New ESA50!

Brassedoff

rogerblack wrote: »

Not quite.
The descriptor however now says 'Absence or loss of control whilst conscious leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or bladder,"

If you're having most types of epileptic fit, you are not concious.
HOWEVER!
Not all types of seizure cause the person to pass out fully.
If they can be described as 'concious' - even if they are unable to control their body - they would meet this descriptor.

And not all incontinence is as a result of epilepsy. How do they deal with it where incontinence IS physical and not caused by medication?

Just curious as some may read this and get alf the story and start worrying.

Brassedoff

satarical wrote: »

Not really, I have Pension Credit floating about in the backround instead.

I am intending to give them all - ATOS & the DWP a run for their money.

Just out to prove that a genuine case, such as mine is that is backed up in every way by professionals, that 3 years ago was such that I was placed in the SG, that the system can be forced to fail me.
Which simply goes to prove that even genuine claimants are told to find a job.

Obviously I will then have my fun with my MP and as many people as I can muster together that will listen and take note. (How is it possible that someone in my situation can be found fit for work?) I would only need to mention to my psychiatrist that I am feeling suicidal again, this time because my health conditions including mental health and diagnosed Dementia have not properly been considered. No doubt he will have his say with the DWP! My MP wasn't at all happy when he received a letter from him following the first assessment 3 years ago.

But at the end of the day I don't particularly care what they do, I will still continue to get the same amount with or without ESA through PC.

You could add that you're a crackpot too! How can you write what you have? The ability to turn it on or off as you describe is worrying.

zzzLazyDaisy

Brassedoff wrote: »

And not all incontinence is as a result of epilepsy. How do they deal with it where incontinence IS physical and not caused by medication?

Just curious as some may read this and get alf the story and start worrying.

Incontinence is covered as a separate issue. Provided the person is conscious when it happens, under the rules if it happens more than once a month they will be placed in the WRAG group, and more than once a week, in the support group.

That's if the rules are applied properly which they are not always, since one of the cases highlighted last month was a woman with crohn's disease who was told she should wear a nappy for work :eek:

zzzLazyDaisy

Brassedoff wrote: »

You could add that you're a crackpot too! How can you write what you have? The ability to turn it on or off as you describe is worrying.

Just so you know... Satarical is a known Troll who has had several incarnations, which is why you will often see other posters address him as 'Andy'.

Brassedoff

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Incontinence is covered as a separate issue. Provided the person is conscious when it happens, under the rules if it happens more than once a month they will be placed in the WRAG group, and more than once a week, in the support group.

That's if the rules are applied properly which they are not always, since one of the cases highlighted last month was a woman with crohn's disease who was told she should wear a nappy for work :eek:

Thanks for that info. I have been away from these boards for a while. That news is horrifying, truly horrifying.

satarical

Brassedoff wrote: »

You could add that you're a crackpot too! How can you write what you have? The ability to turn it on or off as you describe is worrying.

Why would you say that I was a 'crackpot'?

Turn what off and on??

i don't see anything wrong in what I do - least of all wasting the DWP's/ATOS's time and resources and generating a situation that does not follow their handbook.

I am more than capable of handling ATOS and the DWP - especially when you realise that they are not paid to think but follow what is taught to them and what exists in their handbooks.

Throw a few spanners into the works and the system goes haywire - hence genuine claimants who are found fit for work - they don't fit all of the boxes that ATOS/DWP expect them to.

Create a scenario that will lead to their incompetance - then use that against them via the MP and anybody else that matters.

At the end of the day all of this is just a game where the government have set down the rules of the game and for which the players (claimant & ATOS/DWP) have to try, given the rules, to outwit and over rule the other. It's not a game of chance, more a game of wits, knowledge and bluff.

satarical

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Just so you know... Satarical is a known Troll who has had several incarnations, which is why you will often see other posters address him as 'Andy'.

Sorry but you are way off target there!!!

'Andy' was one of my pupils!!!

errr we are talking about Andy Brown who I taught aren't we?

Richie-from-the-Boro

bye eye

satarical

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Incontinence is covered as a separate issue. Provided the person is conscious when it happens, under the rules if it happens more than once a month they will be placed in the WRAG group, and more than once a week, in the support group.

That's if the rules are applied properly which they are not always, since one of the cases highlighted last month was a woman with crohn's disease who was told she should wear a nappy for work :eek:

If an aid, appliance, medication or even surgery can improve someone's ability to get back into the workplace shouldn't the decision be based on that happening? Otherwise you would end up with people deciding against using aids or appliances in order that they could get an award.

Much the same as alcoholics and drug addicts - if they obtained help they should be able to work.

schrodie

I very much doubt that a nappy for the purposes of the WCA is classed as an aid or an appliance!