Taped Interview Under Caution

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

If I were him I would be unable to ever enter that workplace again. I would go to my doctor and be signed off with stress immediately.

I would also ask my manager (who obviously thinks highly of your son and values his work) to hunt out the responsible person and file an internal grievence for harassment and discrimination.

Chrissiew

vax2002 wrote: »

How did we become a nation of grasses ?

I do think people are getting fed up of those who claim benefits under false pretenses, not for one second saying this is the case for the OPs son, but we are all well aware that there are people out there bleeding the country dry with their fake claims.

And theres those who work very hard all day and live next door to someone who claims DLA for a bad back, has a brand new mobility car and uses it to nip to the gym to lift weights, or what have you, and yes I know disabled people can go to the gym but those who have 'backs' usualy get DLA because they claim not to be able to bend or lift.

It does reflect badly on the genuine cases and in some ways I can understand people reporting those they believe to be cheating the system, and if they havent done anything wrong they havent got much to worry about, yes going through the interviews is very stressful, but the outcome will be fine if there is no case to answer.

incorrect_2

He has just spoken with the gp and he has been advised not to go into work, the gp had been trying to talk him into staying home while this going on anyway. I honestly beleived all he had to do was go today and tell the truth but he has been out to be some kind of criminal and its a disgrace. The people who make these calls should be made to give a name and address and when people prove they are inoccent they something should be done to those that make false allegations. Its okay saying going through the interviews is stressful but when you have genuine medical conditions that stress makes a lot worse it so much that your gp rings to see how things went these people should be held accountable.

Anubis_2

incorrect wrote: »

Well interview over, some kind person who works with him has said he walks from his car to the office door without pain and they even provided a short video recording of him walking the 10metres. The ladies who conducted the interview said that he cannot be disabled when he has such a good work record and does not take time off, as if he suffered pain he would need to be on the sick all the time. They have said it will be up to three months before he finds out what they intend to do and that they would be looking at an extremly large amount of money if they decide to claim it back from him. Now I don`t know if this is just to try and scare him thinking that they want vast amounts off him but telling him he cant be disabled because he doesnt take time off work is out of order. I have sent an email to our mp as reccommended by DIAL and Disability Alliance. So I suppose we will have to see what happens next.

I thought they would have some evidence with it being IUC. They probably recorded it themselves after getting a tip off, as they usually go undercover and watch and record.

Proving pain is a grey area, and 10 metres is under the distance to receive DLA, so both of those factors can be on your side.

However, the real sticking point would be if he put on his form that he can't walk unaided (needing a stick, crutches, person) and they have video evidence of him walking without any aid - no matter how short the distance. This will be difficult to dispute.

Be aware that they are likely to have more than one video too, they may have filmed him doing that distance a few times, but showed you only one, so keep that in mind, because if he says it's only the once, they may bring out more evidence during the decision.

If you made a copy of your form then take a look at what was put. This is why it is never a good idea to focus only on the worst day of symptoms.

If he has put that he can't walk unaided after a certain distance (a few metres), that he wouod need to use an aid after a few metres, or that he can't walk unaided most of the time but if it's only a few metres and he has taken his meds before setting off for work, which help initially for a few metres, then he should be fine.

I really feel for your son. It's not as if he was doing backflips or walked a great distance - if his actions don't tally with what he put on the form though, that will be the deciding factor.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I will probably be shot down in flames but I am not entirely convinced by this thread :undecided

incorrect_2

He has a copy of the original form (well the solicitor does now) and he has never said that he uses any kind of aids so they could not say anything like that. A Flock Of Sheep this is very much real, we are going through an absolute nightmare here if you google the conditions he has you would be able to make your own mind up but, most do say was rightly awarded the DLA.
Systemic scleroderma/ Morphea, Hypermobility syndrome Syncope ,Psoriatic arthritis

Chrissiew

I also think you have to check what you put on the application form for DLA, if they thought the video evidence tallied with what you put then they wouldnt have called you in, but maybe, as another poster said, you have put he needs help walking and they have evidence of him walking unaided then that will be enough evidence for them.

I thought it was very unusual for them to have told you they have no evidence whatsoever as they wouldnt call you in if they had nothing at all. They will have the name of the person who took the video as he/she will have had to have given it to them, but its very doubtful they will prosecute the person for giving false evidence as he/she will just say he gave it in good faith, or maybe say your son has told others he can only walk so far and in their opinion has walked further than he stated.

EDIT sorry posted before seeing the OPs post about the solicitor having the forms

Chrissiew

PS when I say they will know the name of the person who provided the tape because he/she will have to have given it to them, I mean given them the recording, I know you dont have to give your name

Anubis_2

incorrect wrote: »

He has a copy of the original form (well the solicitor does now) and he has never said that he uses any kind of aids so they could not say anything like that. A Flock Of Sheep this is very much real, we are going through an absolute nightmare here if you google the conditions he has you would be able to make your own mind up but, most do say was rightly awarded the DLA.
Systemic scleroderma/ Morphea, Hypermobility syndrome Syncope ,Psoriatic arthritis

If he doesn't use any aid, and he has specified this, I am wondering why he was awarded the mobility since they mentioned pain at the interview?

Usually HRM requires the act of walking to cause severe discomfort or an inability to walk. When pain is claimed for the act of walking, it's considered some kind of aid would be used?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

It all seems rather a sledgehammer nut job.

It appears that someone took it upon themselves at his workplace to film him moving 10 metres to the office door and then send it off to the DWP. Firstly, how did that cameraman even know he was claiming DLA? I would never divulge my private finance affairs to any work colleague.

Secondly, the DWP took this exceptionally scant piece of evidence and decided to fund an interview under caution based on evidence that falls under the criteria for Higher Rate Mobility anyway. 10 metres is well under the threshold for entitlement to HRM DLA.

I have assisted people at IUC and if that was the evidence laid before me I would have laughed in their face. Work sick records form no part and DLA is not an out of work benefit and the care your son receives as a result of receiving DLA should be keeping him in work and his sick record good.

The Interview crew at the DWP should in no way tell you about any back payment due to them as this is not their part of ship. There is someone that decides this but it is not them. Secondly they cannot say this because they have to establish when the significant change in your son's condition ACTUALLY took place and this has to be carefully judged agaisnt a lot of evidence. It is at this point the payment (if any) is due to them. So it could be his significant change happened the day he was filmed by an amateur photographer. Even then 10 metres still entitles him to DLA. Also you have a period of 90 days to assess and monitor any improvement to your own condition before reporting the change.

If you called the DLA and said I can now move 10 metres please update my records I am confident they would not class it as a significant change requiring the submission of a new form.

I am sorry but on the face of it the DWP dont seem to have a leg to stand on.