After ATOS assessment, have been taken off ESA

Morglin

likelyfran wrote: »

I agree that there's far too much judgement and presumption on here. People have out and out accused OP of calculated benefit fraud - with no proof or justification that I can see, having read all the posts/links - and seem to have eagerly sought to do so! Hasn't a mod. seen this thread? Surely this is not seen as ok or encouraged by MSE!

The question, from the OP, was about an assessor, and then a DM, and then a tribunal all agreeing that the OP was fit enough to seek work, which she disagreed with.

From an assortment of disabilities that many posters on this board have, a lot of us came to the conclusion, born of experience, that this level of exercise would be extremely difficult to maintain, with even a minor disability.

ESA assessments take the view that if you can do, a, b or c, then you are capable of some form of work..

I expressed the view, that the OP would find it hard to justify a claim for ESA or PIP, as things stand, and I stand by it - and I see no reason why a mod would close the thread, to be honest.

Anyone posting on a public forum must expect varying views, although any abuse is, obviously, unacceptable.

Lin

schrodie

Given the bias Atos operate it's amazing anyone gets awarded their correct level of benefit!!

Here

Morglin

Well, despite forums being full of bad news, many, many people have been assessed efficiently, swiftly and been put in the correct group!

Forums are usually only full of problems - those with no issues don't tend to post.

Lin

likelyfran

Morglin wrote: »

The question, from the OP, was about an assessor, and then a DM, and then a tribunal all agreeing that the OP was fit enough to seek work, which she disagreed with.

From an assortment of disabilities that many posters on this board have, a lot of us came to the conclusion, born of experience, that this level of exercise would be extremely difficult to maintain, with even a minor disability.

ESA assessments take the view that if you can do, a, b or c, then you are capable of some form of work..

I expressed the view, that the OP would find it hard to justify a claim for ESA or PIP, as things stand, and I stand by it - and I see no reason why a mod would close the thread, to be honest.

Anyone posting on a public forum must expect varying views, although any abuse is, obviously, unacceptable.

Lin

Yes it obviously is - I would say that several outright accusations of purposeful benefits fraud (with no proof of this, imo) - is evidence of quite a lot of abuse on a thread!

The OP explained that she excercises with special provisions made, although just the fact that she has severe balance problems, I would say, curtails her ability to do just about any type of paid work!

Is the fact that another poster who is certified 'blind' can type and read type (with provisions made), evidence that s(he) is in fact fit to do some kind of work and shouldn't be on benefits????

Why the apparent double standards??

And why would the OP want to come back to the thread when it's full of people assuming she's a liar, seeking out 'evidence' for it, and calling her such?
Oh - sorry, it's because she's 'ashamed and embarrased' because she's a liar and a fraud.
Horrendous bullying attitudes round here.

nannytone_2

in the 2 1/2 years that i have been receiving ESA, i have had 1 face to face assessment, 1 additional assessment without a medical and strangest of all, been swapped to the support group from the WRAG without asking!
i didnt know anything, either positive or negative about the ESA process before i claimed.
although i dont dispute that there are some serious issues around ESA, as a straightforward case that has no room for opinion or discussion as to the effect...
the system worked perfectly for me and probably does for the vast number of claimants

Harryonesock

likelyfran wrote: »

Yes it obviously is - I would say that several outright accusations of purposeful benefits fraud (with no proof of this, imo) - is evidence of quite a lot of abuse on a thread!

The OP explained that she excercises with special provisions made, although just the fact that she has severe balance problems, I would say, curtails her ability to do just about any type of paid work!

Is the fact that another poster who is certified 'blind' can type and read type (with provisions made), evidence that s(he) is in fact fit to do some kind of work and shouldn't be on benefits????

Why the apparent double standards??

And why would the OP want to come back to the thread when it's full of people assuming she's a liar, seeking out 'evidence' for it, and calling her such?
Oh - sorry, it's because she's 'ashamed and embarrased' because she's a liar and a fraud.
Horrendous bullying attitudes round here.

Since when has stairs been classed as special provisions?? She even has the stair measurements - 7 inches!!!! Ok perhaps I shouldn't have said embarrassed and ashamed but I'm sick of hearing about genuine claims for disability being turned down!! It's not bullying at all, it's stating facts which the op herself posted!!! I'd be fighting my corner if accused of something that wasn't true!

Indie_Kid

likelyfran wrote: »

Is the fact that another poster who is certified 'blind' can type and read type (with provisions made), evidence that s(he) is in fact fit to do some kind of work and shouldn't be on benefits????

But her situation is different. I am in a similar situation - classed as sight impaired / partial sight, but the condition I have means that reading is pretty much impossible now. And there are health and safety issues too.

likelyfran

Indie_Kid wrote: »

But her situation is different. I am in a similar situation - classed as sight impaired / partial sight, but the condition I have means that reading is pretty much impossible now. And there are health and safety issues too.

And there's not health and safety issues with having severe balance problems?!

Indie_Kid

likelyfran wrote: »

And there's not health and safety issues with having severe balance problems?!

I have severe balance problems too. It wouldn't for example, stop someone doing a job with computers.

nannytone_2

likelyfran wrote: »

And there's not health and safety issues with having severe balance problems?!

the issue isnt that people think someone with severe balance issues is or isnt a H and S risk...
its more to do with the comtradictory statements made by the person claiming to have severe balance issues.
they seem to be able to turm them on and off at will ......