Joy! An ESA50.

NASA_2

cit_k wrote: »

Based on evidence no doubt, or do you think he arrived at a figure of 98% of the top of his head?

He is not lord frued you know.

He needs to justify his expenses so I guess he configured a method which was inevitably going to make things seem as bad as possible.

Why stop at 98%? Why not just say they are all getting it wrong? Has he individually spoken to the people that are doing the job? I very much doubt that he has talked to them all.

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

I don't need to prove some people claiming IB/ESA are malingerers . I believe the DWP stats do that.

You believe incorrectly, as per usual. (unless you are referring to the tiny 0.5 percent fraud rate)

Besides, you were discussing people in this thread, its only polite to respond to their response and questions about your critisicm you made about them.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

You believe incorrectly, as per usual. (unless you are referring to the tiny 0.5 percent fraud rate)

Besides, you were discussing people in this thread, its only polite to respond to their response and questions about your critisicm you made about them.

Sorry so everyone who applies gets ESA do they? I wasn't referring to the fraud rate ( which is obviously only ever a guesstimate) but to the majority of applicants who have their claim for ESA refused.

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

Sorry so everyone who applies gets ESA do they? I wasn't referring to the fraud rate ( which is obviously only ever a guesstimate) but to the majority of applicants who have their claim for ESA refused.

The majority of applicants have not had their esa claim refused though.

And you were talking about people on this thread, so as I say, its only basic manners to address the points raised.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

The majority of applicants have not had their esa claim refused though.

And you were talking about people on this thread, so as I say, its only basic manners to address the points raised.

I have re-read the thread and am still not sure which points you want me to address.

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

I have re-read the thread and am still not sure which points you want me to address.

The question about how the testing for who gets the taxpayers shilling should be done.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

Well, deciding 'who should get the taxpayers shilling' is a interesting question.

Do you agree that it should be done, using the current system, that is known to be unfit for purpose, that even the designer of the system states it should no longer be used until it can be fixed? That the CAB has also stated is unfit for purpose.

Using a form, that is deliberately designed to be as confusing as possible, that is designed specifically to limit the evidence you can give to as little as possible?

Using a system that is likely to ignore what you wrote on the form anyway?

That wont in the majority of cases even bother contacting other medical professionals for their professional opinion regardin a persons situation and health?

I would suggest far better would be to stop using a system even the designer has begged is not used any more, and ensure professionals are contacted for their input, that forms are designed to be as easy to use as possible, designed to eek out as much relavent info as possible.

A system that reads those forms, a system that listens at assessment, a system with decision makers that examine all the evidence as per their legal duty (unlike the current system where it was revealed in 98% of cases they rubber stamped the ATOS report without deviating from its findings)

Until there is a better system then the present one will obviously continue to be used

What the CAB think is neither here nor there. As with all groups looking for funding it is in their own interests to make statements that will get them into the media.

Many people and I will include 7 day weekend's husband here as he also claims on MH grounds find the forms reasonable to complete. They have been happy with the procedure and he has been called for medicals twice.

Many many claimants have no issues at all with the way they are dealt with. Thing is we never hear from the satisfied claimants or the ones who knew they were on very shaky ground with their claim to begin with.

The very fact that you have such huge issues with your claim makes me wonder if it is as rock solid as you think.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

The question about how the testing for who gets the taxpayers shilling should be done.

Done:rotfl:

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

Until there is a better system then the present one will obviously continue to be used

What the CAB think is neither here nor there. As with all groups looking for funding it is in their own interests to make statements that will get them into the media.

Many people and I will include 7 day weekend's husband here as he also claims on MH grounds find the forms reasonable to complete. They have been happy with the procedure and he has been called for medicals twice.

Many many claimants have no issues at all with the way they are dealt with. Thing is we never hear from the satisfied claimants or the ones who knew they were on very shaky ground with their claim to begin with.

The very fact that you have such huge issues with your claim makes me wonder if it is as rock solid as you think.

The designer of the ESA system has nothing to gain, in fact rather a lot to loose, by denouncing his own work as unfit for purpose, how do you explain that one away?

I have huge issues, because of ATOS and DWP lies or incompetance, the claim is not shakey otherwise I would not keep winning at appeal now would I?

Just because the system works for some, does not mean it is fit for purpose in all areas does it?

You could have a justice system that is 100 percent accurate in convicting burglars and 100 percent innacurate at convicting rapists, but you would not say the justice system is overall fit for purpose in that case would you?

The system has many areas, some will not experience problems, that does not mean problems dont exist in many other areas of the system does it?

smod123

i am on esa and i had to go to atos for a medical.i must have told them a dozen times that i was having surgery a week later.i had the surgery and then the day after surgery i received a phone call saying i was passed fit for work. i asked the person .have u had surgery before and he said no . i said could you name any surgery in the world where you could work within 24 hours of surgery and he asked why i was asking this question and i replied i was recovering from surgery .his reply was we were not told you were due to go into hospital and were told i had passed a number of tests .i asked what tests had been asked to do and i said are u sure u didnt have another person with the same name as the most i did in the medical was to lie down on the bed and pick my knees. i have since appealed and are currently awaiting another balls up