Dla to be replaced by pip

petrolhead.

hrafndot wrote: »

Cant think why people with bona fide illness are not URGED to provide as much evidence as poss. straight away. Make the DMs life much easier.

IB was a method of massaging unemp figures from way back.
.

Hello,
I agree with you as regards the submission of evidence. As regards ESA you are actively instructed NOT to send in any evidence that backs up your claim.
What does surprise me is that those that ignore the instructions and send it in anyhow, are more likely to get a favourable result than those that don't send anything in.
The DWP can't have it both ways. People who send it in against clear instructions not to, should have that evidence ignored. OR as you say, make it clear that the evidence should be sent in by every claimant!!

Likewise with DLA, I can't find anywhere on the form or the notes that tells me to send in evidence to back up my claim. Do I send it in? Some do, some don't. It should be made clear that it is expected of you or actively refused. They must choose as again some claimants are getting an unfair advantage.

Yes, it wasn't that many years ago that they were telling people to claim IB and close down their Unemployment Benefit claim in order to reduce the figures of unemployment.

Two4Tuesday

petrolhead. wrote: »

It would not need a doctor or consultant who specialises in any of my illnesses to test me against the descriptors - a trained monkey could do the job! You can either carry out the functions or you can't.

Not all functions are assessed properly by ATOS. In my case, I have lifelong complete bowel incontinence with no control whatsoever, and have to wear nappies 24 hours a day. I have read the descriptors and understand that this condition alone puts me into the Support Group.

During my medical assessment, the ATOS doctor didn't ask about it even once and I had to mention it myself. The response I got from him was "There's nothing about it on the computer". I showed him the nappy I was wearing and offered him the opportunity to examine me for himself but he declined (I now know that ATOS are not allowed to perform intimate examinations)

While it's fair to say that I did get put onto the WRAG following my medical, I was so upset at my condition not being properly assessed that I appealed and eventually was placed onto the Support Group, but only after sending in a letter from my GP which confirmed what I had declared on my ESA50. Due to a mixup by the DWP during my appeal in which they sent me someone else's ESA50 and ESA85 report, my appeal dragged on for months without me ever seeing my own report.

As a result of all this, I was offered some compensation, but only after trying to kill myself in May (the Police were called after I walked out of hospital)

petrolhead.

Two4Tuesday wrote: »

Not all functions are assessed properly by ATOS. In my case, I have lifelong complete bowel incontinence with no control whatsoever, and have to wear nappies 24 hours a day. I have read the descriptors and understand that this condition alone puts me into the Support Group.

During my medical assessment, the ATOS doctor didn't ask about it even once and I had to mention it myself. The response I got from him was "There's nothing about it on the computer". I showed him the nappy I was wearing and offered him the opportunity to examine me for himself but he declined (I now know that ATOS are not allowed to perform intimate examinations)

While it's fair to say that I did get put onto the WRAG following my medical, I was so upset at my condition not being properly assessed that I appealed and eventually was placed onto the Support Group, but only after sending in a letter from my GP which confirmed what I had declared on my ESA50.QUOTE]

Hello,

I have attached a copy of the descriptors and yes you are entitled to be in the WRAG with 15 or more points. I have no problem with that you deserve it.

1. Walking.
2. Standing and sitting.
3. Bending or kneeling.
4. Reaching.
5. Picking up and moving things.
6. Manual dexterity.
7. Speech.
8. Hearing.
9. Vision.
10. Continence.
11. Remaining conscious.

What and why I was answering the other letter is because you don't need a specialist in whatever is wrong with you to assess these descriptors. Give me a tenner and I'll do half a dozen!

They are all factual. You either aren't or don't or are and can carry them out.

Why on earth you would need a heart specialist to assess someone who may have a dicky heart to find out if they can walk, sit, stand, pick up a coin, etc etc beats me.

What I was also saying was that I can do all of those, can see, can talk, have no problems with my bowels and lastly I don't pass out all over the place. So on that basis the assessor did a thorough job on me and I can't really complain. Based on that I am fit for work and it is all in my head!!
The problem lies in the descriptors not really looking at what is actually going on in the real world. Not ATOS's fault, they have been given the tools to do the job set for them. The government should revise the checklist.

So until that is sorted out, things will go wrong.

As for me, I know I have no chance at the appeal, but at least I am getting the same as I would claiming JSA without the agro. The type of job I used to do is never advertised in the jobcentre, so I am having to look for employment within the specialised agencies.

What my GP & Consultant will have to say about all of this I don't know. Keeping that bit quiet for obvious reasons! ATOS carry a lot more weight than a GP does - I know that!

I wish you luck

petrolhead.

sh1305 wrote: »

Why are you appealing if you think they've made the right decision?

Because the alternative is to claim JSA and go through all of that rubbish. ESA pays the same amount. I am looking for a job, as I know the Jobcentre will never have my career advertised. Specialist agencies is where I am at. I have had one offer to have a chat with a firm in the new year but the travelling distance is not possible due to my medical condition. But given that appeals are taking upwards of 12 months to hear, I have that time to find employment.

I disagree. Or does a trained monkey know the the full extent of some peoples' disabilities? I've been told by the DWP medical services that I shouldn't have one of the most common issues amongst people with one of my diagnoses. According to their disability handbook, one of my other diagnoses doesn't cause any care or mobility needs - as a result of having this condition, I am unable to raise my arms without my shoulders cracking. This hurts a lot and makes washing my hair and getting dressed painful.

Where on earth are you digging up these references from?
Surely what only matters is - can you carry out the functions?
Simple, it doesn't matter what your symptoms are or what medication you take or even what side of the bed you get out of. If the answer is no, and the assessor believes you, then you will be given points. If he isn't convinced that you are telling the truth and the whole truth he/she will fail you - simple as that!

If you think you should have points and the assessor thinks otherwise, it is all down to the fact that he has made a judgement based on what he believes to be the case, not what you tell him/her. If you still are not happy, then you let the court decide who to believe.

sweetersong

Petrolhead-Actually the ATOS medical person should have mentioned (but most dont) is that when it comes to the actions, its based on whether you can do them routinely,

So, from what you have said, the ATOS medical officer should have taken into account that you have a flucuating condition, but they haven't, which is not unlike them, and this is one of the reasons people are so annoyed at ATOS

Indie_Kid

sweetersong wrote: »

Petrolhead-Actually the ATOS medical person should have mentioned (but most dont) is that when it comes to the actions, its based on whether you can do them routinely,

This is what I was told, too. I can sometimes read font size 16 at reading distance of 20cm; but it's a strain on my eyes. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to say no.

Mojisola

Why on earth you would need a heart specialist to assess someone who may have a dicky heart to find out if they can walk, sit, stand, pick up a coin, etc etc beats me.

Because while a sick person could, on that day, walk a little, sit for while, bend down, etc, a specialist will know the consequences of their patient being expected to do these things for hours at a time, day after day.

I have just come back from visiting a relative in the hospice. He is in his last few days of life but, until a few days ago, I reckon he would have been passed fit for work at an ATOS medical.

petrolhead.

sweetersong wrote: »

Petrolhead-Actually the ATOS medical person should have mentioned (but most dont) is that when it comes to the actions, its based on whether you can do them routinely,

So, from what you have said, the ATOS medical officer should have taken into account that you have a flucuating condition, but they haven't, which is not unlike them, and this is one of the reasons people are so annoyed at ATOS

Hello,

Yes I can understand that line of logic, but then does it mean that if you are unable to carry out those functions for say on average 10 days in a month, or say 10 hours out of a working week of 30 hours, you should also be found unfit for work for those other 20 days in a month or 20 hours in a week?

I do have some difficulties but on the balance, I could work normally for those 20 days or 20 hours.

Indeed, I am able to work maybe a 4 hour day.

This I think is where the problem lies. I know it is going to be impossible to find a job to fit in with my condition, but accept and understand that that is of no concern of the DWP/ESA when they are assessing me to see if I am unfit for work. That is the responsibility of the JobcentrePlus/JSA.

Of course my condition fluctuates, but given my circumstances and the descriptors I seem to fall in the camp of being unable to work for 1/3rd of the time and fit for work for the remaining 2/3rds.

I certainly don't think it is fair or indeed right to try and make out that the 4 hours that I can work in a day, are not possible due to my condition when clearly they aren't.

So as I said at the start, having a fluctuating illness does and need not preclude people from being fit and able to work at those times when they are capable - to suggest otherwise is to be guilty of benefit fraud.

With this new revised benefit, if it follows the same path, then those times when the condition is improved - for however a period of time - then that should be taken into account.
All of the time - some of the time - none of the time.

Indie_Kid

petrolhead. wrote: »

So as I said at the start, having a fluctuating illness does and need not preclude people from being fit and able to work at those times when they are capable - to suggest otherwise is to be guilty of benefit fraud.

What do you suggest then? Some people (such as myself) have conditions that are unpredictable. I can't say "right, I can work Monday to Thursday for 5 hours each day", because my conditions don't work like that. And then there's being able to get up and get to work.

With this new revised benefit, if it follows the same path, then those times when the condition is improved - for however a period of time - then that should be taken into account.
All of the time - some of the time - none of the time.

This already happens. It does say on my DLA letter that my conditions do vary - which is very true.

petrolhead.

Mojisola wrote: »

Why on earth you would need a heart specialist to assess someone who may have a dicky heart to find out if they can walk, sit, stand, pick up a coin, etc etc beats me.

Because while a sick person could, on that day, walk a little, sit for while, bend down, etc, a specialist will know the consequences of their patient being expected to do these things for hours at a time, day after day.

I have just come back from visiting a relative in the hospice. He is in his last few days of life but, until a few days ago, I reckon he would have been passed fit for work at an ATOS medical.

Hello,
Thanks for your comments.

But then if that is the case, surely it is not the problem of ATOS, but of the Decision Maker?

For example the assessor may find that you could walk a certain distance, pick up a coin, sit down for 30 mins etc. You argument is that that does not take into consideration if you can do it repeatedly. You say only a specialist could give that guidance.

You are wrong. The ESA50 clearly asks you to identify that aspect of your condition. So with the assessors report saying you could carry out the function and your clearly written report in the ESA50 saying that you can but with severe restrictions, the Decision Maker can see the position and make a perfectly valid decision based on both sources of evidence.

What use would there be for a specialist then - only maybe to confirm what you have already written on your ESA50, in which case you are saying that the DWP routinely ignores the contents of the ESA50, or is it that you haven't completed the ESA50 as required?

If that were the case, how is it that many pass the assessment based only on the two sources of evidence.

Until such time as the DWP change their way of working and move to an evidential based assessment (which is what the new PIP benefit is doing) then we have to rely on the Decision Makers making the right decision on the evidence they ask for.