If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Receiving too many notifications? Adjust your notification settings.
posts deleted by Higgins
![[Deleted User]](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027153/uploads/defaultavatar/nYQHP2NSOZ2I4.jpg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0 Listener
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
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
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.
@mikehughescq was one of the ones saying he too felt the thread shouldnt have been deleted as i had a point lol
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".
This is the mikehughes I asked questions, in the above post. Please accept my unreserved apology for this typo.
@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.
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]