Appealing against Incapacity Benefit ceasing

rachel6188

I HAVE SUFFERED FROM CHROINC ABDO PAIN FROM ADHESIONS SINCE FEB 06 AND HAVE DEPRESSION. I TOO WENT FOR A MEDICAL WITH THE INCAP AND WAS TAKEN OFF IT (THE DOC LIED AND SAID A FEW THINGS THAT WHERE BLATENT LIE, HE PUT IM RIGHT HANDED AND IAM LEFT. BTW IAM ON MORPHINE FOR PAIN) I APPEALED AND GOT IT BK AND I ALSO DONT HAVE TO GO FOR A MEDICAL FOR ANOTHER 3 YEARS. IAM ON HIGHEST RATE OF CARE AND MOBILITY WITH THE DLA AND THIS DOC TOLD ME I WAS FIT TO WORK !!!!!!!!!!. HAVE YOU APPEALED AND HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING???
RACH XXX

Eleanory

I have M.E. and have been on IB for nearly six years. I once had my benefit stopped because I had rested for a week prior to the medical to ensure I was well enough to attend. I asked the DWP for a copy of the doctor's report. He had left out one answer I had given which was enough on its own to give me 15 points. I appealed and won. The following year I brought my husband to the medical and he took notes. The doctor nearly wet himself when he saw this. I got my benefits that year and have not had to have a medical for two years. You are entitled to be accompanied to your medical and you or your companion are entitled to take notes. You may not record the medical using a tape recorder or video camera, or, if you are, it is difficult to get permission to do so. I strongly recommend that you a) bring a companion who will take notes and b)ask for a copy of the doctor's report.

Strike_Team

I successfully appealed against my Incapacity Benefit being stopped without any outside help. I though it might help others having problems with benefits to describe how I did it.

My incapacity medical examination was carried out by a foreign doctor who spoke poor English. His manner was cold and unpleasant, instead of the usual pleasantries that I've had from every other doctor I've seen, he simply ordered me to sit down, then began reading questions from his computer. He was impatient, didn't give me a chance to answer questions properly and became irritable when I asked him to repeat himself as I didn't understand what he was saying. Fortunately I had my Dad with me as a witness.

My IB got cut off, and when I got a copy of his report from the DWP, it was wildly wrong. He alleged that I had said a whole series of things that I didn't say, misrepresented some of what I had said, and completely failed to record a lot of the important things that I had said. Some of the statements in the report were grossly contradictory, for instance he (correctly) said I lived alone, and then later on said I had children! Some of the statements in the report were completely incomprehensible.

I found 2 particularly helpful resources for preparing my appeal - the Benefits and Work forum, and the DWP Incapacity Benefit Handbook.

I read through how the examination is supposed to be done in the Incapacity Benefit Handbook, then I went through the doctor's report and made a detailed list of all the things he's done wrong, and all the contradictions. I also wrote out a description of my health problems and how they affect me in everyday life. I used these, along with a description of what went on in the examination to put together a detailed appeal. It came to about 5 pages in all. I also got a good letter from my consultant describing my health problems, and a more detailed letter from my GP. (My GP's original letter to the DWP had been half a sentence, which I'm sure didn't help my case.) My Mum put together a single page stating the points I should have got for each of the categories such as walking, sitting, standing, using stairs, etc.

I also looked up the DWP doctor on the General Medical Council website, which showed that he was trained in Italy where training and examination standards are much lower. It also showed that he had little experience of working in medicine in the UK.

I also made a detailed complaint to Atos Origin, the private contractor that carties out IB medicals. Although they basically rebuffed my complaint, some of the statements from the DWP doctor in the reply to my complaint were along the lines of "I meant to say this but I actually said that". It also admitted that he had very little experience of doing DWP medicals. I used these statements in my appeal to help demonstrate that the doctor had little idea what he was doing, and appeared to not understand the English phrases and sentences he was using. Their rather inept attempt to fob me off actually gave me some useful ammo to use against them .

Overall, I adopted the mindset of a lawyer, tracking down all the appropriated documents and then looking for any information in the documents that could be used to build a case, as well as looking for every single inconsistency and contradiction, and every breach of correct procedure by the DWP doctor.

The appeal date was 5 months from my benefit being cut off (the system is very slow). I took my Mum with me as representative, and my Dad as witness to what happened at the examination. The appeal was held at the Appeals service in Glasgow city centre. It's not easy to get parked nearby, so my Dad dropped me off at the door. I wore a suit and tie. My parents were dressed smartly too. There's a large central waiting room (which happily has comfy chairs), with the rooms where the appeals are held leading off from it. The tribunal clerk explained how the process worked and sorted out travel expenses beforehand. While waiting for the appeal I overheard a woman talking to her representative, she said that the same doctor had written nonsense about her, not listened to her, and that she had had trouble understanding him. Her rep said that some of the stuff he'd written about her was "bizarre". After a nervous wait we were asked in. The room had a large conference-type table with chairs. I and my parents sat on one side, the panel, a doctor and a lawyer, sat on the other. The clerk sat at her PC at one end of the room, typing a record of what was said. The doctor and chairman (lawyer) introduced themselves, then the doctor disqualified herself as she knew my Mum, so the hearing was adjourned. This was very annoying.

After numerous phone calls to the Appeals Service, they were able to find a doctor who didn't know my Mum or dad, who both have medical connections.

As I arrived at the front desk for my rescheduled appeal, the security man asked who I was representing. Obviously not many people appealing benefit decisions turn up in a suit and tie. After some nervous waiting, my time came, and I was called in by the same helpful clerk. The panel consisted of a different lawyer and doctor this time. I walked in slowly, and had to carefully negotiate the chairs and table due to my poor balance which causes me problems in confined spaces. The chairman and doctor were both very polite, and patiently repeated themselves when I had trouble understanding them due to fogginess. The chairman explained at the start that the panel could choose to believe either the DWP doctor’s report, or the report from my GP and consultant. They asked my Dad to leave temporarily, as they said they may call him later to ask him about what went on in the DWP doctor's examination. They then asked me about the physical aspects of my health and how it affects me. The doctor and chairman asked me various questions about activities such as walking, sitting, etc.

They were quite detailed in their questioning, they were obviously looking for consistency in my answers. For instance the doctor asked me how I managed to get out of a chair with no arms, and how I got off my seat stick from sitting on it. I gave a detailed answer to each question, giving as much relevant detail as possible. When asked about stairs, for example, I mentioned that if I want to put something upstairs, I don't take it upstairs immediately, but I leave it at the bottom of the stairs and it goes up with me next time I go upstairs, so that i can keep stair use to a minimum.

I fully explained all my symptoms and problems, and explained how I need to carefully pace and ration my energy, and plan ahead days in advance. I also made clear the fact that I can handle one significant activity per day, pointing out that attending the appeal was that day's major activity, and that the previous day's activity had been a trip to Tesco using the scooter, while the day before that I'd done some hoovering . They also asked about variability, and how my condition and variability had changed between the original examination and the appeal 6 months later. My Mum also added some useful information, pointing out that my house has disability modifications and that she and my Dad do some of my shopping and help with repairs, gardening, etc.

At that point they said that they'd like to consider whether the physical grounds alone would give me enough points to win my appeal. This made me feel quite hopeful. My Mum and I went slowly back to the waiting room while they discussed this. About 10 minutes later they called my Mum only back in, to save me another walk, and she came back with a big smile on her face. They gave me 17 points for physical grounds. They said I'd qualify for over 20 points if they'd considered all the criteria, but once they'd exceeded 15 points they stopped so as to make efficient use of time.

The interesting thing is that they didn't have to get as far as considering mental/daily living points, nor did they call my Dad as a witness, as they found my GP and consultant's letters, and what I said to them, to be sufficient to discredit the DWP doctor's report.

Inverness

I have read through all of this thread and noted how many have used the CAB for help/advice/representation and I can't help wishing more people had voted for them in the MSE charity vote.

krisskross

Inverness wrote: »

I have read through all of this thread and noted how many have used the CAB for help/advice/representation and I can't help wishing more people had voted for them in the MSE charity vote.

Indeed. I was surprised that CAB were not the leading charity in the vote as I am sure more people on MSE have used CAB than will require assistance from the other charity nominations. Not that I am suggesting that any of the others are not entirely worthy causes but CAB offices are having to close for lack of funds, or offer very limited hours. Such a shame. I think very few people know how CAB is funded or not.

Chrysalis

To give you an idea how bad the DWP can be.

There was a internal memo issued to their staff saying they need to stop taking personal feelings into account and make decisions based on guidelines only. This was as a result of too many people been turned simply because the decision maker thought it was wrong for them to get benefit.

Also I found out today about DEA advisors, on my 3 years on incapacity benefit and the 3 work focused interviews I have had I was never offered this service and simply told on the type of work I would look into there is no help they can give me.

krisskross

Chrysalis wrote: »

To give you an idea how bad the DWP can be.

There was a internal memo issued to their staff saying they need to stop taking personal feelings into account and make decisions based on guidelines only. This was as a result of too many people been turned simply because the decision maker thought it was wrong for them to get benefit.

It may also have meant that too many people are getting benefit because decision makers felt sorry for them.

Chrysalis

krisskross wrote: »

It may also have meant that too many people are getting benefit because decision makers felt sorry for them.

It could have done but didnt, it was actually specified people were found to be wrongly turned down for that reason.

popsicat

:grouphug: hugs to all of you - took on the DWP last year and won because they broke their own rules about my OH ataxia needs. He's 62 and worked until he was 60 he has ataxia, stomach ulcers, two hernias, copd, pleural calcification, fluid retention and a less than efficient heart but they ruled him "fit for work".
What I can't forgive myself for (as a career civil servant) was I never thought of taking notes at that medical - well if they send us again I will have the sharpest pencil and I will question "innocent questions".
He scores 16 so we theoretically qualify but I really don't trust them - the seem intent on "pension credit" but with my salary he doesn't qualify and damn it all he's contributed 42 years NIC to them!!!:mad:

alison99_2

I'm glad to see the copy and paste facility on your pc works.

For one dreadful moment you took me back to my Sociology class, and I never want to go back there again. :eek:

Obe1 wrote: »

Client to Customer?
Professional to Manager?

There have been changes in everyday things like names on signs, with terms such as ‘grant-maintained school’ and ‘NHS Trust Hospital’. Perhaps you have been directly affected by changes, e.g. local hospital closure or if you were unemployed you may have found yourself re-named as a job seeker.

These examples represent significant changes to the way in which welfare state institutions are organized. In one important sense the main purpose of these changes was to save money or, more accurately, to shift the burden of the cost of services to relieve the tax-payer.

These changes were intended to promote greater responsibility of individuals and families for their own lives, and to reduce reliance on the state. Individuals were responsible for finding jobs, not the state for providing them. Well-off older people had no need of tax-payers’ subsidies for residential nursing care. However, although this liberal policy of reforming and cutting back expenditure on the welfare sate was meant to save the tax payer money, the statistics relive otherwise.

• Between 1981/2 and 1995/6, total expenditure on social welfare increased by 62 per cent in real terms

• Unemployment expenditure increased by 21 per cent from £7.5 billion in 1981/2 to £9.0 billion in 1995/6

• Social security expenditure due to family breakdown rose from £2.1 billion to £9.5 billion (345 per cent increase) from 1981/2 to 1995/6

• Expenditure on the elderly increased by 36 per cent over this period

(Social Trends, 1997)

There have always been managers in both the private and the public sectors. However, there is currently much greater prominence given to the role of managers as new experts in social welfare. If you work in the public sector or know someone who does, you may have noticed the shift from the talk of ‘public servants’, ‘professionals’, ‘civil servants’ to that of, for instance, ‘purchasers’, ‘providers’ and ‘managers’.

The expertise of the manager resides chiefly in his or her capacity to make social welfare organizations more ‘businesslike’ and more customer-centred, with the manager striving for better resource control and thus greater efficiency. Accountability in bureaucracies is upwards through the hierarchical organization and is based on a clear set of rules that all office holders are required to follow. In professions, accountability is to fellow professional colleagues and to a professional body.



Managerial accountability by contrast is based on the accountability of staff to the organization for which they work and to the customers or consumers of the service. Much of the attraction of managerialism lies in its apparent dynamism and innovative potential for challenging the ‘old’ bureaucracy and its professions associated with seemingly obsolete and inefficient patterns of service provision.

This process seems to involve a dispersal of power through devolution and decentralization: policy makers clarify goals and outcomes and managers are left to get on with the job through their agency. Managers are thus ‘set free’ to go about their business, so, for example, in social care, ‘care managers’ put together and control packages of care for service users.

The role of the state as the primary provider of social welfare has thereby declined. Its activities and power have increasingly been transformed and dispersed into that of being the enabler for a range of diverse organizations, families, communities and individuals in the production and distribution of social welfare. Such developments both enhance the power of the centre but also open up greater possibilities for the distortion and ambiguity of decision making practices by the freed-up front line managers. For example, managers are encouraged to ‘be enterprising and innovative’ and to ‘take risks’, the downside of which may be a departure from the principles of probity and fairness and the established rules and regulations set up to protect both staff and service users.

So what has happened to the ‘client-citizen’ of the old social democratic welfare state services?

What does the term ‘consumerism’ imply for an understanding of the changing power relations around social welfare. Talk about consumerism concentrates on the idea of the autonomous individual protecting his or her own personal interests (or those of family members) in the context of guarding against risks to welfare and security. In the language of consumerism, the market is recognized and celebrated as the most efficient means by which to realize individual choice and diversity, and to respond to particular needs.

Being a welfare consumer thus opens up considerable promise for ‘agency’ not least by heralding a shift from the ‘we know best’ of the professional and ‘do as you’re told according to our rules’ of the paternalistic bureaucrat to a new language and practice of choice, responsiveness and quality.

Both the shift towards managerialism and the emergence of the new welfare consumer represent important changes in the way power is distributed and lives are ordered through the institutions of state welfare. Managerialism, brings a shift towards dispersed forms of power which often end up being unstable, unreliable, diffuse, and a very long way from the tightly controlled chain of command.

In the jargon of liberalism, like managers, new welfare consumers are said to be ‘empowered’, by being released from the old structures of standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ state welfare. The old routines and procedures which made citizens passive recipients of services decided by professionals and bureaucrats were gradually challenged by erosions of authority, questioning of expertise and new ideas. Accepted ways of thinking about needing medical treatment or an income in old age began to shift from acting as a dependent to being responsible for one’s own security. Clients-turned-customers were being shaped by a new set of anonymous forces into ‘governing the self’ in a different way.

Many commentators now distinguish between ‘old’ poverty, caused by old age or illness – in other words, circumstances that can and will affect all of us – and ‘new’ poverty, which is the particular experience of groups vulnerable to marginalization.


The effects of this departure from the ‘golden age’ of the social democratic welfare state are arguably that of dividing the life-chances of the population more dramatically along the inequalities of class, ‘race’, ethnicity, gender, able-bodiedness and age than ever since the 1930s, and reversing the greater equality trend of the period 1945 to mid 1970s. For the privileged consumer there may be more choice and power, greater healthiness and well-being, but for the poor non-consumer, trapped in poverty, there are probably worsening life-chances and less choice. Thus greater opportunities and choices for the relatively privileged welfare consumer appear to accompany greater risks and uncertainties for the poorer sections of UK society whom Bauman (1997) has ironically termed ‘flawed consumers’.