posts deleted by Higgins

[Deleted User]

i am not happy that the information posted by Higgins ( which i believe is extreemly helpful to empower people struggling with the unfair PIP assesments) have all been totally deleted. i get the point that scope donot accept that a personal arguement ensued in these post is not accepted however i feel that you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater!!! lots of information of use in that thread on how to tackle the DWP which i wanted to keep. i actually bookmarked the page and forwarded the thread o to my email address as a memory aid! shockingly to me this has also been deleted from my email and bookmark . how is this possible once it has been sent to my email????? is this group to help the disabled or the government? seriously .....can you explain hoe the email to myself has been deleted? can you send my a copy of the thread to my email to help me 

poppy123456

HI,

The reason it will have been deleted from your email is because the thread no longer exists because it's been deleted.

There's lots of knowledgeable people on the forum that will gladly answer any questions you have. I will advise though that the best support you can have through out a Tribunal will be face to face advice from either welfare rights or any other disability advice centre near you. IT always extremely difficult to advise correctly on an internet forum when no one knows exaxtly how a persons conditions affect them.

[Deleted User]

I was more wanting the information of the human rights that the DWP are breaching when they treat us in such a dreadful way...also how can they get away with bending the truth and ignoring what we say like we are liars. if they think we are unreliable in stating our difficulties why do face to face assessments to just contradict us etc. why is nobody challenging them on the fact that 70%of claimants get an award at tribuneral. why are they not been hauled over the coals for wasting tax payers money by dragging out assesments and leaving the disabled without the support they are intitled to

mikehughescq

I will reply to this in detail tomorrow. I had typed a very long detailed response to all your points but then managed to accidentally delete it so clearly I’m too tired to be posting. 

Cazann

poppy123456 said:

HI,

The reason it will have been deleted from your email is because the thread no longer exists because it's been deleted.

There's lots of knowledgeable people on the forum that will gladly answer any questions you have. I will advise though that the best support you can have through out a Tribunal will be face to face advice from either welfare rights or any other disability advice centre near you. IT always extremely difficult to advise correctly on an internet forum when no one knows exaxtly how a persons conditions affect them.

Hi @poppy123456. Is there a reason why Higgins posts have been deleted? @vickyanne is right to point out that the DWP is possibly in breach of the Human Rights act. The DWP need to be made accountable for the terrible treatment of disabled people. They are using unqualified people to make decisions, many of them by lying.to stop the disabled from getting what they deserve. I'm sure that it would take one test case to change this terrible farce and bring about a fairer system.

poppy123456

I have absolutely no idea. The reason i replied to the question to start with was only i knew the answer to the question that was asked " why was the email i received deleted" simply because the post it concerned no longer existed.

mikehughescq

Allow me to now answer the 1st part of your 1st post. The poster in question didn’t post anything useful about EA 10 or the HRA. They posted that they existed and could be used. Information which is available elsewhere on this site in much more detail. They didn’t mention judicial review or other public law solutions but they did use their own case as an EA 10 example. I hoped to draw more out of them for others by asking about that because, based only on what they had posted, there appeared to be a sketchy understanding of both the things they were citing (EA 10 and DWP assessment provider guidance) and some things which were, again on the face of it, confusing e.g, if the assessment provider had previously agreed a home-visit it would be because travel was either harmful or impossible. In such circumstances any EA 10 case appears undermined by then undertaking that exact journey. Saying they were “forced” didn’t really address that. They declined to answer those simple questions, which could have triggered an interesting discussion, and instead actively ignored them and embarked on repeated posts using personal abuse and some boasts about their personal knowledge which lacked credibility. They also used capitals repeatedly for emphasis, which in netiquette is shouting and they also used Sentence case where you throw words into a sentence which start with capital letters. Some people read such things and conclude that the person must be quoting the law directly or knows how to present such things so must be legally qualified. When you read the actual law you soon see it’s hopelessly wrong and potentially misleading. 

Amidst that you could have asked questions. I can’t comment on what you would have gotten back but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence it would have taken you further. The poster, to the best of my knowledge, remains on the site and has never exapanded on their basic exhortation to people to use the law. However, that does mean you can contact them by starting your own discussion or posting on their wall. 

Some people like to play passive aggressive games with personal abuse. I won’t tolerate it so I reported it and took screen shots. My understanding is that resulted in the thread being closed. That was fine but at least one of those posts potentially libelled me professionally and personally so I asked that the site remove the thread. I havent had it confirmed, but faced with that knowledge most sites would delete the thread. Far from throwing the baby out with the bath water it was eminently sensible. 

Once they have deleted the thread then any link to it in an email would take you to an empty page. They could then recall all notification emails so that the email would indeed disappear from your inbox. I am unaware they did the latter as it remained in mine but they may have done that. 

You’re welcome to ask any questions here about the same subject. The reality is that EA 10 is far more useful than the HRA act when it comes to individual challenges. However the issues raised in your second post are best addressed by mandatory reconsideration or appeal and by joining the many campaigning organisations.

i hope that clarifies it. 

[Deleted User]

so what about the person who saw fit to delete the thread having the curtusy to reinstate it????? so then the helpful information can be copied by me and others who want to use it positively to fight the government can use it ? i too believe strongly that It would only take one person to take one test case and make the government acountable . Higgins had the know how the fight and the voice (yes a voice that takes no prisioners) but i did not find his thread abusive in anyway . He was a intelligent well informed individual His banter was acceptable ..deleting a very pro active thread with information that could potentially help everyone on this site i find suspect and i. question what this forum is for when posts as informative of our rights as that are deleted. Reinstate it !

Liam_Alumni

Hi everyone, we removed this discussion at the request of users involved. A second discussion thread on the same topic has now been posted.

poppy123456

I was another person that reported that thread too because i also didn't like what i read and seen. Being abusive to other members is not accepted anywhere on the scope forums. We encourage helpful and friendly posts and nothing more.

 I thought the comments made were very abusive towards @mikehughescq with the use of capital letters excessively, which means shouting through text type. That sort of text is not nice to read and i personally find it very difficult.

I'm sure if you have any questions of your own regarding a benefits claim then someone will help you. I personally find mikes advice one of the best i've seen, for a very long time.

[Deleted User]

poppy123456
@mikehughescq was one of the ones saying he too felt the thread shouldnt have been deleted as i had a point lol

atlas46

Hi @mikehughes

Would be interested to see some citations or links, where you have taken claims to either UT or Judicial Review, say in last 5 years. Or any specific "test cases".

atlas46

Hi @mikehughescq

This is the mikehughes I asked questions, in the above post. Please accept my unreserved apology for this typo.

poppy123456

vickyanne said:

poppy123456
@mikehughescq was one of the ones saying he too felt the thread shouldnt have been deleted as i had a point lol

Strange that because i just read that mike did ask for the thread to be removed.

mikehughescq

vickyanne said:

poppy123456
@mikehughescq was one of the ones saying he too felt the thread shouldnt have been deleted as i had a point lol

My screen shots suggest otherwise. I believe the gist of what I said was that I would normally report immediately but felt the thread had scope to redeem itself if the original poster would clarify the detail of their case. They declined; continued abuse and we are where we are. The language used in the other thread is equally as telling with DWP staff characterised as “nasty” and the poster  “wiping the floor” with them. Few professional reps would ever use such an approach or language. A conflict based approach ultimately gets you a reputation with tribunals that damages your clients case before they’ve even walked into the room.

@atlas46 when it comes to assessment provider issues around such things as home visits or other reasonable adjustments these things don’t go to UT as they’re not appealable social security decisions. They are EA 10 reasonable adjustment issues provided the claimant is covered by EA 10 (and contrary to the assertion by the original poster on the deleted thread not all Scope site users will be and not all ill or impaired people will be). Whilst assessment providers often ask for medical evidence to back up a request for a home visit there’s no need. A simple letter citing EA 10 and asking for an RA; detailing why and the information already held by DWP (if applicable) will pretty much always do the trick. If the assessment provider declines to do an RA having had such a request they can only do so under one of the legal reasons to decline. If they fail to do that or you disagree with those reasons then it’s off to ET or court for damages. I’ve simply never had a case go that far. 

For the reasons cited above then, no UT cases. JR is not applicable as an assessment provider is not a public body. 

@vickyanne appeared interested in the HRA. This is largely a false hope given by the original poster. As you’ll see from this link the only regularly relevant element is the right to a fair trial - https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act - a functional assessment is not covered by that. A nice illustration of just how irrelevant it is can be found at https://rightsinfo.org/infographics/fifty-human-rights-cases/. See if you can spot the social security case. Clue: there isn’t one. 

If you you want to know a bit more about the sorts of cases I take then have a look at the recent stuff around backdating of means-tested ESA which is set to cost the DWP millions. The original UT decision which established that an ESA claim did not require separate claims for contributory and means-tested ESA i.e. that ESA is one benefit... that was me. I’d love to post a link but I’m damned if after all these years I can remember the case number. I’ll go find it on Rightsnet when I have a moment. It’s public domain obviously. 

Alex

The latest posts have been removed, and thread closed.

We don't want to close and delete posts but we're obliged to do so when people break the rules. Our house rules are quite simple and boil down to:

• Keep it safe
• Keep it friendly

We do our best to apply the rules objectively. If you'd like to discuss this further, please get in touch with us [email protected]