How do we really get a better deal? — Scope | Disability forum
Find out how to let us know if you're concerned about another member's safety.

How do we really get a better deal?

onebigvoice
onebigvoice Member Posts: 210 Courageous
Hi all,
  I have been off the forum for a while as things did take a turn for the worse.
This has been brewing since the last episode in Feb this year, and was a culmination of DWP and PIP's yet again sending me through the ringer to prove that I am ill, again, before paying what " they believed to be correct."
  Last week I attended a meeting and one of the comments about "how to fix the system" and how to get the Secretary of State once admitted that there were serious Typos and Grammatical errors on not only my claim but every claimants assessment to benefits.
  A suggestion as to get a level playing field in payments was this:
  

That PIP recognises that disabled people face extra costs, is not related to income or work status, and is non-means tested are all hard won and important principles the Commission believes are vital to hold on to within any social security system.

In terms of recognising the disadvantage in income many disabled people face, this has been done through income related benefits. Invalidity Benefit, Incapacity Benefit, Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit have all had supplements which recognise this and this is certainly an important principle which the Commission wishes to hold onto. This is also demonstrated in our proposals around having a disability supplement for the Guaranteed Decent Income (see below).  (I have removed this since I am looking at the principle behind the benefit.)

One way to get MPs on side is to subject their expenses claims to the same degrading and humiliating process currently used, ie, a claim is made with evidence, the evidence is ignored and the claim refused, they then put in a MR and receive a text message telling them they are looking at it and then receive a letter upholding the original decision which is dated 4 days earlier than the text message.  They then have to go for a face to face assessment where non qualified people copy and paste from previous assessments. They then lodge an appeal just for everything to be paid a few days before the appeal is due to be heard & 18 months after making the claim it is paid. 

    Does that sound about right as to how your benefit entitlement is processed?
Being offline for a few weeks has given me a chance to step back and actually look at the benefits system, and the assessment process.  I am luck in some respects that I can use a computer of a sorts, but what of those people that can't use a computer, you all know the statements everything is done on line now?  What if there is a one parent family and single child that becomes disabled who or where do they go to get help, "the go to person?"  They don't have savings or spare money to get a Mobile phone or the contract that goes with it?  If like my wife she would not even know how to switch on a computer let alone search for link to get help for benefits?  She is retired Disabled but won't go to a doctor, does not claim benefits and looks after me.
  She does not want to learn how to use a computer, and can't claim carers allowance since she has a pension, its one or the other, and in seeing the stress of the form filling says I would not put my self through that for what they pay.
  How many others are like that?  The reason for Disability benefits was to pay the extra costs incurred because of a sickness or disability that does not come from an able bodied person in Mobility allowance or care costs and adaptions both at work, if still working or at home.
  Where has the system gone wrong?  Its now a cost cutting exercise.  The reason for the amounts of money now being poured into the system, as one comment from Boris said, we have put more into the system than anyone has ever done?  This is because of years of neglect and lack of keeping up with the costs incurred by the disabled.
  Has your money gone up to pay for the increase in Electricity or the increase in petrol?
  By us its gone up 10pence a litre in a week.  Its always pass it on to the consumer, yet when your bin collections were reduced to fortnightly to cut labour and fuel costs, were your rates cut or a percentage given back?  When post was twice a day and is now once at around 11.00am did they reduce the cost of letters.
  When you post a letter to the DWP or PIP's that costs £2.45 signed for and they say they didn't receive it do they care?  Or the cost of the 0345 numbers to pip's and taking 3/4 hour to answer a single call do you get charged less?  Is it sorted out any quicker, no, it still takes 20 weeks.
  Where has the system gone wrong?  It has allowed the DWP to get away with poor service to the people that need it the most when they need it the most.  There is no Duty of Care, if there was why are assessors not showing I D badges when assessments take place? what are they afraid of?   We all know the answer, you all need to start asking for some accountability, since every case that is won in a Tribunal I would bet that the DWP have had 200 other cases that people have just give up when they have a report that scores ZERO.  Because instead of making the system easily accessible as it was intended they now throw every spanner they have at you, so that one case that wins a few Grand back that they were already entitled to is peanuts to the number that they say do not complain.
  Same old complaints against them that you would never see, because they do no publish the ones they loose and why, and certainly don't alter the paperwork supplied by the assessment companies.
 
«1

Comments

  • janer1967
    janer1967 Member Posts: 12,742 Disability Gamechanger
    Just one bit I picked up on 

    Have your benefits increased to allow for rise in fuel and and energy costs NO

    Neither have many working people had a pay rise either . Even the ones who are affected most due to amount of travel they do just to get to work 
    I have professional experience in HR within public,  private, and charity sectors.  If I can help I will 
  • wilko
    wilko Member Posts: 2,429 Disability Gamechanger
    Making MPs justified and prove their expense’s then have them refused as seen not needed or required, you have 30 days to appeal. Then refused again but you can take to a expense tribunal but there is a back log of 12 to 18 months. I am sure many MPs would soon stand up and call for change.
  • woodbine
    woodbine Community Co-Production Group Posts: 5,599 Disability Gamechanger
    I don't believe linking MP's expenses and benefits will get us anywhere, in fact it will never happen.
    I have to admit that during the 24 years I have been claiming disability benefits I have been treated how I would expect to have been treated, some might say why is that? I believe it's because I have taken the time and the trouble to research the benefits system.
    You @onebigvoice ask where has the system gone wrong? My answer to that is that it hasn't it's just evolved, people seem to think that UC isn't good, in fact for many it's not that bad.
    One solution that I am very much in favour of would be a Universal Basic Income, but I suspect we are some years away from that.
    I am a person with epilepsy not an epileptic, my illness doesn't define me.
  • mikehughescq
    mikehughescq Member Posts: 7,780 Disability Gamechanger
    Oh coherence wherefore art thou? 

    For anyone unclear as to what’s being talked about here the “meeting” in question was the Commission on Social Security. 


    Apologies for the long url. Can wrap into phrases when on Windoze but not on iOS.

    I have stepped back from the commission as it’s apparent that for all the talk of “experts by experience” it has the ear of precisely no-one of any import and is going nowhere fast. Interesting in theory but utterly misguided in practice. A couple of examples. 

    The so called principle that PIP recognises the extra costs of disability. What nonsense. Firstly benefits are set so low that it’s estimated 80% + of people on disability benefits don’t use it for any expenses associated with their health but just to get by. Little point of talking about holding to “principle” if the principle doesn’t deliver in practice. 

    Secondly, the commission has adopted the rhetoric of government about disability benefits being about recognising the extra costs of disability. Was never true of DLA or AA. Certainly isn’t true of PIP. What are the extra costs of reading or dressing? 

    Many other examples. A great idea on pairs utterly wasted in practice. Looking at complexity and the status quo whilst in Scotland radical changes us taking place and in Wales UBI is being piloted. 

    I won’t comment on the suggestion within the OP other than ti suggests it’s about as connected to the reality of benefits as the commission is.
  • janer1967
    janer1967 Member Posts: 12,742 Disability Gamechanger
    Welcome back Mike that was a very brief absence from the forum 
    I have professional experience in HR within public,  private, and charity sectors.  If I can help I will 
  • lisathomas50
    lisathomas50 Member Posts: 4,693 Disability Gamechanger
    Bills have gone up rent has gone up food has goneup petrol has gone up  and universal credit has gone down and no pay rise  something I think we will have to get used to 

    I am miveing house and can't get help with anything not even removal costs  cant get help because I have taken a property higher rent than I am in now because a protection order hsx Been put on it and have to be out by 16th November 

    I got the house paid the deposit and have to pay three months in advance rent because I don't have a guarontor  so I have to pay 3 times 740 00 before I can have the keys I have to do it as my mum lives with me  it will be hard bit I can do it by using every penny I have got after that I only have to pay 300.00 every month 

    My next problem is I can rent a van to move which 160 00 for the weekend and 200.00 deposit which you get back if you take it back with a full tank of petrol and no damage 

    Getting it after paying everything else is another matter 
  • mikehughescq
    mikehughescq Member Posts: 7,780 Disability Gamechanger
    janer1967 said:
    Welcome back Mike that was a very brief absence from the forum 
    Absent from all benefits stuff for at least 2 weeks as it's half term but also because it's near impossible to read the forum at present with my VIs until I can mark all threads as read without having to actually read them. As the access issues are a bit all over the place I am logging in from lots of different devices just in case some issues are browser, device or OS specific. Best do that now regardless of any break before Scope fix stuff only to have people like me coming all and saying "... but..." 

    I have maybe one topic I need to post on and unless anything else pops up I will be largely absent. 
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Member Posts: 24,664 Disability Gamechanger

      When you post a letter to the DWP or PIP's that costs £2.45 signed for and they say they didn't receive it do they care?  Or the cost of the 0345 numbers to pip's and taking 3/4 hour to answer a single call do you get charged less? 

    Nope, posting anything to DWP is free. This has been covered so many times in the past but i'll say it again..... Posting anything to DWP "signed for" is a complete waste of money. It's not signed for by anyone from DWP, it's someone from Royal Mail. It doesn't get there any quicker than the free post envelope. It still has to go through the same mail sorting process and is not classed as arriving until it's been added to the computer. Proof of posting is free..

    0345 number to ring DWP? Again, that's not correct. There are free phone numbers that start with 0800 when you ring DWP, these are free to call from any phone. I must admit, it must have been a very long time since you rang DWP if you think the number starts with 0345.
  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Member Posts: 210 Courageous
    janer1967 and wilko, both comments I like, but there is no accountability from anyone?
      I have asked the medical board when asking about ID's and the way in which NHS staff are registered under the appropriate register, and they say no matter who you work for or if you are in a private practice you still have to register.  When asking about assessors they give you all the lip service as to if your not registered you can treat or be called upon to give an opinion?
      Log on to find the assessor that assesses you and nothing?  So when you win your case in a Tribunal why are the Tribunal or the DWP/PIP's not looking at the source of the Assessment report?
      Because with out them they would have no one to blame. 

      mikehughescq said:
    Oh coherence wherefore art thou? 

    For anyone unclear as to what’s being talked about here the “meeting” in question was the Commission on Social Security. 

      While I welcome any comments on my post I note and read your comments and wonder:
    Oh coherence wherefore art thou? 

    For anyone unclear as to what’s being talked about here the “meeting” in question was the Commission on Social Security. 
      Since you have commented on this "meeting" this must have been known to you and how long they have been around, and what they have done, if according to you, anything at all.
      Every thing has to start some where, and like you when I was invited to join a "meeting" my E-Mail was directly to Dr Mike Orton Head of the Commission, where I asked him who is actually funding this white paper, and what or how are you collating the "evidence" do we get a chance to question the report once finished and can the questions being asked, be added to or altered on the final draft.
      My first reaction was why would the government need this commission?  Because they wanted some one to collate front line questions that they were unable to fix.  Transparency right through the process, ease of access, simplify documentation on information gathering, after all that's what all forms are about, the ability of assessment companies to also be transparent, and supply all the details shown within there charter which comes under the 2018 Social Security ACT (Not its full title) used by the Secretary of State to assess anyone on benefits, and lastly for me the ability to refuse any examination given by an assessor or any assessment company until I see evidence that at least they have some medical background and are still practicing and are registered under an appropriate medical register.
      I note that you have been on this forum since 2016, and wonder if you would like to tell me what you think is wrong with the assessment system and how you would like to see things change.
      At least I have an opinion and am trying to fix the system for others, since its a bit late for me as, apart from my age, am on different benefits to most working age people, but Disability no's no barriers, and the cost of being disabled is not only different to each person claiming that benefit but as much as I don't like the descriptors used you have to have some sort of starting point.
      Its easy to rip someone's post to bits but I thought that was not what this or any other forum like this is about, but to at least become a constructive critic, like have you looked at this?
      I am happy with getting some input into the system with the people that I see/"meet" both face-to face and over the internet because of distance barriers, and have had success in parliament changing legislation and documents used by the Secretary of State.
      First thing that was changed by me in 2017 was the term "medical examination" used in forms when applied to assessors and their companies that employ them, so the Secretary of State re-branded and called Capita, Capita-PIP's a sub company of Capita, hired by DWP to assess.  This also came about when we were about to take ATOS to a High Court for the poor standards of assessment and removal of benefits without showing their abilities to assess people under the Candor agreement.
      For those that don't know about Candor, in simple terms any company hired by a main contract holder (in this case to assess) MUST abide by the rules of the original contract.
      In the case of the assessors that assess you they must show when challenged a valid ID and abide by the other rules of assessment.  But when asking DWP or PIP's they state under the Data Protection Act that they are not obliged to state or show there ID?  But Candor say's different, and under the Medical Board rules a report written by anyone must have their full name and Title along with their I D number in order to be checked against the appropriate register.
       This can be used when you have a home assessment, or when Face-to Face I have a blank form that states that I will not be subjecting myself to a medical of any sorts unless an appropriate I D is shown prior to the examination.   When handing this to the assessor they have all said that O K its only to check a few things?  In asking again for ID as I am not refusing a Medical of any sort just I want to know if you understand the illness or disabilities I have medically.  Then they state I am a Senior Disability Analyst and have been doing this for years, my answer is then why are you not wearing or have not shown me your ID then, and you should know as a professional that all reports must show your Title otherwise its an opinion only and cannot be used? 
      A senior Disability Analyst is not a medical title?
      I have rambled on again, but in summing up can you give any comments on how to fix the system or what you have achieved to help others not have to go through the same thing you or me have been through in order to get what they are entitled to?   
      
      
      
      

  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Member Posts: 210 Courageous

      
      
        Just as a question on recent events to me.
      The DWP and the Secretary of State seem as though when asked questions to do what MP's and people who supposed to know do best, not answer.
      I have contacted certain people and asked for a review of the Assessment system and the review of the Companies that the DWP use to assess.
      I have asked for an audit in Cardiff of the three Companies that assess, and invited the heads of Department (to those I have contacted) to conduct the audit, and compare the notes of the audit I did.
      100% refusal to conduct an audit?  100% refusal to review the last 6 months of assessments completed by any assessment company of their choice, or to choose the assessor of their choice who they believe to be giving a fair assessment. 
      Why when trying to be transparent are they putting up so many barriers to review their own company?
    Last week certain people I have contacted have started the ball rolling to send in a "real assessor" with real qualifications to be a subject of an assessment to see if the paperwork, building, report and justifications within the report are of a quality that can and should be used.
      Lets see what happens......

  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Member Posts: 24,664 Disability Gamechanger
    It has been said several times in previous threads that PIP and work capability assessments are not medicals.
  • mikehughescq
    mikehughescq Member Posts: 7,780 Disability Gamechanger
    edited November 1
    Let’s try and deal with the points such as they are in broad order of appearance.

    1 - @onebigvoice you’ve obviously got to grips with the work of the commission so much that you think it’s funded by government. It is not. 

    2 - I have no idea what’s with the obsession with registration of medical professionals is about but let’s be clear. A PIP assessment is not a medical assessment. This has been repeated to you multiple times on multiple threads including this one. A functional assessment is not a medical assessment and does not require a medical or a doctor, nurse or specialist. Physios, paramedics etc. are all classified as medical professional and the fact you don’t seem to like the title disability analyst is not going to change that. They have appropriate medical qualifications which are often broader than those you seek to elevate. Each medical professional conducting such assessments does indeed need to be registered appropriately. However, I have yet to come across any who are not. I’m aware of one who featured in a UT case who was not but I’ve yet to hear of anyone struggling to find a registration if needed either. No idea where you’re looking but clearly not where everyone else looks from the sound of it. 

    All that aside, what’s the point? A claim is only about a HCP report if you allow it to be. A good quality PIP2 or ESA5O with appropriate supporting evidence always wins out. You appear to be obsessing on a tiny detail which simply has no relevance if claims are done properly by claimants or their reps. 

    3 - I have indeed been on the forum since 2016. A number of people in that time have expressed the view that the assessment process needs changing in various ways. I have explained several times why certain of their proposals make no sense. Please do a search and you will find those posts relatively easily. The suggestions from others are usually along the lines of the process needing to come back in house or requiring actual medical professionals. 

    However, assessments were in house from around 1971 to 2013 and for DLA from 1992 to 2013. That’s 4 decades of solid evidence that doing this in house makes no difference. 

    Allied to that is the ill-thought through idea that the process needs doctors or specialists. It’s s concept which falls apart the moment you ask patients how well their specialist can comment on their ability to reliably budget. Budgeting being a well known specialist area for oncologists, surgeons etc. it falls apart further for any claimant with multiple health conditions and multiple specialists. Which specialist is going to do the assessment if you have five for example? The solution lies elsewhere. I’ve suggested it several times on here and it’s been fed into the commission by multiple parties. However, I’ve more interesting things to do this week so perhaps you can use your research skills to find the answers I’ve previously posted. 

    So yeah, clearly I have no opinion.

    4 - Your comments about “Candor” were raised on another thread. See https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/435151#Comment_435151. I note that was a thread in which you were pulled for inaccuracy; asked by @Tori_Scope to provide links to support your assertions and then fell silent. All that needs to be said here that there is no such principle at play here. It’s an irrelevant concept and consideration. It is so ridiculously easy to pull apart a HCP report on facts alone why would the registration of a HCP even enter into it.

    5 - You claim APs changed their names when “we were about to take ATOS to a High Court for the poor standards of assessment and removal of benefits without showing their abilities to assess people under the Candor agreement.”

    I’m sure we’d all be delighted to hear who “we” was. I’m unaware of any such threat of legal action and certainly not one halted by a mere name change. 

    All that said, it is hard to think of a worse approach to a HCP assessment than to start it by demanding the name and registration details of the HCP. Gosh, what could possibly go wrong there? 

    You also claim to have contacted “people” and “certain people” and then talk about audits and “real assessors” with “real qualifications”. I cannot for the life of me imagine why you’re surprised that such requests were refused or why you think this might sound impressive. It actually sounds like you are trolling this forum or are a parody account. 
  • AndrewHall
    AndrewHall Member Posts: 21 Connected
    Let’s try and deal with the points such as they are in broad order of appearance.

    1 - @onebigvoice you’ve obviously got to grips with the work of the commission so much that you think it’s funded by government. It is not. 

    2 - I have no idea what’s with the obsession with registration of medical professionals is about but let’s be clear. A PIP assessment is not a medical assessment. This has been repeated to you multiple times on multiple threads including this one. A functional assessment is not a medical assessment and does not require a medical or a doctor, nurse or specialist. Physios, paramedics etc. are all classified as medical professional and the fact you don’t seem to like the title disability analyst is not going to change that. They have appropriate medical qualifications which are often broader than those you seek to elevate. Each medical professional conducting such assessments does indeed need to be registered appropriately. However, I have yet to come across any who are not. I’m aware of one who featured in a UT case who was not but I’ve yet to hear of anyone struggling to find a registration if needed either. No idea where you’re looking but clearly not where everyone else looks from the sound of it. 

    All that aside, what’s the point? A claim is only about a HCP report if you allow it to be. A good quality PIP2 or ESA5O with appropriate supporting evidence always wins out. You appear to be obsessing on a tiny detail which simply has no relevance if claims are done properly by claimants or their reps. 

    3 - I have indeed been on the forum since 2016. A number of people in that time have expressed the view that the assessment process needs changing in various ways. I have explained several times why certain of their proposals make no sense. Please do a search and you will find those posts relatively easily. The suggestions from others are usually along the lines of the process needing to come back in house or requiring actual medical professionals. 

    However, assessments were in house from around 1971 to 2013 and for DLA from 1992 to 2013. That’s 4 decades of solid evidence that doing this in house makes no difference. 

    Allied to that is the ill-thought through idea that the process needs doctors or specialists. It’s s concept which falls apart the moment you ask patients how well their specialist can comment on their ability to reliably budget. Budgeting being a well known specialist area for oncologists, surgeons etc. it falls apart further for any claimant with multiple health conditions and multiple specialists. Which specialist is going to do the assessment if you have five for example? The solution lies elsewhere. I’ve suggested it several times on here and it’s been fed into the commission by multiple parties. However, I’ve more interesting things to do this week so perhaps you can use your research skills to find the answers I’ve previously posted. 

    So yeah, clearly I have no opinion.

    4 - Your comments about “Candor” were raised on another thread. See https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/435151#Comment_435151. I note that was a thread in which you were pulled for inaccuracy; asked by @Tori_Scope to provide links to support your assertions and then fell silent. All that needs to be said here that there is no such principle at play here. It’s an irrelevant concept and consideration. It is so ridiculously easy to pull apart a HCP report on facts alone why would the registration of a HCP even enter into it.

    5 - You claim APs changed their names when “we were about to take ATOS to a High Court for the poor standards of assessment and removal of benefits without showing their abilities to assess people under the Candor agreement.”

    I’m sure we’d all be delighted to hear who “we” was. I’m unaware of any such threat of legal action and certainly not one halted by a mere name change. 

    All that said, it is hard to think of a worse approach to a HCP assessment than to start it by demanding the name and registration details of the HCP. Gosh, what could possibly go wrong there? 

    You also claim to have contacted “people” and “certain people” and then talk about audits and “real assessors” with “real qualifications”. I cannot for the life of me imagine why you’re surprised that such requests were refused or why you think this might sound impressive. It actually sounds like you are trolling this forum or are a parody account. 

    Welcome back Mike. I have missed you so much. You are the reason I read this forum. 
  • System
    System Posts: 626

    Scope community team

    This discussion was created from comments split from: Point System.
  • mikehughescq
    mikehughescq Member Posts: 7,780 Disability Gamechanger
    Thank you @AndrewHall but I’m not back and I’d hate to think anyone read a forum just for my opinions. I’m staying away from all benefit queries and a certain amount of repetitive idiocy which has reoccurred with inconsistent moderation. Just here for mild entertainment at present as I’m travelling. 
  • IntneNavy
    IntneNavy Member Posts: 3 Listener
    The Gov reps are meant to be PUBLIC SERVANTS working for US amd on OUR behalf and OUR BRST interests. This gov tried to change the rules to let a fellow MP get away with fraud.  Plus all the other things they have done.  HAVE THEY HELPED YOU IN THE LAST DECADE.  OR THEMSELVES.
  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Member Posts: 210 Courageous
    IntneNavy said:
    The Gov reps are meant to be PUBLIC SERVANTS working for US amd on OUR behalf and OUR BRST interests. This gov tried to change the rules to let a fellow MP get away with fraud.  Plus all the other things they have done.  HAVE THEY HELPED YOU IN THE LAST DECADE.  OR THEMSELVES.
    I have learnt that over the last few weeks that every department is only looking after one person and its not me or you.
      Even when a judge is asked a question as to the reports written about me and the medical evidence I produced, he could only come up with.  If your not happy we will send you to one of our doctors to examine you?  
      So I went and scored 29 points only to have the DWP state that the Tribunal cannot enforce the ruling.  But when we went back to the Tribunal I stated that this doctor was supplied by the court and the report was on headed paper and signed why will the Secretary of State not provide a report of the same standard to give to the court?
      It was then dealt with out of court by the Judge and the DWP/PIP's and I was left with no answers just another date plucked out of no where.
      Am I happy. no not really because nothing was done according to Tribunal rules.
     
  • mikehughescq
    mikehughescq Member Posts: 7,780 Disability Gamechanger
    Which specific tribunal rule do you think was breached? 

    A tribunal who are confronted by an appellant who focuses on the medical report to the seeming exclusion of all else are either going to accept it as it is; give it less weight or suggest a new report. Nothing wrong in any of that. 

    No idea what you’re talking about with regard to a tribunal being unable to enforce a ruling. A ruling about what by whom?


  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Member Posts: 210 Courageous
    Which specific tribunal rule do you think was breached? 

    A tribunal who are confronted by an appellant who focuses on the medical report to the seeming exclusion of all else are either going to accept it as it is; give it less weight or suggest a new report. Nothing wrong in any of that. 

    No idea what you’re talking about with regard to a tribunal being unable to enforce a ruling. A ruling about what by whom?



    The ruling I was talking about was that the report written was unsupported or justified.  And when in court sorry Tribunal, produced a letter signed by me and my doctor which stated that Any Medical evidence produced about me cannot be used with out written express permission of me and that my GP if asked by the DWP to produce or comment on my medical history must also call me to ask permission for its release.  This comes under the doctor patient privilege.
      Since I have not been contacted to ask for its release or my doctor or any one that treats me where did you receive this information from?
      The court then instructed me to attend an assessment by a specialist of their choice and that report to be produced at the court within 10 days, where a relisting would be given, and the Secretary of State to produce the written permission sort from me?
      As they left that hearing they admitted that they did not have that permission and would bring the assessors qualifications and show the justification of the report on headed paper, the next hearing they did not attend, the doctors report's scored me 29 points and therefore had my enhanced Rates for both reinstated, and I bought a letter from the DWP saying that they do not have to abide by the Tribunal judgement as its only a guidance letter.
      
      
      

  • mikehughescq
    mikehughescq Member Posts: 7,780 Disability Gamechanger
    I have no idea which “ruling” you’re talking about. Social security does not have such a thing. There is law, case law and guidance.

    It’s also obvious that your GP cannot release your medical records without consent. Why your GP would need to say that and have you co-sign I have no idea. It’s a given that there is confidentiality unless you consent although even then there are exceptions. 

    The idea that anyone else cannot comment on your medical history is patently a nonsense. If that were even half true then you would also be excluded from comment. They can only have that history from you so by default you disclosed and they can comment. If that were not the case then every medical person you saw outside of your GP could never send a letter to the GP with an update because it would involve a disclosure without consent.

    You seem to have wasted a massive amount of your own and the tribunals time by forcing a second HCP assessment having disputed the right of a HCP to conduct the first one. It would have been, as has been observed multiple times across multiple threads, been far easier to highlight 2 or 3 irrefutable errors and then just win the case based on anecdotal evidence. You’re not setting precedents or changing the world here. You are electing to take the longest; most bloody minded, utterly pointless and expensive route to success. 

    I have no idea what sort of letter the DWP could produce to suggest a tribunal decision was only guidance. I suspect what you mean is that the tribunal direction for a 2nd HCP report was disregarded by DWP. I wonder if this is a case discussed on Rightsnet. If not then there’s at least one other case like this out there and DWP are plainly wrong. They have no choice but to comply with a direction. 

Brightness

Complete our feedback form and tell us how we can make the community better.