Recorded f2f

Options
Broken
Broken Community member Posts: 43 Contributor
edited January 2018 in PIP, DLA, and AA
Is there a "rule" stopping claimants from using two identical recording devises simultaneously?
(As opposed to one devise that can do two recordings) . 

How many claimants have successfully recorded and been able to use these recordings as evidence in any dispute regarding what was actually said and what was written on the form by the assessor? 

Have claimants actually asked for written/documented etc proof of the HP job title/health profession? Are they still using retired doctors as HP? IMO a retired doctor is unlikely to have current knowledge or expertise on some of the conditions (such as Fibromyalgia for example) if they have been retired for many years.

Comments

  • Misscleo
    Misscleo Community member Posts: 647 Pioneering
    Options
    Thats interesting id like to hear more on this subject
  • CockneyRebel
    CockneyRebel Community member Posts: 5,197 Championing
    Options
    There is no requirement to use a dual machine, two separate cassette recorders are ok
    A PIP assessment is not a medical it is a test of functinality HCP's do not have to have any specialist knowledge

    CR
  • sleepy1
    sleepy1 Community member Posts: 297 Empowering
    Options
    Mike
    It should not be like that though should it? 
    If HCP's refrained from telling lies in the first place and decision makers were not so eager to believe them and actually took the time to look at evidence from more qualified medical practitioners there would be much less need for tribunal hearings.

    Thus saving money and relieving insult to injury for many disabled people who have had to endure all the unnecessary stress that the DWP have put upon them when they least needed it.


  • sleepy1
    sleepy1 Community member Posts: 297 Empowering
    Options
    Mike
    It should not be like that though should it?  
    If HCP's refrained from telling lies in the first place and decision makers were not so eager to believe them and actually took the time to look at evidence from more qualified medical practitioners there would be much less need for tribunal hearings.

    Thus saving money and relieving insult to injury for many disabled people who have had to endure all the unnecessary stress that the DWP have put upon them when they least needed it.

  • sleepy1
    sleepy1 Community member Posts: 297 Empowering
    Options
    Winning strategy???
    Clear identification???

    So basically what you are saying in many cases you don't even need to have any disability or documented medical problems at all, so long as you can convince the HCP that you do you will be rewarded for your trouble.

    If that is the case then it just goes to prove the whole system is wrong wrong wrong.  
  • Broken
    Broken Community member Posts: 43 Contributor
    Options
    So basically, it is for the claimant to specify the effects their condition(s) have on their daily lives (which obviously will have a differential from one person to the next). Medical "evidence" will only be considered in relation to the possible or most likely outcome/indications of any particular ailment. Ergo, it will be the assessor/HCP who determines if what the claimant has testified to on their claim forms as being accurate or sufficient in severity to score enough points required for the benefit. 

  • sleepy1
    sleepy1 Community member Posts: 297 Empowering
    Options
    Mike 
    I am assuming you are looking at things more in terms of a legal point of view than any moral stance.  You say the consequences of the impairment is what really matters!  I used to run at least 6 miles 5 days a week and go hill climbing at the weekends which I loved doing but can no longer or ever be able to do again.   

    So please enlighten me if you can, how would that come into play when being assessed?  Have you ever even been to one of these assessments?

    I'm lucky if I can even make it to the bathroom in time now, so what do you think the consequences of that might be, or the balance of probabilities in the weakest part of that argument?