Atos medical, Lies and twisting what i say.

Widelats

fairyclicks wrote: »

I just came across this thread and thought i should pop in and say that despite my own assessment being full of rubbish i was able to successfully appeal and get my points award changed from 0 to 21. The whole appeal process was one of the most stressful situations i have gone through and i certainly wouldn't wish it on anyone, however i also wanted to just let people know that it is possible to come out the other side. Unfortunately i am now going through the same thing for DLA BUT having been there and done it once i am much more prepared.

The main things i would suggest are:

to make sure you have as many different types of evidence from as many sources as possible relating to your condition.

request ALL of the information used to make the decision.

Go through every piece of information with a fine tooth comb and write a full and detailed explanation of how something could have been misinterpreted - note they will not respond to you saying the assessor 'lied' but you can say things like the information has been mixed up or is written in a way that does not reflect the situation properly.

Get as much of the information in to them asap - my current situation is due to not getting the info in on time (even though it was hand delivered on the deadline day which was agreed by them on the phone - and yes i will be complaining about it)

Make use of the full process - there is the option to ask for a reconsideration after the decision is made and before an appeal.

Make sure all your actions reflect the information on your form - if you can't go anywhere alone then make sure someone accompanies you to all the assessments for example (not just waiting in the waiting room).

I hope that helps and if i can ease the stress on anyone by providing info please just ask!

Good Luck with it all!

Hi, what sort of things should i ask my doctor for, in a letter?

Who do you ask for all of the information used to make their decision?

Riz-1981

I wish I had read a thread like this before my ESA assessment. I cant believe how they can manipulate your words. How do they sleep at night? Atleast the message is getting out there and we won't be so naive next time the Nazi firm want us to attend a assessment

Richie-from-the-Boro

Riz-1981 wrote: »

I wish I had read a thread like this before my ESA assessment. I cant believe how they can manipulate your words. How do they sleep at night? At least the message is getting out there and we won't be so naive next time the Nazi firm want us to attend a assessment

- an accidentally or otherwise enlightened reference to UK Governments treatment of its people

Makeandsave

Hello,

Sorry not updated thread, Has you know i had a nightmare with ATOS with there lies etc when i first had one this year (see first post in this thread). Well, I had the forms again on the 19 Aug, I sent them back on the 1st Oct (welfare rights filled them in for me and advised me not to send back right away) Well i had a funny phone call (cold caller) it was in fact ATOS i put the phone down not know at the time (looked online after). Thought it weird that i had not heard anything so i decided to ring ATOS up, It seems they have closed my case and sent my files back, They never sent a letter etc. I rang up DWP and i have been put into the ESA group

THIS IS THE BEST CHRISTMAS PRESENT EVER, No stress and no worry over money. I will be getting a letter about this in the next few weeks explaining the move and i might have to go for a work related interview. I was told i would be called in after Christmas which is even better to avoid all the people in the city shopping. I am looking forward to getting better with out the stress of ATOS making me worse, I am looking forward to getting all the help i need to get better and advice and help getting back to work.

No doubt i will have to go through all this again in 6 months! thanks everyone in this thread for your views etc.

Yorkist

Hi all, I'm a newbie so please be gentle! Awful accounts on here but also some signs for hope. I'm looking at a different approach to the situation. No legal training so may be cloud cuckoo land but how does this sound. Afraid all terminology is strictly in the 'layman' domain.
Government puts welfare bill through parliament that then passes into law. Its the will of parliament. Atos has so many cases over turned at appeal (heard 80% in one area quoted in a parlimentary question in the chamber.) that its clearly operating AGAINST the will of parliament. Government is duty bound to up hold the law. Though Atos is probably representing the will of the government it is clearly subverting the will of Parliament. Could also raise questions of prejudice against the disabled if they are being treated more harshly than other groups. Court of appeals and tribunals (not sure of correct title) appear to have already made statements that could indicate this is the case. There are strong hints of far more serious, possibly illegal, problems but I don't want to say too much here. Has anyone any thoughts, am I way offside?
Lastly, interesting precedent set when it was ruled that someone accused of a crime, computer hacking, could not be extradited as it was breach of human rights to place him in situation where he may take his own life. How many people have done just that following rulings by Atos? Is that worth looking at too?
Afraid my disability makes it unlikely that I will be able to take this further, thinking this far has taken weeks and its still only an outline. Anyone know of a group who could help with this? If all pie in the sky then sorry for wasting your time. Fight for your human dignity, Yorkist.

rogerblack

Yorkist wrote: »

Government is duty bound to up hold the law.

This isn't really the case, which is where your argument fails.

Government passes laws.
The civil service then executes these laws, and the judiciary investigates breaches of the laws reported to them.

Challenges can be made on the laws, through judicial review, if they were illegally made - if for example the government did not have the power to do a thing, or if they breach another treaty. (This cannot however change the law from black to white, merely say the law should be changed, or change the interpretation)

Similarly, challenges can be brought if the civil service does something which is not allowed by the laws.

'The will of parliament' - is something which has almost no legal effect, other than to be a minor factor in interpreting the legislation as passed.

The actual text of the laws as passed, and the caselaw applying to them in general dominates, even if the law is not what parliament had intended, and it's been improperly drafted.

skintmacflint

At this weeks National Audit Hearing , Bill Devereux head chief of DWP said he'd just received a report on reasons for upheld ESA Tribunal decisons relating to Jul to October 2012.

In 30% of cases the judges stated their reason for overturning the decision in favour of the claimant was due to their different interpretation of the same evidence presented to the DWP/ATOS.

Interestingly he was blaming his own DWP staff for this poor result not ATOS. Sounds very fishy to me when you read so many threads about ATOS's poor performance.

rogerblack

skintmacflint wrote: »

Interestingly he was blaming his own DWP staff for this poor result not ATOS. Sounds very fishy to me when you read so many threads about ATOS's poor performance.

The evidence gathering for this was poor.
The DWP used to have an excellent way of determining the reason for decisions.
It was called the presenting officer.
They would turn up at the tribunal, and argue the DWPs case in person.

This practice was generally axed over a decade ago.

The above statistics are based on a trial of judges selecting one of several reasons for overturning from a list.

They are unfortunately nonspecific, and ministers are already trying to draw too fine distinctions from them.

For example, one of the reasons is 'documentary evidence seen by the tribunal'.

This is being used to argue that the introduction of mandatory reconsideration of the case before it can go to a tribunal is a positive, as people are turning up at the tribunal with wadges of new evidence.

Whereas the current DWP practice, if new evidence comes in after a reconsideration has been done, is to simply send it to the tribunal without really looking at it.

Clearly, the evidence is hardly new to the DWP if they ignored it after being sent it.