Thousands will lose benefits as harsher medical approved

cit_k

nogginthenog wrote: »

The Right of appeal is at pressent is a kop out, a default setting if you like, and is being used and abused by people who know they at present have no culpability.
I see no reason why a claimant should not have the basic right, to see that the protacols at first contact are done fairly and in the first instance see that any imput to the software is correct
When i claimed DLA the doctor went through everythnig at the end of the medical, and said to my wife,is that about right and have you anything else to add.
When you go into hospital the medical staff go through your details and symptoms several times even in the early days.

The right to appeal also does not address the core problem..

Imagine a scenario whereby someone was up in front of a court every year for a offence they did not commit, and every year, despite all the evidence proving them innocent, they were found guilty.

Imagine, each time, they had to appeal...

Now, in a case like that, alarm bells would be ringing, and people would be looking into why the evidence was ignored, and putting into practice methods to stop it re-occuring.

but with the ATOS system, that never happens, the appeal just takes a fresh look at all the evidence, but does not ever investigate WHY the system failed in the first place.

They just get sent through the process again the next year.


Its also a very costly process, as lawyers and doctors (not to mention clerkes, administration, premises etc) do not come cheap for tribunals.

cit_k

come to think of it, the tribunal would be snookered if they tried, as even they would not be allowed proper access to LIMA software.

Justice is denied again.

Imagine going to court, and the judge asking to examine the means by with crucial evidence was gathered, stored and examined to show if guilty or not.

What would people say if even the judge was told sorry you cant examine that, its secret and could cost us money if we told you. You will just have to trust us that the process is accurate.

It would just not happen, and if it ever did, the evidence would just be thrown straight out of court.

Yet it happens with ATOS/DWP and LIMA.

WhiteHorse

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Oh for pity's sake leave the MPs and the bankers out of it; those are completely separate issues!

I think that what the other poster is highlighting is the obvious double standard. One rule for us, one rule for them. It is a fair comment.

seven-day-weekend

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I think that what the other poster is highlighting is the obvious double standard. One rule for us, one rule for them. It is a fair comment.

I do not see how the issues of bankers' bonuses and MP's expenses illustrates the point 'One rule for us, one rule for them. ', nor how it is relevant to ESA/IB medicals.

Does anyone have any figures on a) how many people are turned down after the medical and b) how many of those who appeal, succeed?

WhiteHorse

seven-day-weekend wrote:

I do not see how the issues of bankers' bonuses and MP's expenses illustrates the point 'One rule for us, one rule for them. ', nor how it is relevant to ESA/IB medicals.

The standard of proof required differs.

You, the little person will be put through the wringer. They, on the other hand, may dip into the pot whenever they choose.

seven-day-weekend

WhiteHorse wrote: »

The standard of proof required differs.

You, the little person will be put through the wringer. They, on the other hand, may dip into the pot whenever they choose.

IIRC, many MPs have had to pay back expenses and three are being prosecuted. I agree what they did was dishonest, but still don't see it as relevant to the discussion, we will have to agree to differ on that.

I also don't consider having to have a medical as being 'put through the wringer', I think it is necessary for the DWP to check that you still fit the criteria for the Benefit.

How else do you suggest they do it ? (and not everyone has to have a medical).

WhiteHorse

Now, here's a general question.

I went for an 'assessment' with Shaw Trust. It was not a medical, nor was it conducted by anyone with any sort of medical qualifications whatsoever.

During the course of the interview, the 'advisor' stated that disabled people were 'scum', 'layabouts', 'parasites', and 'people who just wanted to get something for nothing'. He also said several times that it was his 'mission' to ''give them a good hammering'.

I informed the DWP, but was told that it was not their problem as it was an 'outside contractor' (see previous mentions of this topic in this thread).

What worth now checks, balances, appeals and safeguards?

Indie_Kid

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm afraid that I also agree with cutting down the numbers of people claiming these benefits as I do not believe that this country has the numbers of people who cannot work as the current figures suggest.

I agree; but by doing this, you risk throwing genuine people off benefits into work - this is pretty much why I won't claim ESA when I go back home. I know I can't work (I am very unstable and unpredictable atm) but know that I will be found for work.

Oldernotwiser

sh1305 wrote: »

I agree; but by doing this, you risk throwing genuine people off benefits into work - this is pretty much why I won't claim ESA when I go back home. I know I can't work (I am very unstable and unpredictable atm) but know that I will be found for work.

You might risk having genuine claimants move from disability benefits to unemployment benefits but I thought that people stayed on ESA whilst waiting for an appeal to be heard?

Oldernotwiser

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Now, here's a general question.

I went for an 'assessment' with Shaw Trust. It was not a medical, nor was it conducted by anyone with any sort of medical qualifications whatsoever.

During the course of the interview, the 'advisor' stated that disabled people were 'scum', 'layabouts', 'parasites', and 'people who just wanted to get something for nothing'. He also said several times that it was his 'mission' to ''give them a good hammering'.

I informed the DWP, but was told that it was not their problem as it was an 'outside contractor' (see previous mentions of this topic in this thread).

What worth now checks, balances, appeals and safeguards?

People can make what claims they like on a forum; it doesn't constitute proof.