wrote to my local mp about esa/atos

Richie-from-the-Boro

GCP02 wrote: »

I resent your comment about me theres nothing seedy about my comment about PMs i want everyone to have these PDF files but the forum wont allow me to upload them. these files would cost you £28 but i have them and want people to have them for free that the only reason i said use PM so people are not putting their emailaddresses on the open forum. I have already emailed the files to people who want them.

- if the board managers will not allow you to post links .. .. maybe .. .. there is a reason
- until you are allowed the trusted privileged of posting links, the vulnerable should be warned :



All posters should be extremely wary when being encouraged by GCP02 [or anyone else] to go 'out of view' into the dark, hidden and murky world of Private Messaging.

There are many vulnerable posters in this group .. .. my advice would be to protect yourself by posting openly in the forum .. .. ! .. .. do not be enticed away to a place where you can not be seen, supported and protected by others including the moderators.

HB58

Actually, I agree with Richie. Whilst GCP02 might well be pure as the driven snow, it is always worth being very careful about taking something off-forum unless you know the person well. That is not in any way a criticism of the poster GCP02, just general common-sense safely advice.

GCP02

HB58 wrote: »

Actually, I agree with Richie. Whilst GCP02 might well be pure as the driven snow, it is always worth being very careful about taking something off-forum unless you know the person well. That is not in any way a criticism of the poster GCP02, just general common-sense safely advice.

I do understand HB58 and your post is much better than richies, putting up a large warning sign next to my username is the same as saying I'm dodgy, people can put across a message without causing offence like that.

Richie-from-the-Boro

GCP02 wrote: »

I do understand HB58 and your post is much better than richies, putting up a large warning sign next to my username is the same as saying I'm dodgy, people can put across a message without causing offence like that.

- its no defence, get over it, it wasn't personal
- I have done it before, and I will do so again
- if causing you offence protects others .. .. good
- a large warning sign was / is required, but still .. ..
- some contacted you as in """I have already emailed the files to people who want them."""

GCP02 all your 8 posts are ref ATOS, this is not about you and I, but about protecting where possible the vulnerable, and we have many many such members. The [large warning sign] need to reinforce to the unwary in a graphic and shocking way to get the attention of the desperate is one way to attempt to protect the unwary in a live - rapidly moving and - anonymous forum.

I assume you have the(1) '40 page Complaints Procedure Guide' and the (2) a copy complaints form, make a~n~other 10 posts on this forum and you will get 'linking' rights to your offer of pfs.

GCP02

I have the IB-ESA 23 pages ESA 76 pages and the DLA 61 pages, so your saying if i make 10 or more posts I will be able to upload these PDF files for all to see.

cit_k

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I thought that ESA was brought in to 'weed' out the many thousands of overstated and dodgy IB claims?

I did have the figures a while ago, something like 29% of IB claimants actually passed to go on the equivalent level of ESA??

Doesn't say much for the honestly of the other 71% of IB claimants who were found not to be as ill or disabled/unfit for work as they hoped they were.

PLease come back when you understand the first thing you are talking about.

ESA is a DIFFERENT test, a different set of rules, completely different eligilibty criteria.

ESA was DESIGNED to fail 1 million IB claimainst from the outset.

Lady_strange wrote: »

Also, IDS, is not the person in charge of the DWP. Unless he has had a sex change and now goes by the name Maria Miller.

Maria Miller has nothing to do with the DWP she is the minister for disability.

cit_k

murphybear5 wrote: »

There is no doubt that there are issues with Atos and the WCA but I know for a fact that not all the people carrying out these assessments are bad or just there to "fail" you so you do not get approved for ESA (see below)

There are many forums on this subject and some of the stories are totally hair raising but I have a suspicion that most of the people who don't have a problem with ESA assessment don't post on them anyway.

I was on JSA and applied for ESA at the end of last June when I was put on list for major surgery. I finally got my WCA in March. By a strange co-incidence they phoned me up the day after I said I was fed up waiting and would contact my MP and the relevant Minister. Contrary to many stories, my assessment centre was brand new, fit for purpose and spotlessly clean. All the staff were helpful and friendly. My assessment took over an hour and was carried out by an English nurse. I did not answer 'yes' or 'no' to any question that was related to a health issue but gave a long and detailed description of my problems and how they affected my health. She spent a lot of time typing! She did not carry out a physical exam as my movements were restricted by health issues.
WCA took place on the Monday. By Saturday I received a letter saying I had passed and was placed in WRAG. By Monday morning nearly £700 of back benefit appeared in my bank account - yippee!

I asked for a written report and when it arrived it was very detailed and very accurate.

I am telling you all this so those of you waiting to go through this process can understand it is not all bad.
T:T:T

Which medical center was it then?
Whats the prognosis at the end of the report.

cit_k

Soapn wrote: »

let's face it, if someone gets the money they think ATOS are great, if they don't get the money ATOS are rubbish

I get the money, i think ATOS are rubbish.

Why, because each time ATOS say I should NOT get the money, and EACH time ATOS are proven wrong, over and over and over.

Richie-from-the-Boro

GCP02 wrote: »

I have the IB-ESA 23 pages ESA 76 pages and the DLA 61 pages, so your saying if I make 10 or more posts I will be able to upload these PDF files for all to see.

- yes .. .. you will ... just get your 'post count' up and you will get the linking rights !
- if you are desperate to pass them to members here:

- upload to a site
- post the site longhand [without the https://www.] here
- and I or a~n~other member will [STRIKE]check and[/STRIKE] link them [acknowledging your origin] for you

Richie-from-the-Boro

cit_k wrote: »

I get the money, i think ATOS are rubbish.

Why, because each time ATOS say I should NOT get the money, and EACH time ATOS are proven wrong, over and over and over.

Appeal I assume you mean ? If so the appeal system is almost on the brink of collapse, so much so that the GOV have had to split the three person rule to a half day with three people working independently on paper appeals, only then joining together for the three person panel for oral cases. Welfare [(1) all] appeals have risen by 72% and [(2) IB / ESA] by a 'boggleing' 167% in the last four years, from:

- 242,800 (2008/09)
- 418,500 (2010/11)

I can't REM off hand but the 100+ new Judges appointed to take up the slack in welfare tribunals sitting on Saturdays was a staggering extra burden on thge taxpayer.

With the assault on the welfare system only just beginning with ESA/IB coversions and PIP and UC just around the corner in 2013 the judiciary are predicting benefit appeals at 644,000 for the 14/15 year, that's an 165% increase for the taxpayer to fork out for.

It is, as you yourself say, a fact that most [50%+] defective decisions are overturned at appeal, though that rises to nearer 75% where specialist 'welfri's' are involved with the appeal preparation. The fact that this figure is so high is the reason for my constant assertion that the process is not~fit~for~purpose, and an eventual wiping out of the claimed treasury savings. Put this way its not an emotional 'whine or bleat' from the disgruntled but an inarguable mathematical fact that throwing yet more money at the chaos that is LiMA / ATOS is an inevitable waste of time and money.

Instead of de-funding and engineering the closure of CAB and other 'welfri' / legal support specialists for appeals they should direct funding to them to resolve the disputes at a much earlier and cost effective point. It won't change the figure of 50%+ that the GOV are losing appeals by, but it will drastically reduce the cost to the taxpayer and in so doing give much earlier 'peace of mind' to the poor sod having to go through the trauma that is the appeal process.

At about £279 per appeal and using the Tribunal Judiciary forecast figures that's three quarters of a bi££ion pounds spent on appeals by 2014 / 2015, most of it overturned in the courts