Thousands will lose benefits as harsher medical approved

cit_k

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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).

ATOS decide who needs a assessment.

ATOS are meant to do that by checking the medical evidence, contacting GP's etc.

ATOS only contact GP's in 13 percent of IB referalls (official stats).

So 87% of all IB referalls to ATOS are NOT checked and people will be sent for a medical regardless of the facts.

nogginthenog

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

So people are complaining about what exactly?

Lack of -
Fairness
Transparency
Justice
accountability
For starters,for me anyway!

nogginthenog

sh1305 wrote: »

is that even if you're applying for the same condition?

AS far as i know yes,also if you have a new condition or your condition gets worse you can re-apply withinn the six months of a decision.
I have not myself fully read the new ammendments yet, but i do also know the DWP are aware of the situation.

nogginthenog

cit_k wrote: »

The main point of ESA is to fail more people, that includes at the appeal stage.

Changing descriptors to leave little room for appeal.

Also, the jobcentre have a habit of lying to many people and telling them they must claim JSA during appeal.

Those who are lied to and who do not check with the CAB or welfare rights wont know any different and will be on Jobseekers.

Not only that, with ESA many people have been getting work focused interviews ect well before they have been medically assessed, you are supposed to get the medical first to see if you are fit for these interviews. But many people are being seen in reverse so to speak.

Your so right in several points of your post.

In the past i have had terrible problems persuade elderly pensioners despite them having little money to claim what they where entitled to.They did not have the inclination or will power to fill out the forms or go to town to seek proffesional advice , even if i offered to take them myself to the CAB. SO THE COUNTRY HAS ENDED UP WITH BILLIONS OF UNCLAIMED BENEFITS IN ITS COFFERS.
The same applys to sickness benefits, the weak and vunerable can not be bothered seeking advice,and many will give up the claim at the first or second hurdle. many cant even be bothered filling out the forms in the first place

And thats why the system has got to be seen to be fair and transparent and friendly at the initial stages of the claim.

Indie_Kid

nogginthenog wrote: »

Your so right in several points of your post.

In the past i have had terrible problems persuade elderly pensioners despite them having little money to claim what they where entitled to.They did not have the inclination or will power to fill out the forms or go to town to seek proffesional advice , even if i offered to take them myself to the CAB. SO THE COUNTRY HAS ENDED UP WITH BILLIONS OF UNCLAIMED BENEFITS IN ITS COFFERS.
The same applys to sickness benefits, the weak and vunerable can not be bothered seeking advice,and many will give up the claim at the first or second hurdle. many cant even be bothered filling out the forms in the first place

And thats why the system has got to be seen to be fair and transparent and friendly at the initial stages of the claim.

The forms and possible appeals are so off-putting.:(

Unity

As the OP I have watched this thread develop with interest and feel I should apologise for the can of worms I've inadvertently opened .

I would just like to add a couple of anecdotes that I feel are pertinent regarding visiting GPs and DLA.

a) How does the GP, after asking the claimant to walk across the living room floor - a distance of 11ft - and noting verbally that the claimant "Clearly has problems", translate this in his written report to: "Can walk 100 yards over any terrain"???

b) How can a visiting GP get it so wrong that his report results in an award of absolutely nothing - only to have a tribunal award the highest rates for both mobility and care?

Answer: The tribunal chairman ruled that the GP's report be disregarded by the panel after the Welfare Rights rep asked how the GP reached his conclusion that the claimant could walk 100 yards over any terrain, after asking (in front of witnesses) that they only walk across the living room floor and noting they had problems.

Another occasion/another visiting GP. After being told that the claimant had severe spinal problems, both cervical and lumbar, documented in x-rays and scans, proceeded to press down on claimant's shoulders with enough force to make claimant cry out in pain and later be admitted to hospital with among other symptoms blindness due to slightly trapping the temporal artery:eek:.

Result: Full apologies from DWP and the body employing visiting GP with the assurance that re-training would be carried out before GP would be allowed to carry out home visits.

These are just a couple of instances I can personally vouch for.

I would just say that I have a friend who used to work as a senior inspector in a special unit that investigated corporate tax evasion - he became disillusioned and left due to the lack of action in pursuing these criminal activities:cool:. He maintained that if the government pursued companies in the way they pursue benefit claimants, they could pay the benefits bill five times over :shocked:.Unfortunately it is always easier to hit the slower moving targets of the sick and disabled and they are less likely to be able to employ high ranking legal teams.

I can't see agreement ever being reached on this thread, or any other where this subject arises as the opposing views are truly poles apart. As for banning these e-mails from MSE, this seems just another way of gagging the sick and disabled or at least preventing them from being kept informed. Arguably it was Voltaire* who said: "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

My initial post was merely to let others know what I had found out via the free Benefits and Work e-mail. Whilst I agree that the language used bears a strong resemblance to tabloid journalism and could be seen as alarmist - it is obviously aimed to elicit a response and as such it certainly achieved it's purpose .

Wishing all those physically and/or mentally disabled/incapacitated as pain-free a day as possible - "Keep taking the tablets " as my dear old dad used to say and he survived 30+ years with just a quarter of his heart functioning (after four GPs told him he had indigestion :rotfl:).

* This saying is also attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre written in "The Friends of Voltaire".

BigMummaF

No2 Offspring had to attend an independent medical concerning "back pain". The paperwork came & returned giving permission to access medical records, & we took the medication along with us as specified. There are three hospitals involved alongside physio, gp, scans & the gym, & x-rays & reports from A&E after the car accident that could be the culprit, so a LOT of evidence. A week or two before the medical, one of the consultants managing No2's case had said a review of any improvements would have to wait a further three months.

The assessment chap asking the questions was pleasant & pretty thorough, listened to our recent updates,said he could see there was difficulty with some movements & would submit the report. A couple of months later, the decision said No2 was--in their opinion--'fit for work'.

We appealed.
During contact with our GP, we were told NO-ONE had made any attempt to access medical records & it would cost around £50 if we wanted copies to send.
ESA was stopped two weeks BEFORE we got the letter saying 'fit' & then things got really confusing, but that is not for here.
We found out that it wasn't the chap we saw that day who made the final decision, but some 'panel' in a completely different part of the country!

How much time, effort, emotional damage & MONEY could have been spared on all sides, if only the evaluations people had actually bothered to collect all the relevant details in the first place. We had assumed--foolishly--that the paperwork had been presented because of that innocent little mark in the box on a piece of paper. Maybe it needs to be made more obvious that it is up to the claimant to provide all the evidence but with GP surgeries now charging for the privilege of keeping a copy of your own notes, that could be beyond the realms of folk on long-term benefits.

If No2 had felt anywhere close to fit for work, they would have been at work. All of this on top of constant pain & utter frustration to be so restricted at age 26 has not helped the situation. Depression will creep into the smallest of chinks in one's emotional armour but spread like wild fire once there, so to suggest this whole experience isn't as bad as some folk say defies a response. Living with a chronic illness is bad enough, without having to fight to be treated with respect on a daily basis too.

WhiteHorse

Oldernotwiser wrote:

I have no idea whether you're a liar or not; you're an anonymous name on a forum. However, I can see no point in accepting a statement like that as if it's proof of anything.

The same applies to every poster. It is not however necessary to be offensive.

And (mis) reading 33,000 thanks as posts (18,000 actually) might either indicate someone who's prepared to exaggerate for effect or someone who has a problem with reading or numbers!

The error is mine. Mind you, even a mere 18,000 posts ...

Oldernotwiser

WhiteHorse wrote: »

The error is mine. Mind you, even a mere 18,000 posts ...

Carers often have a lot of time when they need to be around and available but can still post on a forum.

cit_k

Mind has expressed grave concerns over the new ESA proposals.

Read the full story here

MIND was one of the represented organisations involved in the discussion about these changes, so it appears the process is not working, as their concerns obviously were completely ignored. What is the point of asking an organisation to be involved, if the process ignores input?