PIP, DLA and AA
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.

support with my mum's MR stage

freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
edited February 7 in PIP, DLA and AA
Would love to hear from Mike about my next steps to support my mom's post decision process. It will be the MR stage. She went from standard living component for several years to asking DWP to look at the awards again as conditions have worsened. I get this is classed as a new claim. She got 0 / 0 on the new claim and they stopped the standard award. My question to Mike is, as most MR do not get looked at with much consideration, is it worth writing up a detailed response or the whole purpose of the detailed response is that it is used in the tribunal stage???? 

I'm just wondering, as to what stage to focus on the evidence bundle and get it spot on. I hate it when I put in effort only to get a copy and paste response. 

I hope you have understood where I'm coming from with this query. Any support and response would be much appreciated. 

Plus can I use a previous HCP report to challenge the latest one and show contradictions??? Or is it best to just focus on examples of descriptors along with evidence statements from those that offer the extra support to do those said activities??? 

Love you all. Stay strong and blessed.

Replies

  • Ross_ScopeRoss_Scope Community Team Posts: 2,467 Disability Gamechanger
    Hello @freeworld

    Welcome to the community, glad you've joined us, I hope you manage to find your way around the platform okay but please ensure you ask us if there's anything you are struggling with.

    Just to clarify, when you ask for the opinion of Mike, do you mean @mikehughescq? Or another Mike?
    Online Community Coordinator

    Want to tell us about your experience on the community? Talk to our chatbot and let us know.
  • calcotticalcotti Member Posts: 466 Pioneering
    I would recommend treating the MR as a serious exercise in trying to get the award revised.

    According to the last set of official statistics I could find 42% of MRs do result in a revised award (although some of those may have gone down).

    Even if the MR is unsuccessful the information you have provided at that stage will help inform an appeal.
    Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Rules may be different in other parts of UK.
  • Lou67Lou67 Member Posts: 815 Pioneering
    Hi as above I definitely recommend you treat your MR seriously. I got part off my award changed at MR and the other part at appeal. I just want to wish you well with it. Take Care. 
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    Hi All,

    Thank you for your thoughts.

    To answer the question it is @mikehughescq.....

    Plus I will put full effort in for the MR then. I'm awaiting the HCP formulated by capita to be sent from DWP.  
    I will use the descriptors to say why I believe X points apply to Y descriptor and give X,Y,Z examples. Can I just ask those who have had successful MR's did you provide 3 examples for each descriptor or is it better to get written statements from those ppl that live and support mom with said activities. Or is it best to do both. 

    The reason I ask these questions is Mike previously stated not to write an essay for the MR. But it is clearly going to be 4-5 pages of writing to provide a few examples of each descriptor and give statements of the household members to say what they support my mother with on a day to day basis. 

    I just find this whole pip process comical. My mother puts in a claim whilst receiving pip as her issues have got worse and even though she was on an award they managed to score her zero points on everything. It's beyond me. 
    But as with most things that concern the government and their depts it's all about the budget and spend. I have been made aware that there has been an overspend on pip, so I genuinely believe it's an exercise that's being performed lately to get the numbers in order.

    But in all honesty I'm not bothered about all that. I just want to play the game correctly, and anyone who has experience of winning MR and/or appeals to support me with the best advice possible to get through this. 

    Peace
  • ASDIBSASDIBS Member Posts: 37 Connected
    I puts lots of effort when preparing my MR letter. Unfortunately, it was still refused so we're at the appeals stage now. Good luck. Hope all goes well 🤞
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    Well bit of an update. Called regarding my own pip claim. Depression Anxiety.... And the chap stated I had any award looking at the report but a final decision will be made. The funny part about all this, my mum's pip claim was 0/0 and she is 200% worse then me when it comes to daily living and mobility. System is definitely flawed and it is definitely a monopoly at the moment. A change does need to come. I would be first to admit my mum would need pip more then I do. Yet she scores zero and I get an award...... Actual points of mine to be updated soon once actual decision letter arrives.
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @mikehughescq. Your thoughts on using templates for MR??? Using advice now site. Peace
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    edited February 12
    I have repeatedly asked people to not tag me thank you. Top marks for persistence though. Last time I respond to one of these I’m afraid. 

    The success rate of MRs is once again sinking. 42% is largely a nonsense. A “revised” award includes awards where less points were awarded but the award didn’t change; awards where more points were awarded but the award didn’t change; awards where the award increased but wasn’t what was asked for and so on. The most likely outcome of an MR remains an unchanged award (always good to remember when naysayers tell you unthinkingly that you’re putting at risk what you already have) and the actual success rate in terms of asking for x and getting x in full is less than 20% and probably much lower i.e. broadly where it has always been. This is of course borne out by the posts on this thread where people have described getting either zilch or only a partial award.

    Also it’s worth understanding that whether an MR gets you what you want or not the decision letter is always going to mostly be a template based generic response. It couldn’t practically be any other way. No amount of effort will change that.

    The extent to which you take a PIP MR seriously is up to you. I mostly view them as a stage inserted to prevent people going to appeal and something to be gotten through so you can get to appeal ASAP and get a sane answer. Others may beg to differ. There is no “right” answer. albeit that there are some specific circumstances where it’s crucial to get through MR ASAP with no regard for it being successful e.g. recoverable overpayments. I’ve never yet written more than 1 extra sheet for an MR and given the essentially random success rate I’m comfortable standing by that. Success rates at appeal are anything but random. You absolutely get out what you put in. The same can’t be said of MR. I will say that putting a huge effort into an MR that fails despite a pile of detail does at least simplify the appeal where you can at least say “My appeal grounds were laid out in the MR and remain unchanged”. It does kind of assume you d got solid grounds in the first place!

    However, I don’t think that’s the question here. I note that you find the PIP process “comical”. I beg to differ. Claims rarely go from award to no award for no reason. There are big clues in the fact you’re mentioning putting in examples and linking to the descriptors at the MR stage. A worsening of a health condition is not a relevant change of circumstances in itself and never has been and so no challenge should have been pursued until you had done that assessment of which extra points, why and at least two real world anecdotal examples per points scoring activity. Adding that stuff in now suggests it hasn’t been put in before and that’s why an award went to no award rather than a comical process. 

    There’s certainly no exercise taking place to clamp down. Far from it. For around 11 months it’s largely been the case that more first claims have succeeded; telephone assessments have been way better than face to face and tribunal win rates have been until recently exceptionally high. The highest I’ve known in 35 years.

    If it was all put in before then, forgive the bluntness, it clearly didn’t meet the required evidential standard and putting it in again isn’t going to change anything. Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is not a winning tactic. 

    Yes, you could use a previous HCP report but frankly that’s unlikely to fly and may not be especially wise. They’ve already decided the current HCP report better reflects the current scenario than any past one. You’re not going to change their mind on that. It’s very easy to read something in an old report as a magic bullet and in the process ignore the five other things the earlier report says which might actually support the current nil award. 

    There are similar issues with statements from “people who know”. A statement which says “I do x for person y” says nothing about why. Many people offer care to their partner simply because they’re their partner. They’ll swear it’s because of a medical need. Medical professionals will often beg to differ. I’ve never yet seen a claim turn on such statements. What you really want is someone saying that they do x for y because y functionally can’t do z and they’ve seen what happens when y tries to do z. However, that’s just real world anecdotal examples done by a third party rather than the claimant whose in a better position to add the detail. 

    Can’t say I’m a fan of templates. They have their place but the people who get awards have brought their case to life. A template tends to do the opposite. 

    Where does that leave you? In short, you need professional advice. 
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @mikehughescq I agree in part. 
    I've taken the task at hand as if I'm dealing with tribunal stage. Hence I will just ask tribunal to rely on my MR as grounds for appeal. 

    I wouldn't read too much into what was written in reports. I genuinely believe that HCP staff have a certain KPI to meet and therefore some reports just have to suffer and get the copy and paste treatment. 

    Mum put all the evidence down in original claim form along with the usual medical letters etc. 

    This assessment came about because my mum was asking for more help after being on an award that would have ended in a couple years time. Yet as you know it is treated as a new claim and the assessment stated nil points. It is only for this reason am I putting to DWP that your HCP and assessment reports are flawed because their opinion is flawed. The same company but different assessor claimed that pip should be awarded until a certain date, 2023.  Before that date has expired the same company put the opinion forward that pip should not be awarded, (2021)..... Which one is correct???

    I've done all that I can. According to the descriptors mum should be on award and enhanced for both. I have taken over from MR stage and dealing with DWP. I'm not going to send in any further medical evidence as they have it already. The MR is written and is 8 pages giving examples of what I witnessed when asking mum to do the tasks. Statements from Mums daughter in law has also been provided to say what she does and when she steps in to help with the daily living tasks. All in all probably 10-12 pages to be read. 

    I strongly believe the MR stage solely depends on who you get to decide. Some are better then others and some care and some don't. 

    Thanks for the tip of bringing the MR to life and distinguishing help due to love and help due to care that is needed. Never thought of that perspective. 


    What's more important Mike is that the PIP system is comical. I say that from first hand experience. 

    My mum genuinely needs PIP there's no question about it. 

    But me.... I'd say not nowhere near. I literally put in a claim because I was bored. I have had depression on my medical record and haven't seen doctors for over five years. I managed to get PIP somehow, I don't know the exact scores yet but I was told at, request of report stage, that I definitely have an award. I await official decision letter.
    But my mum gets 0 points all round.
    Do I think it's comical...... Hell yeah I do.


  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    edited February 13
    This is why I generally don’t respond to being tagged in. You asked my view but you’re going to ignore the bits you disagree with. You’re welcome to do that but much of your response is based on a misunderstanding of decision making processes.

    The fact the same company did an assessment is irrelevant. Think that through. You’re literally arguing that once they’ve formed a view they can’t change their mind or have a different view. Legally you don’t have a leg to stand on with that argument. A HCP is expressing an opinion not making a decision. It is perfectly okay for a HCP to express an opinion and then another one to look at the same facts and form a different opinion. As long as that’s within a reasonable range of responses that’s absolutely fine. We all do that. We all look at the same facts and form different opinions. It’s not somehow forbidden just because it doesn’t suit. Doctors do it daily. Why shouldn’t HCPs! If you think that’s your strongest argument then you will struggle to be taken seriously at appeal for example. There is always a danger in becoming focussed on HCPs that you disregard weaknesses with the evidence in the first place.

    Your comments are also based on an assumption that both HCPs were given the same facts. Experience tells me that is very unlikely. Did she refer back to her original claim pack when completing the new one for example? Did she get asked the same questions? Unlikely. Every claim is different even when the condition remains the same.

    Legally you’ll also find that the HCP did not recommend or impose any length of award. They are asked for a view on how long before review.  It’s up to a DM to look at all the evidence and go with that or not. The renewal undoubtedly won’t have asked for a specific length of award and it won’t even have occurred to you to make an argument on the point so a DM will go with the evidence they have. The fact the latest report doesn’t identify sufficient points means the latest HCP won’t have recommended an award length so... no contradiction.

    The issue you have is with the DWP decision maker not the HCP. 

    Your beliefs about HCPs and KPIs are demonstrably inaccurate. This sort of nonsense has been swilling around social media for years but the information is public domain and has been refuted repeatedly. It is “fake news” if you like. The problem with people who believe that sort of stuff is that facts simply aren’t going to persuade you. I’m not going to bother either. Heard it all before. Apparently they get paid more for failing people blah blah blah. No they don’t. Ditto the idea that people only get awards cos some care and some don’t. That just sounds histrionic. It’s what happens when people read Facebook, social media, forums etc. 

    To be blunt about it I have almost never seen a well presented claim fail. There is usually a disconnect between what you think you’ve evidenced and what you’ve actually evidenced. It’s not a popular view. It’s certainly not something people want to necessarily hear and, of course, there are often very good reasons indeed  as to why that happened but... it does remain a fundamental truth. I’ve lost track of the people who have told me what comprehensive claims they’ve made with such great supporting evidence. Then I’ve read it... and generally, not always, but generally winced. 

    I can’t comment further on your evidence. She may well get PIP reinstated but statements about when people step in are incomplete unless they detail what happens if they don’t; what happens when they’re not around etc. 

    The fact you talk about “needing” PIP is illustrative. Needing PIP is not a relevant factor for entitlement. 

    If I were to offer one pointer right now it would be to forget the HCP report and make sure your MR is amended to request an appropriate award length in the absence of evidence that her health will improve.

    Beyond that, I’m out.
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @mikehughescq you spent a lot of time explaining something that I'm not doing. My MR does not state anything about the HCP report. I literally wrote one sentence to say it's not agreed with in whole. That's it. Never referred to it again in my MR. That comment was just a reflection on why claims fail. 

    You seem to be of the opinion that the claimant should understand everything about pip then, 'play the game', so to speak.
    I fully understand that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim but I beg to differ in this public service situation.

    Many people that apply for PIP don't understand what DWP mean by certain words/questions and often fail there. They are not aware of what the DWP are looking for to attain an award. Surely the whole purpose of HCP being brought in is to obtain that information from the claimant in order to see if they fit within a particular descriptor. Many don't feel, that they have to fight with the DWP, to get an award, but in reality some have to put up a fight for it. 

    In regards to KPI's ect. I'm in doubt that full attention and respect is given to every assessment that sits on an assessors desk. You talk about evidence to support this; it is not present however it is carried out in such a way so as to not be proved. How would you prove such a thing???? 
    I've worked in office scenarios whether insurance banking etc and trust me when I say it's all a front and they don't give a damn diddly squat. Same will be the case here. The copy and paste norm tells me a lot. Also as with any other sector of business a lot relies on who you get for an assessor. I assure you of we did an experiment of providing two identical claims with the same assessment answers we will get two different outcomes. Yes they are putting forth an opinion but that opinion must be based on the parameters set by DWP.

    Bottom line of this situation is like I said originally. In the U.K it's not about what is right or wrong or whether you are guilty or not guilty of something. It's all about whether you know the legislation in order to 'play the game'. 

    You also need to remember that you working at appeals level has a different spin on things compared to dealing with people who are just doing a job as opposed to those who want to make sure they are applying the law appropriately. There's a big difference. 

    Lastly I am going to challenge the offsetting of my back pay against a DWP debt. I haven't seen any guidance on DWP offsetting against debt, only guidance on deductions. Have you had any cases that challenged this in your 30 odd year career???? Back pay is £5299 - debt £3900. 

    Peace

  • woodbinewoodbine Member Posts: 2,947 Disability Gamechanger
    I'm 100% certain that Mike was doing his level best to help, and if he repeatably request that people do not tag him onto post then his request should be accepted.
    my advice is given freely and is correct to the best of my knowledge.
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @mikehughescq @woodbine  u really think I knew he requested not to be tagged??? 

    If he doesn't like being tagged I'm sure the administrators of this site can remove that function. 

    Plus Mike has lost touch with the initial process of PIP, that's the issue here. As his work involves appeals and they're looked at by people who do things as they were originally legislated for. 


  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    freeworld said:
    @mikehughescq @woodbine  

    Plus Mike has lost touch with the initial process of PIP, that's the issue here. As his work involves appeals and they're looked at by people who do things as they were originally legislated for. 
    In terms of general internet etiquette it is usually acknowledged to be rude to tag. It’s effectively a demand for attention. I’m sorry if you were unaware of that. 

    As for the above quote I need only point out that your knowledge about my work is riddled with incorrect assumptions. I deal with everything from identifying missing entitlements through to UT and beyond. I couldn’t be less out of touch with the process thanks, I deal with claims every week. I’m not a fan of people who put words in my mouth so your assertion that I think people should play some game is something I’m going to call out right now. Personal comment is prohibited. You are commenting on the poster not the post.

    I think we need to be clear that many of your assumptions are incorrect. This is not a “public service” situation. The burden of proof being on the claimant is not my view. It is and always has been the law. Having a HCP in the equation does not change that. I do not need your assurance about two identical claims producing different outcomes. That happens every day but that in itself does not mean one of them must be wrong or somehow breached the law or guidance. There is endless case law which talks about the key issue being that a decision must simply be within the range of reasonable responses. 

    Ultimately you’re asserting that people ought not to know what it is they’re applying for and how it works. That someone else ought to find the evidence of their entitlement. Frankly, that’s untenable and the evidence points overwhelmingly to that approach being exactly why claims fail. 

    In the absence of such knowledge people turn to people they believe have that expertise but you think those people are out of touch too. It’s a garbled position and not worthy of further discussion from my perspective.
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    edited February 17
    You seem to think that HCP and DM have an understanding of law..... I assure you it's more a case of procedure for them. 

    [Edited by moderator - personal attack]
  • woodbinewoodbine Member Posts: 2,947 Disability Gamechanger
    free world you really can't help your self can you Mike has constantly asked not to be tagged and yet you persist as he says quite rude
    my advice is given freely and is correct to the best of my knowledge.
  • Tori_ScopeTori_Scope Community Team Posts: 3,210 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi all,

    @freeworld, I've edited your latest comment above as it includes a personal attack against another member, which isn't something we allow on the community. You can refresh your memory of the community guidelines here.

    Your comment:
    Plus Mike has lost touch with the initial process of PIP, that's the issue here. As his work involves appeals and they're looked at by people who do things as they were originally legislated for. 
    Is also directed toward another member, not the content of their comment. I've left that comment unedited for now for context, as Mike has addressed it in his reply. However, this is pending review.

    If you continue to aim personal attacks towards other members, we'll take further action.

    In terms of tagging, I don't believe that we do have the ability to prevent certain members from being tagged. Some members prefer not to be tagged, so please bear this in mind when commenting and posting on the community. Other members will have insight to offer, so it's not usually necessary to tag users in posts. If you're replying to a comment, you don't necessarily need to tag the user you're replying to, especially if they've asked not to be tagged. Some members will have set up notifications so that they get notified when someone replies to a post they've commented on, and others prefer to just check back to see if anyone's replied. No member is ever under any pressure to reply to a post or comment they don't want to reply to.

    I'm keeping this thread open for now, as your queries are ongoing. We will close the discussion if the conversation ceases to be constructive.
    Online Community Coordinator, she/her

    Want to tell us about your experience on the community? Talk to our chatbot here and let us know what you think
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    edited February 17
    freeworld said:
    You seem to think that HCP and DM have an understanding of law..... I assure you it's more a case of procedure for them. 
    I remain unconvinced you have understood any of what I think. I am asking once again that you do not publicly misrepresent things which I have not said. 

    For the record...

    HCPs have zero knowledge of the law. Their training is limited to internal processes; how to use the software and a small amount of disability awareness. Most of them aren't even aware of their own guidance. 

    DWP DMs have historically always operated from their own guidance going way back to the NA guidance; the S manuals from 1966 onwards; the blue and yelllow books and in more recent years the online versions of the DMG. They are rarely required to reference primary or secondary legislation and are not trained to do so. This does leave them in the unfortunate position of relying on guidance which has always had some elements which were wrong but which in recent years has become increasingly politicised and often seems like it wishes to be deliberately wrong. 

    Bearing all this in mind I don't seem likely to be a person who thinks a "HCP and DM have an understanding of law"! My view would appear to be the exact opposite of your reading of it. 

    On the other hand it is a terrible mistake to confuse any of the above with incompetence or a lack of knowledge of the law. The reality is that most people are happy with the HCP report and most people content with their PIP award. Whilst we know there are issues with what the Work and Pensions committee called a "significant minority" of reports that doesn't necessarily translate into the majority of decisions being wrong and a lack of direct knowledge of the law also doesn't seem to do that either. So, bit of a duff argument really. Most DMs get the law right most of the time without ever needing to directly reference it. 

    What now intrigues me is why I get tagged in from someone wanting some "support and a response". As ever in a claimant led forum there is a negative reaction when that response is provided. Advice is not; never has been and never will be about simply telling people what they want to hear. Everyone's time is wasted if people with hopeless claims (for example) are not told at the outset that a claim is hopeless and why. Nobody learns anything without the "why". 

    My response here, especially that on the 11th of February, dealt with all the points raised. In brief my conclusion was that:

    - you get out what you put in with claims and appeals but not MR.
    - what you then do with your specific MR is up to you but, this has all the hallmarks of a claim messed up so you need professional advice.
    - I would not recommend using statements from people who know the claimant; using old HCP reports to refute the latest report or using MR templates. However, as with the effort I think should be put into an MR, people are free to do as they wish. 
    - far from the DWP process being comical, it is generally the case that if a person who previously qualified suddenly doesn't do so then information has been either omitted or presented in such a way that such an outcome is inevitable. This is never popular as a suggestion. It doesn't make it any less true and nor is it a justification for personal abuse. If people want advice but want to disregard it that's on them. 

    Having posted all that I then get some weird disagreement with the above "in part" based on some invented philosophical principle that the DWP and HCPs should be providing a "public service" to ensure claims have enough evidence to succeed. That then moves onto an assertion that the DWP and welfare rights advisers don't know what they're doing with a bit of personal abuse to top it off. 

    Cannot imagine for the life of me why the more experienced posters are stepping back from the forum!

    The original query has been answered in full. If the OP doesn't like the DWP, HCPs or advisers then I can't see what benefit there is to keeping the thread open. Philosophical debates have their place. Given the time I'm happy to take part - a few threads in the past years have been really thought provoking and calm - but not when 72 years of social security law and principles are disregarded and not when personal abuse is involved.  
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @Tori_Scope Sorry am I missing something here? Where is the ad hominem against @mikehughescq????  I simply spoke about the arguments put forth not spoke about him personally, I can't, I don't know him nor am I a peer of his to make judgements. 

    Mike is a good guy. I like him. Just cos we disagree doesn't mean it's the end of the world, it's Free world. 

    The point I'm making is that they're vulnerable people out there who couldn't get the best deal on a phone contract let alone navigate around the PIP system. It's not their fault, social economics, cognitive issues, social depravation concerning education, mental health issues etc. They should be assisted at assessment stage to extract what issues they have and then make an informed opinion on whether this person qualifies.  If it's a form filling excercise with a few questions later down the line, then leave it with the DWP. I'm sure millions would be saved. 

    Put simply the money should be going to where is needed most. Mum didn't get pip and I did. I literally put my claim in as a shot in the dark. But the fact that the person not in need got it is a cause for concern. 

    Leave the thread open solely for update on the MR and subsequent appeal. So ppl can get an understanding of the process. 

    No need to really reply unless you want some back and forth just because it's lockdown...... 

    Peace
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @woodbine being rude is subjective. Simply ignore. It's not going to harm you.  I find getting junk mail and marketing post rude, does it happen? Yes! Do I fret over it? No! ..... 


  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    freeworld said:

    Mike is a good guy. I like him. Just cos we disagree doesn't mean it's the end of the world, it's Free world.

    ...

    Put simply the money should be going to where is needed most. Mum didn't get pip and I did. I literally put my claim in as a shot in the dark. But the fact that the person not in need got it is a cause for concern. 
    You’ve been asked to not make comments about posters. Please don’t then patronise me and others by asking with faux innocence where that was and making comments like the above. We all read it. Scope have highlighted it for you. None of us are stupid. 12 posts in please don’t treat us like we’re stupid.

    I’m not a fan of people who make points; get detailed refutations and then pretend that didn’t happen by trying to move onto another point. There’s another poster on here currently going through those same motions. It’s a transparent desire to seek opinions only to challenge every aspect of them to highlight a perceived injustice which doesn’t really exist. 

    Ultimately there is no answer which will satisfy you here or anywhere else.

    You don’t know why you qualified nor why your Mum didn’t but you know for sure why every poster here is wrong along with the DWP and HCPs. That neither makes sense nor suggests a sound basis for your continued involvement in your Mum’s claim.

    If you take responsibility for her claim then you have responsibility for the outcome. I can’t help but suspect that the lesson people will learn from this thread is likely not the one you think it will be.
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @mikehughescq Well that's why I said leave it open for the updates of outcomes and decisions only so ppl can see the conclusion rather then be left wondering what happen. 

    The contention with the comments matter was that of an allegation of making ad hominems. The point I'm making is that was none. I'm only dealing with the content not the content creator. 

    Not once have I said any poster is wrong. Each have their opinion. Just like HCP have their opinions aswell as DM. Speaking of DM's it was really interested why certain regular posters at Scope marginalized a DM from DWP to provide some insight as to what happens at MR stage. He was opening up and provided inside info as to what really happens as opposed to what people perceive to happen. However poppy repeatedly told him he is not welcome here. Interesting. More interesting was his comments, it's a shame he was unwelcome. 

    Just got clarity in not challenging anything you state Mike. You have your view on things and I have mine. You don't need to reply to a post. 

    Happy hunting.

    Peace
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    edited February 19
    As fine an example of the points I made as I could hope for. Several posts still up explaining in detail what I’m wrong on and why followed by “Not once have I said any poster is wrong” and the ever conspicuous failure to address any subsequent point I make.

    Nothing to add. 

    For clarity, several posters on here recognised the bleeding obvious thing that nobody at Scope appeared to recognise i.e. you cannot on the one hand claim to have the protection of vulnerable people on here as your absolute priority and then allow a HCP and a DM on here. 

    The allegedly retired HCP periodically posted inaccurate summaries of both the law and the guidance and tried to paint an entertaining “we’re not all baddies/just doing our jobs” narrative that those very same vulnerable people lapped up with its all too predictable “let me give you the inside line” schtick. Hardly came as a surprise when said person was suddenly revealed to no longer be retired and was back as a HCP. Highlighting the obvious conflicts of interest and the fact that they had breached their own guidance by not disclosing their work nor posted as required under their real name saw them flounce off pronto with hilarious accusations of hate and bias and a complete failure to recognise the reality that their presence here was never going to be tenable.

    As for the DM, that was simple enough. Clearly hadn’t sought permission to post from their employer and the potential breaches of the civil service code and conflicts of interest were again obvious to everyone bar Scope who ought to have stepped in after post one. 

    Had either stayed, it was simply a matter of time before a claimant on here realised that their case had been or was being dealt with by either said HCP or DM. The fallout from that would effectively kill the forum as a place of safety. 

    That’s before we get into the thorny issue of the extent to which DWP views forums like this anyway for fraud purposes. Having a currently active HCP and DM on a forum where they may have offered written advice to claimants who were being investigated for fraud and this fatally undermined the work of their own employer was never going to be allowed to continue. 

    I doubt many here will be impressed with your attempt to pin blame for the existence of such inappropriate accounts on the posters who identified them as such. 
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener

    Just a quick update: I got my back pay in full. As expected, before any decision letter. 
    They was no attempt to pay off any existing debt with DWP. Interesting to know why they swollow up some claimants back pay and not others. Maybe it's down to the person performing the admin tasks at the time??? 

    Mum's MR will be sent of Monday. Consists of 19 pages. 17 pages for descriptors and examples with what couldn't be done and what tasks could be done in respective activity. 2 pages is a statement from everyday unofficial carer (daughter in law). 
    Left a note to DM that further evidence may follow. Such as West Midlands Fire Service incident report of chip pan fire. Mum's fault. Support letters from doctors and respective nurses for there specialist areas. 

    What are your thoughts on support letters, every it be from GP or nurses??    If they are worded as such "...... in my opinion i believe so and so does qualify for PIP based on the descriptors that I have read. And after studying the point system, In my opinion they would get X points and  Y points. ....."




    @mikehughescq nothing more valuable then a person on the inside. That's been my experience with any sector of business. A lot more gets done with favourable outcomes when such people are in the mix. 

    For example when I was working in the energy sector. The company was making people pay for bills that were not billed for over 18months (system glitch) .... However I would call the customer out side of work to let them know that they don't need to pay such bills due to the regulators 'backbilling' rule. Basically energy companies can't bill you if they haven't done so in a 12 month period. 

    Had I not done that these customers would of been ripped off by the company and never of known about the back billing rule. 

    So for me inside affiliate is worth its weight in gold.

    Further updates will follow should they come along. Please wait 8 weeks or so. 

    Happy hunting


  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,364 Disability Gamechanger
    As per another thread today I am calling out Scope on their moderation policy. The above poster has previously been moderated for personal abuse. The conversation should simply not continue and I will not be responding further.
  • freeworldfreeworld Member Posts: 16 Listener
    @mikehughescq. It's okay Mike. You don't need to respond. Feel free not to. It's a free world. 

    I am calling out Scope on why they take instruction from posters to say who should and shouldn't get moderated. Is this the best way to manage a policy. Surely it's open to corruption if posters are moderated upon request. 

    I'm sure Scope are capable of managing the internal policies and will approach me with any concerns that they may have. 

    I hope all are in best of spirits.

    Happy hunting

    Peace


Sign in or join us to comment.