ATOS again.........

redskyatnight_2

melbury wrote: »

Why though? You get different people on each forum who may have something of value to say.:(

That's what I thought. I don't understand why it's a 'problem.' If you post on 10 forums then yes it's a bit much, but just a couple or three? Maybe I will ask a mod about this, and see if it is against the rules. If not, then there's no reason why you shouldn't.

benefitbaby

melbury wrote: »

Surely they should be concentrating their efforts on the long term IB people and not the people on ESA who have been [STRIKE]interrogated[/STRIKE] checked on an extremely regular basis.

They are, all IB claimants are in the process of being assessed for ESA.

FYI the ESA questions/descriptors changed in January and I am seeing a lot of clients who previously attained 15 points but now do not.

bigboybrother

benefitbaby wrote: »

FYI the ESA questions/descriptors changed in January and I am seeing a lot of clients who previously attained 15 points but now do not.

Isn't that one of the reasons for a regular check? The ESA system slowly changes to meet the needs of different people. It is a new system comparatively so you would expect it to be tweaked from time to time - nothing is perfect from the start - it takes time for it to bed in and adjust.

osdset

bigboybrother wrote: »

Isn't that one of the reasons for a regular check? The ESA system slowly changes to meet the needs of different people. It is a new system comparatively so you would expect it to be tweaked from time to time - nothing is perfect from the start - it takes time for it to bed in and adjust.

You have missed the point, ESA as a benefit delivery system does what it says 'on the tin', it's the assessment that's fundamentally flawed, and more to the point the ATOS employed HCP's that routinely ignore evidence and subvert assessments to meet targets.

The system is designed to fail people which is why so many subsequently win on appeal.

bigboybrother

osdset wrote: »

The system is designed to fail people which is why so many subsequently win on appeal.

Not entirely true is it?

The vast majority of claimants that 'win' (and for the life of me I can't understand how you can say that having an illness V not having an illness is 'winning', but there we go) at a Tribunal is because they decided to get their backsides into gear and produce evidence that no one has seen before (laziness) and/or failed to put over a sufficiently well argued and demonstrated case either on the ESA50 or at the assessment centre.

All of which are entirely the fault of the claimant!