Disgusting DWP Attitude and Policy again exposed

greenman

I don’t understand why ill and disabled people are not supported fairly in this country.  I’ve read so many negative experiences of the DWP.  My own experience with them is quite horrendously and literally goes beyond belief.  The DWP has an attitude towards claimants that is extremely distasteful.  Are we just so small a community that we will always be denied fairness and change, why is this allowed to happen?

I recent story you may have read reiterates the disgraceful and disgusting attitude practiced by the DWP.  Have these people no shame nor conscious?  Please take time to read about the disgraceful treatment received by dear Kayleigh as reported in Kentonline.  I sincerely hope her representative is massively successful in suing for damages for the suffering caused to her at the hands of DWP staff. 

janer1967

Hi I haven't read the story you mention but being on here does so often highlight the way DWP sometimes causes stress and heartache to many 

But you will always read the bad on forums as those with success stories dont make comments as they have no reason to so while I dont disagree with you we dont always see the balanced view 

Cher_Inactive

Hi @greenman

I think this is the article you are referring to on Kent online.  For those unaware, Kayleigh was disallowed PIP and appealed 4 times without success.  This led to her attempting to take her own life before she was finally awarded it.  

This is a subject that provokes heated discussion, for good reason, and it's essential we question why these negative experiences still persist as you rightly are. 

Please bear in mind our online community guidelines when discussing this though and try to keep discussion friendly and respectful where/if people have differing opinions.

greenman

I should have added that the story is quite upsetting and if you find you are sensitive and easily upset it might be best not to read it. 
It upsets me.

chiarieds

Hi @greenman - Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It saddens me when people who ought to be awarded PIP are unsuccessful. It's difficult enough for those of us that have physical problems, but perhaps more difficult for those with mental health issues, to complete the initial claim form appropriately. Not understanding how to complete this form is something repeatedly seen on this forum, but thankfully members can advise, & hopefully help some.

As Jane mentions, we don't hear from those who claim PIP successfully, as they don't have any need to post a question on here, & the majority of claims are indeed successful. If only more people knew about Scope, or got some benefit advice on other health-related forums, or from Citizens Advice, etc.....

woodbine

I think you have to look at both sides of this coin, the majority of DWP staff are poorly trained, over worked and not well paid. And as already mentioned we hear far more about the bad outcomes than the good ones, considering they deal with millions of claimants a high % are fairly dealt with and get successful outcomes I don' t know the details that @greenman refers to but in general there are ways to deal with a decision that doesn't go a claimants way, MR and tribunals have a high success rate.

mikehughescq

Interesting article and there are indeed multiple angles to it. If one were to take the article at face value then there are multiple aspects which don’t add up and also some which are not apparent which may give people much pause for thought. 

If this was a first claim in February then where does the “rejected four times” bit come in? You claim; get rejected; do an MR; get rejected; appeal and... then what? This case doesn’t appear to have been decided at appeal yet there appear to have been four appeals! That’s four appeals in nine months. To be blunt that is so obviously untrue you have to feel embarrassed for the journalist. Unfortunately such poor journalism triggers threads like this where people are angry about something which has in part been misrepresented by the media. 

The more likely story here is this. Large bits of it will be recognisable to anyone who sees the same threads appearing here again and again. 

I think this claimant was rejected for PIP and did an MR. The MR failed and so she appealed. I’d guess the rep then stepped in and asked for a review before the matter was heard at appeal and that review also failed. Before the matter went to a hearing the appellant likely saw the appeal bundle and/or review decision letter. That appears to have been the trigger for hospitalisation. Hospitalisation offered the rep a further possibility for review but armed with a real life incident. Decision gets revised. There isn’t enough detail to say this for certain but that amount of arrears doesn’t square whether the award going all the way back to February so I wonder if they have in fact paid up from a later date such as the MR. There may also be something else going on. See below. 

Now, here’s some other things to think about. 

1 - although there are assertions DWP didn’t believe the MH angle, it is incredibly rare for DWP to deny a diagnosis. Claimants often wrongly interpret it that way when all DWP are usually saying is that they don’t accept the evidence around the consequences. That’s not an especially subtle distinction but it’s too subtle fur many claimants, who wrongly think they’re being called liars, and it’s definitely too subtle for a local newspaper. @poppy123456 must get very bored with explaining that PIP is not about your condition but about the consequences.  

2 - we have no idea what evidence the claimant submitted or whether it was good enough. However, it’s not a huge leap to see that if the claimant misunderstood what DWP were saying then they would concentrate on evidence of diagnosis and perhaps medication rather than evidence around consequences. From there it’s not too hard to see why that might go wrong. I agree with @woodbine that there are issues around quality and remuneration for DWP staff but often the reason you can’t make the right reason is simply because the evidence addresses the wrong thing. 

Important to say that I don’t know the case so the above is speculation on my part but it’s hardly wild speculation. 

3 - the claimant is a carer. Nothing wrong with that but how many threads do we have on here where people get challenged routinely about their PIP claim because they are a carer. The newspaper tells us about the caring angle to elicit further sympathy but DWP are looking at it from the angle of whether it brings into question any of the arguments put forward for claiming daily living or mobility points. The article gives us no clue as to whether the claimant realised this or put in anything to counter it.  

4 - here is the rep. https://disabilityrights.org.uk/. I know the rep and he is highly committed and a big advocate of the strategic casework approach i.e. using public law  remedies rather than just MR/appeal etc. However, he also charges for his services. It’s not clear whether that £5,000 arrears is before or after his cut. It is not possible to say whether a better, quicker or worse outcome could have been obtained through free representation, or indeed whether such a service was available to the appellant in her area, but we can say that the case shows the immediate benefits of actual representation especially in mental health cases. 

I have said this before, in respect of the occasional fraud case articles which get posted up here by someone angrily asserting that said fraudster is denying others their rightful benefit. You simply cannot take what you read at face value.