I have been signed off ESA but no one from the DWP could be bothered to tell me

NickyBat

nashly wrote: »

I have paid tax for the last thirty years and this is the first time I have signed on for an UB since I was 17, so why should I not have any right to claim any benefits you DMF ?

me too!!!!!

NickyBat

celinepatricia wrote: »

Hi Mrs Nashly... see none of the nasties have replied to you, think you have put them in their place.. good for you!! Alot of people on this forum are very judgemental and will spout out a load of tripe and try to make out that everyone on benefits is taking the p!!!

Who exactly has been "nasty"?
Just because the OP got replies he didn't like and things were pointed out to him he also didn't like doesn't mean anyone is nasty.

i think you will find if you read the posts, he has been very rude to people working for the DWP, to the point that someone who doesn't even work for them took offence.

Like i said earlier, the OP is quick to make his problems personal against staff in the DWP when in actual fact he should be venting his anger at his local MP to get the system changed.

celinepatricia

I didnt say anybody had been nasty on this particular thread just that there are nasties on this forum. And, if the atos "health professionals" done their jobs properly in the first place we wouldnt have lots of people having to appeal their unfair decisions.

NickyBat

celinepatricia, you said "i see none of the nasties have replied to you, thin you have put them in their place" because Mrs Nashlyhad said she was horrified at some of the responses.......that inferres that some of the people who had replied had done so in a nasty manner.

many more people may well have replied in a more compassionate manner had her husband not referred to DWP staff as "incompetent", he also said and i quote "does anyone with brains work for the DWP", he then proceeded to have a go at two separate posters, and his wife wonders why people were not compassionate towards him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a joy he is.

celinepatricia

None of the nasties could mean none of the nasties have actually replied on the thread.. you will just have to decide your self how you think it was meant. I actually managed to talk to the person who turned my husband down and he admitted that he hadnt actually read the information that I had supplied. How is that doing your job properly especially when people are relying on benefits because they have been sacked from their job due to ill health. Lots of people on this forum jump to conclusions that if you are claiming benefits your a lazy !!!.

sunnyone

nashly wrote: »

I am Mrs Nashly and I very rarely get involved in Mr Nashlys postings but having read some of the things on here..... I am horrified by some of the responses, I agree entirely with the poster who says "why does everyone have to argue" I would also ask why do some people think those who claim benefits are somehow cheating or manipulating the system? Should my husband be signed off ESA (contributions based) No absolutely not, he can barely walk at times and is desperate for a knee replacement. Should he appeal the ESA decision and take it to tribunal? of course he should, but he won't because he wants and needs to work and quite frankly we have enough battles going on elsewhere to put ourselves through it. In case anyone cares the battle is with his previous employer who decided that they didn't care to honour the terms of his working contract and pay for his sick leave whilst waiting for his knee to be sorted out. Before anyone posts that that is not allowed - we know hence the legal battle. I suspect that this battle is not one that would be faced by those who work within the civil service.
Back to the point of his original post.
He attended a medical over 2 months ago. He telephoned several times to find out the results without success. He received a letter on 11th May dated the 9th, this letter did not say ESA had been stopped it was for something else. He rang and was told verbally ESA stopped 4th May. Appointment made for 13th May (earliest available) to see an advisor. JSA claimed and claim made to backdate to the 4th. Backdate claim refused as did not qualify the market conditions as looking for work. He could not qualify as as far as he was concerned he was on ESA, he had not been told that it was going to be or had stopped. It is being appealed but the point is, it is a complete waste of time, stress and tax payers money as the person making the decision should have looked at the facts. He was not told of the decision within a timeframe enabling him to satsify market conditions. To the poster who feels 6 days is reasonable, I say when you find yourself and I truly hope you don't, in the position of being told £102 a week is the amount needed for 2 adults to live on you will find 6 days loss of benefit through no fault of your own an unacceptable delay.
There is enough nastiness in the world without the lack of compassion I see in people, the rules may say you don't have to be told but the rules need changing, and again before anyone says write to your MP, done it many times over many issues.

Being unable to walk does not mean that your entitled to ESA, in fact the criteria has been changed and the walking/ step criteria have been removed, to be fair to wheelchair users that work apparently.

He can get a wheelchair on the NHS or from the red cross (for a small donation).

NickyBat

celinepatricia wrote: »

None of the nasties could mean none of the nasties have actually replied on the thread.. you will just have to decide your self how you think it was meant. I actually managed to talk to the person who turned my husband down and he admitted that he hadnt actually read the information that I had supplied. How is that doing your job properly especially when people are relying on benefits because they have been sacked from their job due to ill health. Lots of people on this forum jump to conclusions that if you are claiming benefits your a lazy !!!.

I repeat AGAIN it is not a decision that is made by DWP staff. i am the first to agree that if someone is entitled to claim a benefit then go for it but it is the system that is wrong not the staff.

celinepatricia

I repeat AGAIN DWP staff did not read information provided...

spherelance

NickyBat wrote: »

I repeat AGAIN it is not a decision that is made by DWP staff. i am the first to agree that if someone is entitled to claim a benefit then go for it but it is the system that is wrong not the staff.

Does the decision make itself? Are decision makers not DWP staff? The system may well be rubbish but the decision IS made by DWP staff.

nashly

In my experience there are good and bad staff in every job and it is very unfortunate that I have encountered the bad and the untrained which has coloured my views on the whole system.
We have been given conflicting infomation each person we have spoken to. Basic information such as "are we able to get help with medical costs" answer given by staff at the DWP on 3 occasions was "no". The correct answer was "yes possibly, fill in form HC11"
another fairly basic question "is help available for mortgage interest?" again we were told on several occasions "no because you are on contribution based ESA" yet again this is not true, help is available but not in our case as it seems we do not owe enough money on our mortgage! no I'm not sure what that's about either.
Every time we have to ring to correct the information given to us or to appeal against decisions it costs a lot of money due to the 0845 numbers.
The poster who suggests walking is not a pre requiste for working and wheel chairs are available - i agree but when your whole working life has been in the building trade it is actually very difficult to get a postion in an office. There is a reason manual work is called manual and I have yet to see a carpenter or bricklayer employed when they are in a wheelchair.
Why are people having a go at celinepatricia? the poster is absolutely right, the DWP may have rules but at the heart of any good organisation is the staff and the staff did not read the information, rules cannot be applied if the staff are not reading the information provided to them or in some cases provided by them.