ESA, DLA and PIP chaos - DWP overturning more than half of it's own decisions on MR..

Morglin

amus wrote: »

How long ago did you work for them??

If she works for them why is she unable to answer any of my questions about DWP computer systems which I know for a fact she would have to use if she was a DWP employee.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. I don't doubt there are most probably internal wrangling a going on between the DWP and ATOS, but I'm afraid this poster is most likely trolling.[





Do you work for them then?

I never accept any Info from just one source, but the info she has given has been confirmed from other links.

You have an absolute right to disregard the poster says, and ignore her posts, but unless you can confirm you work for them, and what your info consists of, you aren't really helping the debate much lol

Lin

Morglin

amus wrote: »

I couldn't care less, apart from the fact she is giving potentially false information to potentially vulnerable people.

Why do you have a problem with me trying to verify her credibility?

Because her info has been confirmed, via various links in regard to appeals, we don't do it with other posters giving info, and I wonder what your problem is?

Anyone, with any sense, always confirms anything they read on the net, but she is giving general info, which is useful.

Lin

amus

Morglin wrote: »

Because her info has been confirmed, via various links in regard to appeals, we don't do it with other posters giving info, and I wonder what your problem is?

Anyone, with any sense, always confirms anything they read on the net, but she is giving general info, which is useful.

Lin

And I have no problem with that.

What I am trying to verify is her credibility with regard to the 'inside info' she was giving about ATOS. The lack of response to my questions about DWP computer systems speaks volumes. Most other posters offering help aren't coming here claiming to have inside knowledge of something, and if somebody is doing so, they should be able to back those claims up.

I wonder what your problem is with me asking for that info? Anyway my job here is done, I've asked the questions, she has been unable to respond, people can make their own minds up about whether her 'insider knowledge' on ATOS is reliable or not. Either way it's common knowledge ATOS want out.

Morglin

At the end if the day, all I, as someone disabled, and someone who is involved in welfare rights, is trying to do is to confirm info (from more than one source) and share it......life is hard enough, without people falling out.


Of course, we all know that ATOS are off - but why appeals have dropped was a puzzle, until I read her input and then got confirmation from another source, which I gave links to.

You have your view, I have mine and only time will tell what is correct and what is not.

Lin

Gigervamp

Maybe she's been unable to respond to your further questioning because she's not online?

amus

Gigervamp wrote: »

Maybe she's been unable to respond to your further questioning because she's not online?

Maybe. Her response to the first question posed wasn't too promising but I have no problem being proved wrong when I am.

NYM

People have to be very careful what they post here because it can be 'picked up' and reposted elsewhere.

https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/tribunal-system-in-limbo-whilst-atos-holds-medical-files-back-due-to-contract-dispute-with-dwp/

jga1940

jennyjenkins wrote: »

I actually work in the tribunals office, for DLA, ESA, etc etc,

Are you saying you work for the DWP in the tribunals office that deals with the benefits you mention or that you work for HMCTS ?

jga1940

amus wrote: »

I couldn't care less, apart from the fact she is giving potentially false information to potentially vulnerable people.

Why do you have a problem with me trying to verify her credibility?

I agree, and I'm a retired Welfare Rights Lawyer & spent nearly 10 years as a DLA Tribunal Member.

jga1940

jennyjenkins wrote: »

It might not amaze you then, to know that a lot of the Doctors that are on the tribunals, also worked for ATOS, talk about double standards, it is well known in our office. That Duncan Smith is only in a job at the moment, because if he was to be moved, or sacked, it would become public knowledge that he has made a mess. The Government do not need a scandal at the moment, especially with the election due.

Actually, when that decision was made it was it was the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) who were doing EMP reports. then it was privatised and then SEMA part of the Nestor group took over.

You must have heard of the Gillies case when Mr Gillies appealed a Tribunal of Commissioners decision that quote :

Extracts from an Independent Tribunal Service Guide to the Appointment of Tribunal Chairmen and Members, of July 1996, which covered appointments to disability appeal tribunals, stated, inter alia, that candidates for appointment "should be suitably established in their medical practice and be well-regarded within their professional circles" (paragraph 4.3); and that at interview details of "the nature and extent of any fee-paid or sessional work which the candidate might perform for BAMS or for a private contractor on behalf of BAMS" were to be discovered (paragraph 4.9). The situation of tribunal members who were also BAMS doctors was further covered as follows:

"4.20 There is no reason why a doctor who is acting as an Examining Medical Practitioner (EMP) for the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) on a part-time basis should not be appointed as a DAT medical member. During interview, however, the Regional or full-time Chairman should satisfy himself that there is no potential conflict of interest between the two roles and should make it clear to the candidate that, if appointed, he would have to exclude himself from sitting on any tribunal hearing the appeal of a person whom he had previously examined in connection with any claim for benefit".

The case went through all the Courts, including the Court of Session in Scotland sitting as an Appeal Court, who decided there was no 'conflict of interest'.It was upheld right through to House of Lords.

I'm not allowed to post links, but you can get the full Court rulings by Googling Gillies case.

Yet, whilst I was sitting as a DLA Tribunal Member, the then President HH Judge Michael Harris wrote to what were then called Legal Members (Chair) now Tribunal Judges & to all Disability Members effectively banning them from doing other work in the areas that they sat on Tribunals.

The reason that IDS refused to move to another Department, and Cameron let him get away with it rather than sacking him is because IDS knows something about Cameron that we don't.

BTW, You never answered my original question which was do you work for the DWP dealing with the issue of tribunal papers ? A simple enough question.