Been called for medical - not happy

LadyMorticia

If someone has been on IB for 22 years, I find it unfathomable that they haven't had a medical in that time (unless they are severely disabled i.e. can't talk and walk or do anything for themselves. Almost like a shell, if that makes sense? I'm really trying not to be offensive so not sure how to put my point across.:o).

I thought that everyone would have a medical at some point whilst being on incapacity benefits, even if it's only one medical in however long you've been claiming for. I know that HRC DLA used to exempt you from the medicals though so if the OP received HRC DLA in that time then that might explain why but it's just something I find it hard to get my head around (without trying to sound judgmental.:o).

earthbound_misfit

I think the issue with IB/ESA changes is that we had a system that didn't work and could be too lax, and then replaced it with a system that also doesn't work because it's too far the other way and is overly harsh.

The new ESA system is fine on paper, but it's implementation is all wrong. A good aspect of it is that the assessment phase is theoretically only 13 weeks, after which you get more money, whereas under the old system which I have claimed under in the past I was living on about £50 a week for the first year (wasn't actually on it for over a year, but had to re-claim periodically when health got bad), which did make my situation harder to deal with. It's also a good idea to have the two groups of ESA with appropriate, targetted back-to-work help.

However, in practice, it all goes horribly wrong for many because (a) the 'medicals' are a sham, and (b) the back to work help is either non-existent or overly sanction-based (again they can't seem to strike a balance!). I suppose you could add (c) other factors such as the recession and employers not wanting to employ ill/disabled people, but this is outside the ESA remit.

The main weak point is the medicals. If these were done fairly and accurately, and not target-driven (apart from for accuracy!), then I think the majority would find the new system much better. (Even the bloke who designed ESA was critical of it's implementation.)

I would like to add there is a bit of an elephant in the room reagrding mental health claimants - around 50% of claims. It is incredibly hard to get mental health help, and for something like depression and anxiety it is virtually impossible to get appropriate support unless they class it as severe (and the layman's idea of severe is not the same as the professional view). So people bumble along, definitely not fully-functioning but unable to actually get better. The new acces to CBT will help some of these people (please note you can self-refer!) but for those whose issues maybe go back a long time would benefit from more in-depth therapy which is incredibly hard to get.
Appropriate back-to-work support that is all carrot and no stick could help these people, but the overly-sanction focused strict JSA conditions will only be counter productive.

Muttleythefrog

krisskross wrote: »

As Muttley and others have given her as many hints and tips as possible it reinforces the view that the MSE boards are the definitive crib sheet.

I prefer to use the word guidance. Helping people get their entitlements. Claimants are entitled to know the law and to understand the process. It's unfortunate that many are so poorly positioned to achieve this end.

krisskross

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

I prefer to use the word guidance. Helping people get their entitlements. Claimants are entitled to know the law and to understand the process. It's unfortunate that many are so poorly positioned to achieve this end.

This is the key bit.

Is she truly entitled or is she not? However with all the information and tips on how to present her fairly pitiful, no doubt exaggerated medical history she has been given she may actually succeed in her aim of never working.

However with the happy news of the husband hopefully any payments would only be for a further year.

Dunroamin

The question of "entitlement" just goes round in circles. If someone's claim is accepted then they can be seen to be entitled and all the help is justified. However, if the claim is rejected, people then get cross when it's pointed out that they're not actually entitled.

Muttleythefrog

krisskross wrote: »

This is the key bit.

Is she truly entitled or is she not? However with all the information and tips on how to present her fairly pitiful, no doubt exaggerated medical history she has been given she may actually succeed in her aim of never working.

However with the happy news of the husband hopefully any payments would only be for a further year.

Her entitlement is not decided by me. I don't know if she is entitled or not (although I may have some private estimation in mind that I feel should remain private). I've reiterated that entitlement will be determined by the descriptors and it would be useful to identify which ones she thinks apply to her (if any). The outcome and her domestic situation is of no material issue or interest to me. I would advise against exaggeration or inventing of problems... I would advise giving full honest explanation of problems and seeking corroborative medical evidence.

Muttleythefrog

Dunroamin wrote: »

The question of "entitlement" just goes round in circles. If someone's claim is accepted then they can be seen to be entitled and all the help is justified. However, if the claim is rejected, people then get cross when it's pointed out that they're not actually entitled.

Actual entitlement is a technical legal question. It's one that probably is never truly answered since even in extreme cases it still relies on opinion such as with terminal illness. What you get is an opinion of entitlement from the DWP (often based heavily on the opinion of an ATOS HCP).. the claimant will normally have some opinion also... and a tribunal may have to give an opinion too. None are guaranteed to be technically correct... but for the purposes of a functional system.. basically... DWP opinion takes precedence over that of claimant and an appeals tribunal over that of DWP. In reality we never truly will know whether someone is actually technically entitled in law when essentially what is being looked at is subjective opinion of whether they are.

Muttleythefrog

topaziem wrote: »

Guidance?? This forum is a benefit cheaters 'guidance' manual!

Even the simplest of advice regarding ESA when telling people to complete the ESA50 'with always the descriptors in mind' is one prime example.

Whatever happened with just advising a member to tell the truth?

Oh yes, maybe in doing just that it won't get the required result.

There is only one good side, from my point of view, of knowing the 'inside story' is that you are able to play the game with them and forcing them to make a bad decision simply because they have no other alternative. They know that and I know that, and it certainly makes it interesting to see the face of the local MP when presented with what has happened and even more so the Tribunal panel when the poor decision making stands out a mile.

The only thing that the DWP can do in those instances is duck below the parapet - and come up with the lame excuse that 'if only the claimant had helped us a bit more for us to do our job properly' - err yes, but the claimant doesn't get paid to advise and work alongside the DWP to help them - they get paid to get it right first time - every time! Or am I missing the point?

Andy we've heard it all before. There is no inside story... just rules and procedures regarding which I would always advise the claimant tell the facts as they see them. People here get advice on those rules and procedures. Some of them elect to thank people like me for that advice... a lot of that is unseen done in private. The reason I suggest always having the descriptors at hand when filling in the ESA50 is that the form itself isn't particularly well designed for getting key facts (if relevant) regarding some descriptors. What you choose to do is up to you.. you play silly games here so I wouldn't rule out you doing similar with DWP as you seem to be suggesting you will in another thread. The line between fantastical, fantasy and insanity in your case is one I am going to have to let others construct.

zoominatorone

Mara69 wrote: »

Mumz, I notice you've not answered this.

22 YEARS of money, without doing anything for it. Must have been like winning the flamin' lottery!

zoominatorone

krisskross wrote: »

As Muttley and others have given her as many hints and tips as possible it reinforces the view that the MSE boards are the definitive crib sheet.

You mean like ways to cheat and manipulate the system? Sure looks like it from where I am sitting.