 days training in the area concerned? 3 days or so, to cover EVERY single ailment/injury known to mankind?

As stated it is irrelevant what you think. Is it a fact they have had 2 or 3 days training or is that your opinion, like most of the other things you say about ATOS? The Doctors have still been trained as doctors and the nurses as nurses (which I believe is a 4 and 3 year degree respectively). You make out as if they have only had 3 days training in their enitre career.

It matters not whether you think them 'proper' medicals, whether you like it or not these are what are used to assess a patients ability to work. By the way the legislation also allows nurses to do the physical exams as well.

They are not proper medicals, thats accepted by everyone apart from you it seems.

Hmm well I am extremely flattered that on just my opinion the DWP have decided to use them on which to base peoples entitlement to benefit!

Secondly, I am perfectly capable of doing my job and do not need to learn anything.

Strange attitude, how do you keep up to date with legislation changes, amendments, etc?

Theres a difference between learning and keeping up to date.


I have considerably more experience of the system than many, certainly a lot more than the Mr Freud who wrote the welfare reforms, who did not even know that people on incapacity were subjected to ATOS assessments.

I dont work for ATOS, Im not unethical, nor do I have a desire to sell my soul to a company like that....
My experience is on the sharp end, experiencing the failings of the system first hand.

You cant have done much research into the subject if you really believe medical reports from doctors etc are given much weight, that only happens in DLA claims, with IB/ESA the ATOS report outweighs all other forms of evidence.

If they write to your doctor at all times, why do you have to bring your medication with you to the examination, and why do they ask you about what you take? And ask for a brief overview of your medical history? Its becasue usually, they dont bother obtaining any evidence, unless the DWP supplies it to them, they wont go out of their way usually to get any.

I dont work for ATOS either. I dont need to do research into the subject I see it first hand. Patients own Doctors evidence is taken into consideration. FACT: ATOS write to every customers Dr, whether or not the cust dr replies is a different matter. How is that their fault? Their job is not to chase up dr's who dont reply.

So by that statement, you are simply showing you are repeating the media/DWP stance parrot fashion, and have no actual understanding of how the assessments are carried out? They use the same software LIMA for IB/ESA medicals, the procedures are the same, its always been about what you CAN do, despite legislation saying under IB its what you cannot do.....

Your point is what exactly? Seeing that I have read hundreds of the reports I would say I have an idea of how the assessments are carried out - but as Ive said I dont work for ATOS and I dont look at IB cases. What the legislation says is important - perhaps thats why not so many are winning their ESA appeals?

Have you ever attended assessments to see them first hand?
Have you ever read the government reports that lists the flaws in the system?
Have you read the evidence from the president of the tribunal service slamming the quality of the assessments/reports and decision making process?
Have you read any evidence other than the daily mail, DWP propaganda?

No I have never attended them but I dont see how that has anything to do with my opinion that a significant amount of people who can work are choosing not to by using the safety net of the disability benefits system. Unfortunately its not my job to make changes to the system. Perhaps you are confusing me with a Government Minister? Refer to my previous comments regarding the Daily Mail. I actually formulate my opinions based on my own experiences and the situation I am in, as Im sure everybody else does (hence your opinion of ATOS), which is why there are so many opinions out there. I simply respect that some peoples may differ from my own, without trying to suggest they must have been imposed upon them by a newspaper.

So you dont get people going to appeal, and winning because the report is so full of holes a child could see through it? How come no one has yet noticed this miracle department where you work, which is completely out of the norm compared to other areas? It would stand out a mile on statistics, and in reports, they dont say the quality is lousy, apart from in this one office, which is perfect do they???

Sorry I wasnt aware I said I worked in a perfect office where nobody appeals. There you go making assumptions again. Believe it or not the DM'S have guidelines to adhere to and must provide justification for their decisions in accordance with these guidelines. So I am afraid if customers fail to provide sufficient evidence from their own dr or ATOS send the file back stating the original assessment still stands there is not much they can do except send the case to appeals. DM'S cant just say 'oh he seems like a nice guy, Il put him in the support group' or 'Im not feeling so good today, his Dr has sent in a note confirming he is housebound and ATOS have changed their decision, but I dont feel like it so Im not going to change the decision'. EXAMPLES of why guidelines are required.


Fortunately for the taxpayer, this works both ways and where inconsistencies are found on the part of the customer these are also dealt with. I will give a couple of examples. One customer stated in his questionairre he was unable to walk. He arrived for his medical 30 minutes late so was told he could not be seen. On hearing this he proceeded in literally 'kicking in' the walls at the medical centre. Not bad for someone who cannot walk huh?? When people with mental health conditions fail to attend medical exams we must ring them for their reasons why. Often these customers state 'they are unable to leave the house due to fear and anxiety'. Funnily enough though when we ring to get their reasons the response we often get is 'sorry love she's gone to her mates' or 'he's not in he's at the pub'.

That can happen, people dont have to sit indoors all day you know, although ATOS like them to... I would treat any report about the behaviour of a claimaint as suspect if it came from a medical centre, they are notorious liars...

Sorry I think you misunderstood. These are questionairres filled in by the customers themselves and sent to us, they havnt come from a medical centre. Funnily enough if a customer is claiming benefit on the basis of not being able to leave the house due to anxiety (as written by themselves) then one would expect that they WOULD have to sit indoors all day. The information about the behaviour of a claimant comes from their relatives/partners/housemates over the phone - not the medical centre.

So Im sorry if I offend all you do gooders out there when I state that I get frustrated with people fraudulently claiming disability benefits and lying about their condition, but when you do my job and day in day out come across situations such as the examples given above one does become a bit cynical.

The less than 0.5 percent of fakers you mean?

You should be careful with statistics they are often unreliable and do not give an accurate picture, and can be manipulated. There is a famous saying "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In my personal experience dealing with cases first hand day in day out I would say there are a lot more than 0.5%. Even if it was only 0.5%, thats one in 200, and with the amount of people claiming IB and ESA thats a lot of taxpayers money.

And once again for the benefit of people who seem to always miss the point I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE GENUINELY UNABLE TO WORK CLAIMING BENEFIT. Thats who its there for, and maybe if we could get rid of all the scroungers and liars we would be able to pay those who deserve it more money.

You do, you dont understand how the system operates, nor do you understand mental health conditions, therefore you demonstrate the inability to properly differentiate between genuine and non genuine claimaints.

Sorry could you please tell me how I have a problem with genuine claimants claiming benefit. I understand exactly how the system operates otherwise I wouldnt be in my job. I never professed to understand MH conditions I have never claimed to be a Dr. I simply have my own opinions formulated from my own experiences. Which is why I can say there are some people with MH conditions who genuinely cannot work and I have seen such cases through to them being placed in the support group. On the other hand I believe there are many who can. I also believe there are many with physical disabilities that can work - not least the claimants who claim for things like a broken toe which was broken 6 months ago. I guess some people just have more of a work ethic than others,as demonstrated by posts on here.

And cit_K, perhaps when you have come up with a flawless system for distingushing between the genuine and non genuine claimants you could inform Yvette Cooper?

She does not answer to emails, like many, including a certain lord who closed his email account during the welfare reforms so people could not put evidence forward.

Oh well, there will probably be a new Govenment soon so perhaps someone there will answer them and think that your suggestions are so good they will change the system. Problem is, your suggestions would probably leave the Country in even more debt than its already in so maybe not (oops, did I just make an assumption....)

cit_k

amus wrote: »

No but you show your complete ignorance on subject to do with mental health

You call it ignorance I call it my own OPINION which I am entitled to.

Technically, you are not always allowed an opinion, not if you work for the DWP, and you make that clear, which you do... You have read the civil service code surely?

You know, the one, that says you must

use resources only for the authorised public purposes for
which they are provided.

So releasing any details of things you come across in your job, which are confidential, is not allowed. You know you cant therefore provide proof for anything you say relating to benefit fraudsters, and you know its a hot political issue, which is also something civil servants are not allowed to get involved in, political issues....


Or what about

objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on
rigorous analysis of the evidence; and

and yet you clearly stated you do not examine all the evidence..

I dont need to do research into the subject I see it first hand

As stated it is irrelevant what you think. Is it a fact they have had 2 or 3 days training or is that your opinion, like most of the other things you say about ATOS? The Doctors have still been trained as doctors and the nurses as nurses (which I believe is a 4 and 3 year degree respectively). You make out as if they have only had 3 days training in their enitre career.

Its a fact... If you are going to state they are qualified because they are qualified disability analyists, then the only important point is the length of that disability traninig, which is short. Last time I checked, which was a a few year ago, but no sign of the training requirements ever been toughened, or legislative changes in that area, so it should still be the same, it was 2 days.... and a multiple choice examination, with 5 assessments monitored.. And a list of stuff to read before the multi choice exam... Thats according to ATOS's own guidance for EMPs.

The traning they have had (outside of disability training) is not relavent, as a nurse, or even a occupational therapist can perform an examination, neither of which (and I would also include many GP's) are specialists in the areas most examinations require.

I dont work for ATOS either. I dont need to do research into the subject I see it first hand. Patients own Doctors evidence is taken into consideration. FACT: ATOS write to every customers Dr, whether or not the cust dr replies is a different matter. How is that their fault? Their job is not to chase up dr's who dont reply.

I think you are missing the point, assuming they even do bother to obtain the evidence, as I have already stated, it is not given the correct weight, an ATOS report is given more weight as evidence than any customers GP report, or even reports from specialists (the exception is for DLA, in which case the situation is reversed).

If they do require evidence, then it IS their job to chase it up, as they are NOT acting in the best interests of the patient if they proceed to give evidence to the DWP without being in receipt of all relavent evidence. But, medical ethics are not something ATOS seem to worry about in my opinion.

Your point is what exactly? Seeing that I have read hundreds of the reports I would say I have an idea of how the assessments are carried out - but as Ive said I dont work for ATOS and I dont look at IB cases. What the legislation says is important - perhaps thats why not so many are winning their ESA appeals?

Reading a report is not the same as witnessing the assessment.

I have proof that the examiners lie, and miss out evidence, its very common, many people experience it, I myself have experienced it several times, hence why I always covertly record the assessments now, and have the proof.
Just because a report says one thing, does not mean that was the situation at the assessment....

That will do for now, other things to do, but may answer other points later.

ipod_killed_the_musicshop

I would stick on benefit and keep searching. Anyone ever worked at Capita? If you want another job, without having to quit 1st, you can forget it. Got a job interview? Sorry mate, there's 2 people on holiday that day, you can't have it. So you'll throw sickies? Good luck with that. More than 2 sickies in a year and you're on absence management. Think you'll get another job with only 2 interviews a year? Good luck, you'll need it...