Claimant deaths? DWP vs Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) - have any effect?

tommix

me123456789 wrote: »

To anyone who says you can't die from having your benefits stopped I beg to differ-I had mine stopped for nothing a couple of years ago. I think it was an appointment they never informed me about that I missed or something like that I can't remember now, they are always trying stuff like that. I wasn't working at the time so it was my only source of income. They fobbed me off applying for hardship,jc staff telling me I wouldn't get it because I don't have kids and I'm not disabled. I'd just been kicked out of my mum's house (we don't get on that's an understatement) and I was living in a new area where I hadn't yet made any friends in a freezing damp flat (which was actually a converted shed thing) I tried calling my mum loads of times but she didn't want to know I had no money for electric to heat the flat,wasn't allowed a crisis loan and had no friends to help me out and there used to be ice on the inside of my windows in the mornings.I was running out of food and didn't know where a foodbank was or how to get referred to one.I got sick with a cold or something which went on to my chest and wouldn't go I still had it after about 4 weeks and it was getting worse I was stealing fruit from the market by this time I genuinely thought I was going to end up with pneumonia and get so sick that I couldn't leave the house and that no one would no what had happened until they found my decomposed body in there one day lol through all this I had my "landlord" harassing me because my housing benefit had been stopped.If it wasn't for a lovely kind lady at the welfare advice place helping me to appeal and even giving me money out of her own pocket when I went in there in tears one day I might have actually died.and I was a physically healthy 21 year old to start with.

tomtom256 wrote: »

But you didn't die, so how can you beg to differ?

Bet he's glad he did'nt meet you in his time of need..:(

tomtom256

tommix wrote: »

Bet he's glad he did'nt meet you in his time of need..:(

Why? Where did I say I wouldn't help or wasn't sympathetic?

Just pointing out that hasn't died and that the comment didn't prove or disprove the point of this topic!

NYM

bloolagoon wrote: »

It is very hard and yes certainly the final straw - but that final straw can be many things, debt, work stress, redundancy, relationships, loss of loved ones.

I totally agree. It's likely to be a whole combination of reasons.

rogerblack

bloolagoon wrote: »

It is very hard and yes certainly the final straw - but that final straw can be many things, debt, work stress, redundancy, relationships, loss of loved ones.

Claiming every death for any reason shortly after a finding of fitness for work is attributable directly to DWP actions is clearly ridiculous. The bald statistics will tell you little more than this without an investigation into each case.

Claiming no deaths are is also ridiculous.

For example, lacking a procedure that to reliably flag up high risk cases, and treat them specially is at real risk of actually killing people.

Yes, people who have good support networks will not be at risk, this doesn't let the DWP assume that everyone has good support networks - especially when they have been informed that someone is totally socially disconnected because of their illness and suicidal.

Please note - I am _NOT_ saying that everyone who claims to be suicidal should simply get a free pass.

Just that - to take an example from my case - making a decision to end benefit solely based around missing two phone-calls, despite having a letter in your inbox that you choose not to read, and not reading any prior letters sent - is not acceptable when the prior month you were calling their doctor as you believed they were at risk.

I cannot attribute accurate percentages, but this lead to me writing a will, and preparing a method.

red_devil

tomtom256 wrote: »

Why? Where did I say I wouldn't help or wasn't sympathetic?

Just pointing out that hasn't died and that the comment didn't prove or disprove the point of this topic!

We are a rich country, we are in the 21st century and nobody should be denied basic money to live on. Your comment I agree was not very good.

Sanctions and foodbank referrals have grown under the Tory government. They hate anyone who isnt able to pay their own way. They can send money abroad though.

Sanctions should not be used, its been proved they do nothing to help people into work either and makrs peoples mental health suffer.

rogerblack

red_devil wrote: »

Sanctions should not be used, its been proved they do nothing to help people into work either and makrs peoples mental health suffer.

Sanctions are useful for some fraction of the population, and are justified in some cases.

If you choose not to do things that have at least a possibility of helping you into work for no good reason, a sanction is not unreasonable. For example, not turning up at an interview you are qualified for.

Sanctions for 'technical' offenses, or of people who are doing their best to comply is reprehensible.

BlueEyedGirl

tea-bag wrote: »

They are ignoring the request because people don't die because of the DWP.

There is NO proof the two are linked.

If somebody commits suicide they work and have money problems, do you blame the employer for not paying more?

If you commit suicide you have more problems than being found fit for work.

I only hope you never become ill with mental health issues.

Confuseddot

rogerblack wrote: »

Claiming every death for any reason shortly after a finding of fitness for work is attributable directly to DWP actions is clearly ridiculous. The bald statistics will tell you little more than this without an investigation into each case.

Claiming no deaths are is also ridiculous.

For example, lacking a procedure that to reliably flag up high risk cases, and treat them specially is at real risk of actually killing people.

Yes, people who have good support networks will not be at risk, this doesn't let the DWP assume that everyone has good support networks - especially when they have been informed that someone is totally socially disconnected because of their illness and suicidal.

Please note - I am _NOT_ saying that everyone who claims to be suicidal should simply get a free pass.

Just that - to take an example from my case - making a decision to end benefit solely based around missing two phone-calls, despite having a letter in your inbox that you choose not to read, and not reading any prior letters sent - is not acceptable when the prior month you were calling their doctor as you believed they were at risk.

I cannot attribute accurate percentages, but this lead to me writing a will, and preparing a method.

Due to the huge numbers involved in claiming these benefits it will all be computerised and I imagine the computer will automatically flag up to stop benefit when two appointments/calls are missed with no real human intervention.

Not saying its correct but that is probably what happens.

rogerblack

Confuseddot wrote: »

Due to the huge numbers involved in claiming these benefits it will all be computerised and I imagine the computer will automatically flag up to stop benefit when two appointments/calls are missed with no real human intervention.

Not saying its correct but that is probably what happens.

Which if anything makes it _LESS_ acceptable, not more.

Computerisation makes this trivial to get right.

'missed phonecalls -> letter sent within date may not be in system -> wait to make decision until letter arrives.'

(I note they are statutorily required to actually take the letter they have already received into account).

It should be trivial to flag people as vulnerable, and have decisions to stop benefit at least glanced over by a human.
Not doing so will actually kill people.

Confuseddot

rogerblack wrote: »

Which if anything makes it _LESS_ acceptable, not more.

Computerisation makes this trivial to get right.

'missed phonecalls -> letter sent within date may not be in system -> wait to make decision until letter arrives.'

(I note they are statutorily required to actually take the letter they have already received into account).

It should be trivial to flag people as vulnerable, and have decisions to stop benefit at least glanced over by a human.
Not doing so will actually kill people.

There are 2.515 million people claiming ESA automation is the only way to deal with such volumes. I would imagine it won't be set up to deal with a letter that may or may not appear in the post. In the same way that there is no correlation for those who have just had successful appeals upheld after years who then receive a new form. Have you ever worked with computers ? It will probably be an off the shelf system that doesn't have the facility to store that someone is vulnerable. To customise this would probably cost a fortune and need to be reapplied after every patch and upgrade and training to use such a box will need to be given.

The next and very difficult question is How do you define some as vulnerable ?

The ex serviceman who died after his JSA was sanctioned had family and friends round him that he didn't want to bother or something. He was told to apply for hardship both by phone and via letter but didn't. He would probably be classed as vulnerable now but before his death probably not ...

I don't know the answers but when dealing with 2.515 million i imagine its very difficult to tailer support to the individual.