Esa

stardusty_2

Hi,

I'm posting this on behalf of a relative who is on ESA for a non-physical disability. They went for an assessment in a building with a man who didn't appear to have a clue what he was doing. They were treated badly and subsequently made a complaint to ATOS. They also appealed as what they said was not put down and they missed 'points' for this meaning they were taken off ESA.

They went for an appeal in a tribunal courtroom place and it was very traumatic for them. This was only a few months ago and they were told they were accepted on to ESA and would be ok for at least 3 years. They didn't intend to stay on it that long at all but felt like they could work on getting better without the strain of appeals and tribunals etc. However, the other week (the day after the budget cuts believe it or not!) they received a form telling them to go through the whole process again! They have still not recovered from the other time and feel absolutely awful. They feel sick with the prospect of going through it all again. I don't know what I can do to help. I feel it is completely unnecessary to drag them through that ordeal again.

They were told the assessment at the tribunal was the most difficult to pass to date and was newly introduced. Why do they have to go through it again? Surely it's wasting more time, money and resources? They have shown total disregard for their health and he feels like he has no one to turn to. Would the CAB be able to do anything or can any organisation's help? It just seems so unfair to put him through this again especially when there are no protocols in place for these assessment centres to assess non-physical disabilities, it's all focused on physical aspects and the people he saw didn't display any skills showing they were properly trained in mental health.

I hope you can help.

Thank you.

cyclonebri1

It's exactly what can be expected from now on, not specific to your case at all or even to that particular benefit.

stardusty_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It's exactly what can be expected from now on, not specific to your case at all or even to that particular benefit.

So soon after his other review? Which was literally a couple of months ago. I think it's disgraceful putting him through it again (and a waste of money, unless miracles can be performed in 2 months) when people on incapacity haven't had a review in years (no offense to anyone). The whole thing needs sorting out. Genuine people are affected because of those who abuse the system, who probably will swan through assessments if they even have to go to any.

DanielleNic87

That is why they are reviewing cases every couple of months, to make sure people are still unfit for work. People will have a shock when they move onto ESA from IB.

stardusty_2

That's absolutely disgraceful. There was no mention of this at his tribunal. How on earth is it saving money?! It's a joke.

cit_k

stardusty wrote: »

So soon after his other review? Which was literally a couple of months ago. I think it's disgraceful putting him through it again (and a waste of money, unless miracles can be performed in 2 months) when people on incapacity haven't had a review in years (no offense to anyone). The whole thing needs sorting out. Genuine people are affected because of those who abuse the system, who probably will swan through assessments if they even have to go to any.

Its a myth that they were not doing the same to people on IB.

They had a habit of calling me in for a new medical shortly after winning an appeal.

Last time, it was three months after winning at appeal before I was called in, and the process started again (ie new appeal needed).

NASA_2

Is three years even an option?

I was under the impression that two years was the maximum.

stardusty_2

NASA wrote: »

Is three years even an option?

I was under the impression that two years was the maximum.

He was told 3 years at the tribunal and thought he wouldn't even be on half that time if all went well. Why they have to lie to people I don't know. There's people in his road who have been on DLA for alcoholism and using drugs etc. who never get taken off their benefits, what is wrong with them?! Surely it's wasting money going for assessments, appealing, tribunal costs and backdating money every 3 months. Not to mention doing this to genuine people with genuine health problems.

cit_k

NASA wrote: »

Is three years even an option?

I was under the impression that two years was the maximum.

Not sure what ESA rules are, but on IB an appeal tribunal could recommend an indefinate period, but a review had to be carried out by law, however the period could be longer than 2 years on IB in that case (i cant recall if the max was 3 or 5 years, I did have the link but I cant find it now).

healy

cit_k wrote: »

Not sure what ESA rules are, but on IB an appeal tribunal could recommend an indefinate period, but a review had to be carried out by law, however the period could be longer than 2 years on IB in that case (i cant recall if the max was 3 or 5 years, I did have the link but I cant find it now).

Apart from indefinite the max review for IB is/was 5 years.

cit_k

healy wrote: »

Apart from indefinite the max review for IB is/was 5 years.

They would review an indefinate claim after a max of 5 years, indefinate to the DWP just means 'no set time for review'. So they always review them within legislation times (if not before if they can find an excuse to do so)