Atos medical contradicts medical Atos?

Cpt.Scarlet

Just noticed that your medical was Oct 2010 and I assume the decision you are appealing is around Nov/Dec 2010, if this is the case then we are using the wrong criteria for your ESA tribunal.

The tests were updated at the end of March 2011, however, if your decision was before that, the tribunal will have to use the old tests.

That means it's not mobilising but walking and there is no wheelchair, and the box test required two hands, not a hand and an arm.

The tests you should be using are here,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/schedule/2/made

I noticed you were hoping to get a decision before your tribunal date, the DWP normally only do one Reconsideration, which is when the appeal is received, although they are supposed to look at each piece of evidence that is submitted. They have started, in some regions carrying out a review a couple of days before the tribunal and I know some cases where this has resulted in the decision being overturned.

I'm afraid your wasting your time writing to them asking questions about why pieces of evidence have not been reviewed, unless you have a killer piece of evidence, they'll take the position that your case is with the Tribunal Service and it's not their problem.

Morglin

The parliament HOC Work and Pensions cross party commitee meeting last Wednesday, which took evidence from ATOS and Prof Harrington (the guy trying to sort out the mess known as ESA examinations), made for some interesting listening, as ATOS seemed blissfully unaware of some basics - such as, it has already been agreed that a clamant can take a support, rep or carer in with them:


http://afteratos.org/2011/05/18/hoc-work-pensions-committee-wednesday-18-video-recording/

Thankfully, it does finally seem to be dawning on those in power that this is all going horribly wrong, in many cases, and appeals are now running at a cost of £55 million, in the last year alone.

Lin

deathvalleydemon

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Just noticed that your medical was Oct 2010 and I assume the decision you are appealing is around Nov/Dec 2010, if this is the case then we are using the wrong criteria for your ESA tribunal.

The tests were updated at the end of March 2011, however, if your decision was before that, the tribunal will have to use the old tests.

That means it's not mobilising but walking and there is no wheelchair, and the box test required two hands, not a hand and an arm.

The tests you should be using are here,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/schedule/2/made

I noticed you were hoping to get a decision before your tribunal date, the DWP normally only do one Reconsideration, which is when the appeal is received, although they are supposed to look at each piece of evidence that is submitted. They have started, in some regions carrying out a review a couple of days before the tribunal and I know some cases where this has resulted in the decision being overturned.

I'm afraid your wasting your time writing to them asking questions about why pieces of evidence have not been reviewed, unless you have a killer piece of evidence, they'll take the position that your case is with the Tribunal Service and it's not their problem.

tuesday, letter in the post only 2 days later saying i'd failed.

and i do feel like i have killer evidence, so yes i shall be writing to them.i read that you can have a decision superseeded in certain circumstances...

i mean the "doctor" who "assessed" me didnt even touch me.

the whole thing just makes me so angry.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Cpt.Scarlet

deathvalleydemon wrote: »

tuesday, letter in the post only 2 days later saying i'd failed.

I'm sorry, is this a recent decision or late 2010 as your originally posted?

deathvalleydemon

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

I'm sorry, is this a recent decision or late 2010 as your originally posted?

it was the decision for the medical in october sorry.

Cpt.Scarlet

deathvalleydemon wrote: »

it was the decision for the medical in october sorry.

OK that means the old criteria apply, as I said in my previous post.

deathvalleydemon

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

OK that means the old criteria apply, as I said in my previous post.

I'm under a benefits adviser at the CAB and he sent me a print off of the descriptors that i should have scored points on after i had left him with a copy of the original medical.

he went over it and sent me a report and pointed out that the medical (if they would have included the things they missed off) would have scored me 26 points.

Cpt.Scarlet

deathvalleydemon wrote: »

I'm under a benefits adviser at the CAB and he sent me a print off of the descriptors that i should have scored points on after i had left him with a copy of the original medical.

he went over it and sent me a report and pointed out that the medical (if they would have included the things they missed off) would have scored me 26 points.

It's good that you are getting advice.

Are the descriptors that he sent you the same as the ones you quoted earlier in the thread?

The ones you used in this thread are the new ones and your assessment was held using the old ones, using the wrong descriptors will undermine your case.

deathvalleydemon

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

It's good that you are getting advice.

Are the descriptors that he sent you the same as the ones you quoted earlier in the thread?

The ones you used in this thread are the new ones and your assessment was held using the old ones, using the wrong descriptors will undermine your case.

sorry for the confusion, the ones that i was sent were the ones for the medical i had at the time... didnt realise that i had used the new ones.