Hypothetical question?

Brassedoff

Whether you go fo an ESA or PIP assessment with ATOS and upon appeal, what do you believe would be safe grounds to sue?

The example I will give is, a persons defamed(let's say they claim to be disabled, yet a "professional" (look up the legal term "Professional" as defined by the master of the rolls Denning) states you are not disabled as claimed, awards you zero points.

Yet, upon appeal, this is overturned by the court.

Now, you could claim your name has been defamed(sic)?, suffered hurt, loss and damage as a result of the actions of the agent of the body (ATOS), or even directly against the "professional".

Could you claim hurt, loss and a breach of the ECHR? Possible breach on article 1,2, 3, 4 and maybe 7?

Could you also sue under the Equalities Act as per the case that recently cost them £12K? If everyone who had a Blue Badge claimed the same, can they risk it?

Just thoughts for debate. I am sure there are more chinks in their armour?

bigboybrother

Personally I couldn't care a fig leaf what ATOS or the DWP thought of me.
There is more to life than creating more problems than there are already.

Have you nothing better to occupy your time with than that rubbish?

It isn't even a question that should be asked on this forum - try the tea bar instead, I'm sure that you will find others there that will glady discuss it with you.

skintmacflint

Don't know much about PIP, but if you're not awarded enough points are they actually saying you're not disabled. Or are they saying you don't meet the criteria which can be paid an allowance? .

With ESA fails, they aren't necessarily stating you don't have an illness or condition,. Just that as far as they've found with the info and assessment they've maybe carried out (and I know they're often not great) they don't think you meet a legal set of descriptors.

rogerblack

Brassedoff wrote: »

Now, you could claim your name has been defamed(sic)?, suffered hurt, loss and damage as a result of the actions of the agent of the body (ATOS), or even directly against the "professional".

Could you claim hurt, loss and a breach of the ECHR? Possible breach on article 1,2, 3, 4 and maybe 7?

Could you also sue under the Equalities Act as per the case that recently cost them £12K? If everyone who had a Blue Badge claimed the same, can they risk it?

You almost certainly can't sue ATOS or the HCP for libel.
This is amongst other reasons -the report is not published - it's sent to one body.
You can complain to the professionals regulating body.
Your action under the ECHR would be against the government, as I understand it, not ATOS.
In order for them to be discriminating - they need to be discriminating on the basis of disability.
Discriminating (for example) on the basis of targets, when the person doesn't quite meet the target is not that.
It would only be discriminating on the grounds of disability if they - for example - picked a specific group of the disabled to discriminate against.

bigboybrother

skintmacflint wrote: »

Don't know much about PIP, but if you're not awarded enough points are they actually saying you're not disabled. Or are they saying you don't meet the criteria which can be paid an allowance? .

With ESA fails, they aren't necessarily stating you don't have an illness or condition,. Just that as far as they've found with the info and assessment they've maybe carried out (and I know they're often not great) they don't think you meet a legal set of descriptors.

All they are saying and will say when PIP gets going, is that you haven't met the bar that would allow you to qualify.

Nothing is being said that you aren't disabled, it's just that you don't meet all of the criteria to qualify for a welfare benefit because of it.

People seem to think that having any disability at any level should allow you to qualify for a benefit.

It's called 'pass' and 'fail' - just as when you take an exam. You may well be intelligent but if you don't meet the criteria set down - say achieve more than a 55% mark - you fail to pass that exam.

Unfortunately we seem to have a situation where no one ever fails or should fail - they should be classified as 'delayed qualifiers'.

Brassedoff

bigboybrother wrote: »

Personally I couldn't care a fig leaf what ATOS or the DWP thought of me.
There is more to life than creating more problems than there are already.

Have you nothing better to occupy your time with than that rubbish?

It isn't even a question that should be asked on this forum - try the tea bar instead, I'm sure that you will find others there that will glady discuss it with you.

Sorry, please let me know where to send the payment for subscription to your forum.

Roger, any document written and shared that is ruled incorrect by a court allows for libel action. Countless cases have resulted from high court rulings.

Some people don't get it, I am asking about fighting fire with fire. I don't receive ESA at all due to my financial circumstances rather than physical one.

We have seen the first successful action against ATOS. If you have mobility issues they now know the deliberate walk is now a no, no. If everyone followed suit in that instance it would cost, them.

The more hassle a large group is to an organisation, the more they take note or decide its not worth it as the system gets clogged with cases.

As for tea room, this place has been a tea room long before some of us joined!

rogerblack

Brassedoff wrote: »

Roger, any document written and shared that is ruled incorrect by a court allows for libel action. Countless cases have resulted from high court rulings.
<nip>

We have seen the first successful action against ATOS. If you have mobility issues they now know the deliberate walk is now a no, no. If everyone followed suit in that instance it would cost, them.

If you refer to the case I found where ATOS paid £2K - this is extremely limited.
Firstly - an out of court settlement sets no precedent whatsoever.
Secondly - this was a case where a person was requested to travel to a centre not accessible by them without pain/discomfort, when a reasonable adjustment could be made.
The EA would kick in on that basis - and it would be reasonable for ATOS to settle.
This says nothing at all about the conduct of the test itself.

Can you provide a link to anywhere that discusses a case similar to ATOS? An employee or subcontractor only sending a prepared text to their employer and being held to be a publisher?

As to general principles.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that action should be taken where appropriate.
However, some actions are futile, and will result in nothing other than incurring costs for no outcome.
There are various possibly effective options.
Complain to ATOS officially.
Complain to the HCPs professional standards body.
Complain to the independent case examiner about the standards of service by ATOS.
Complain to the DWP about the quality of the report.
Appeal/ask for reconsideration the decision based on that report that ignores evidence.
Sue for misfeasance in public office an official that makes a decision that falls well below the standard of 'unreasonable' and into 'wilfully wrong'.
Judicial review.
Contact your MP about the unfairness of the test.

Dunroamin

Brassedoff wrote: »

Sorry, please let me know where to send the payment for subscription to your forum.

Roger, any document written and shared that is ruled incorrect by a court allows for libel action. Countless cases have resulted from high court rulings.

Some people don't get it, I am asking about fighting fire with fire. I don't receive ESA at all due to my financial circumstances rather than physical one.

We have seen the first successful action against ATOS. If you have mobility issues they now know the deliberate walk is now a no, no. If everyone followed suit in that instance it would cost, them.

The more hassle a large group is to an organisation, the more they take note or decide its not worth it as the system gets clogged with cases.

As for tea room, this place has been a tea room long before some of us joined!

I think you would find that it would cost us!