New Green Paper Discussion - now includes accessible formats and consultation event sign up links!

I hope I have removed everything necessary.

This is how to fix the system, written by me back in September 2024.

It also shows what will happen on Wednesday under discussion.

I will leave admin to vet any sections they like within the post because this has already been sent to the DWP and PIP and the relevant MP's involved in my case to date.

onebigvoice. 

Scope Member. 

Unite the Union Retired Section. 

Welsh Labour Party Member. 

Accountability and Form filling. 

Generic letter to all concerned as to the coming year and a reflection of what was achieved and what still must be done to allow 2025 to be the year that changes are not only lip service, but actions and accountability of actions are achieved with in a reasonable time frame. 

  We all seem to have lost the reason for the needs of assessment.  Not only for access to benefits, financially, but the access to medical care that would allow better response to the “cry” for help when needed, not after an assessor takes 20 weeks to respond or where a medical history of the claimant is sent to claim benefits after the NHS and Doctors have made a diagnosis of an Illness or Disability, and then have to have another department re-assess the Illness or Disability because of “different criteria.” 

  The only difference in criteria is whether the assessor has the medical knowledge to be able to understand the interaction of tablets and their expected result, or whether the tablets are a quick fix or something that needs to be taken for the rest of their lives to function. 

  Another reason could be to prepare the claimant for an operation where for example the have high or low blood pressure, or that the expected result of an operation is to prolong life and give a better quality of life for the remaining time of the illness.  Remembering that some operations are not a quick fix. 

 I make no bones about prolonging life and allowing a Neurodiversity person a better quality of life, and not to line someone else's pocket with an assessment they don’t need and allows others to dictate what financial help they may or may not get based on that report. 

  So, this is where the system breaks down.  Since powers that were given to assessors, either at the start of the contract or when the pandemic struck have not been reviewed, and have been allowed to complete tasks outside the original contract under “Candor” 

  The only losers are the claimants, that even when complaining that medical information has been supplied is overlooked in preference to the Assessors report. 

  This is because the system assessors use is called LiMA.  

  The judicial system also uses another system called the “Bond Solon Rules, Part 35 Section 2” that apply to “Expert Witness statements” made by either the Assessor, the Decision Maker or a Tribunal when looking or asking for information about the claimant.   This information is not only used by the above but any Government Department that requires information to claim a benefit. 

  But what people seem to forget that there is also the need to assess the system and how it operates when looking at “cuts” or streamlining the system already in place. Savings may need to be made for the system to evolve. 

  Because a cut or saving was made this year, does not mean that the same reasons for continuing the cuts are the same for this coming financial year. 

  In fact, this can be the opposite where the cuts made, showed an improvement, and that reinvesting to continue with the “bigger picture” should be the goal. 

  When I say “we” I mean the government, the Judicial system, to include the Benefits System.  AFTER ALL IT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT THAT NEEDS OVERHAULING BUT THE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS MISTAKE AFTER MISTAKE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE “SAFETY NET” OF AN OUTSIDE BODY LOOKING AT THE COMPLAINTS RAISED FROM BOTH SIDE AS AN ARBITRATOR.   

  Each year a White Paper is produced with a view of “improving” or rectifying points raise, in the previous year, so that all concerned can go forward and learn.  It is not as though the government do not know the issues being raised, as this can be seen by the number of Mandatory Reconsiderations and Tribunals being asked for and yet again this figure is being “vetted” by the government by not allowing the claimant their day in court. 

  But the review of the previous year’s budget and how each allocation of funding has performed, is a pre-requisite of any budget, and shows the public that with the correct management we can all see improvements to the systems being assessed. 

  What happens is that the government reissue a Green Paper to Parliament which effectively waters down or in some cases removes or makes it harder to claim a benefit, believing that work is the best form of medicine. 

  In theory this may be correct, but why are they concentrating on the sick and disabled?  The people that are registered as sick and disabled or who are on long term sick have been assessed by a qualified Doctor to get Medical Treatment, and drugs that cannot be prescribed over the counter.  So how does an assessment from a Benefit Officer not take on board what is said in the medical history of the claimant? 

  Many, in fact all, say they do, and that they have had specialist training that allows them to assess the content of the forms that they are sent.  This was called when it was first conceived as “CHAMPIONS.”  These were people who were placed in positions that allowed forms to be looked at by Assessors and if the assessor, had no medical background or the content was something that they were not able to deal with themselves, would automatically be sent to one of these “Champions” that could look at the claim.  This would not stop there, since the information provided in some forms do require specialist knowledge and may not be conversant with the Illness being described or the Disability being discussed.  This would then have an input of either the Doctor, GP, or Nurse that is dealing with the claimant and would have been shown in the initial form filling where Doctors and nurses would have been shown for the specialist needs of the claimant. 

  It must also be remembered that most “Claimants” have more than one thing wrong with them and so see more than one person for treatment.  So how are these champions coping?  What is their background that would tell them the interaction of Drugs, and whether the drugs need monitoring or whether the drug is a lifelong drug that must be taken or whether the drug is to be issued for a course of 3 to 6 months and then reviewed, or whether before prescribing the “monthly” script (for those that take tablets each day) that a blood test is required before release? 

  For those that have this, the blood test is to check markers and side-effects of the drug, and in some cases, this is increased to 2 weekly tests, with the script being issued monthly to alter or increase certain drugs to get the required balance.    

    All the above for those in the system would know this is true.  But does the system actually work?  No, it doesn't.   Because the assessors have been given more powers that the original contract to assess claimant with a belief that by making it harder to claim most will give up.  And they do, repeatedly, where whatever is offered, whether correct or not is accepted because they are told that if they don’t accept what is offered, they can have a MR and that another person will review the case and you could lose all the claim and have to start again. 

  This is not how the benefit system should work.  It should allow a claimant to put in a claim for benefits knowing that the assessment system is fair and not a cost cutting exercise, and that the review of the claim is sympathetic of the claimant's issues, and not be treated as a number in a queue, or something that can be dealt with in 20 week where the claimant even after been given an assessment and a statement that an assessment, is still made to wait for the outcome.   

  All this said, I need to have some sort of “INDEX” to deal with each problem that the claimant faces when applying, when having an assessment, the decision-making process, the MR or Judicial Process, and more importantly accountability for the decisions made. 

  As stated, before there are other rules that apply but even at this stage Candor, Bond Solon Part 35 Section 2, and LiMA are the basic rules, there are also the Employment Act and the Human Rights Act. 

  And this is also not considering the accountability of the report writing process, and the compensation scheme which as you can guess also has another form of assessment to see if you qualify and requires you to take out a Civil Action against those concerned. 

  This one point alone would realign the system not with a view of people losing their jobs, but to get the skills and expertise needed to get an assessment completed sooner, first time and correct, reducing the times of rework or a Tribunal to resolve an issue that could have been resolved at the start, but also to stop a further cost in reassign to have an Assessor reassign a NHS report in favour of the Decision Makers report, the very person that had hired them to write the report.   

The Index is not comprehensive but can and should be added to by ALL CONCERNED for the process to go forward.  I am also not going to explain each topic since these are already in place, and already in use, and can provide cases where the system has failed the claimant, and it is for you to review them and state whether the statement is correct and what if mentioned before (and all have)  what you did in 2024, going forward and what are the plans for 2025. 

! 

1. Form Filling made easy. 
2. Plain English and easy to understand. 
3. The use of terms in the report writing process so that the claimant understands. 
4. The review process. 
5.  What is required “before” a Mandatory Reconsideration. 
6. What forms are required to fast track people to the correct department. 
7. A Mandatory Reconsideration. 
8.  Who completes the Mandatory reconsideration. 
9. Why the Decision Maker may need more information from the claimant. 
10. Can the Claimant check the report written by the Assessor before it is used. 
11. Can the claimant ask for a copy of the report to be sent to them as a copy of what the decision Maker sees, and comment on the report to the assessor as the writer. 
12. It has come to my attention that the report is sent to the decision Maker before the Claimant because they both state that the decision Maker has hired them to write a report about the claimant and if the claimant wanted a copy, they have to request it from the Decision Maker, or the DWP/PIP. 

(This goes against the Data Protection Act.  Since to gain access to the claimants Medical Files they must ask permission or get this from their representative.  This then requires another form to be filled out, and most times the DWP ask for the representative to be an Appointee. 

1.  This then brings up the issue of Candour, since the Claimant has already been assessed by the NHS or Doctors that treat them, and the reports are on headed paper and entered the claimants Medical History. 

  Whereas, the assessors report and the Decision Makers reports are not of the same quality or on headed paper showing their skills and expertise to comment on the list of complaints within the medical history, and therefore are only assumptions on both parts and cannot be used in a Tribunal or to assess the claimant until the claimant has been contacted and agrees to its content. 

  If this is done then there is no need for a Tribunal or a Mandatory Reconsideration, under the Bond Solon Rules that govern Expert witness Statements or contractual obligations. 

1.  Bond Solon Rules Part 35 Section 2. 
2. Every person that writes a statement on behalf of a Government Department must abide by these rules. 
3. Section 2 has 10 sub-sections that even if one was omitted by the writer, it cannot be used in a Tribunal or as an assessment. 
4. If you require the rules to be explained, then it is obvious that you do not understand the system you are using. 

I have written many statements about these rules showing that the training given by the DWP IS INADEQUATE. 

Hence the need for the review of the system and a review of the training given to assessors as the quality of the reports are poor.  This being reiterated in Court many times to me, with another quote of “our hands are tied,” and “this argument is for another court not ours.”   

This argument is thought the system and even when looking at Candour, that covers the holder of the main Contract and Sub-Contractors, (under what they can and can’t do) and LiMA, (Logic Intergrated Medical Access, where a series of questions are asked, and pre-existing answers in a tick box scenario, still allows ambiguous answers and is open to interpretation.  This also goes against the assessment process.  Where when asking Capita, Maximus, Concentrix and ATOS the original holders of the assessment process are not abiding by their own rules of assessment.   

Wording like: 

Likely to last: 

  Is this the same as long term? 

  Meaning of long term 

The third element of the definition of disability is that the physical or mental impairment must be long-term. The Act states that an impairment is considered to be long-term if the impairment is one: - 

• which has lasted at least 12 months; or 
• where the total period for which is lasts, from the time of the first onset, is likely to be at least 12 months; or 
• which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person effected 

When considering whether an impairment is likely to last 12 months then the term ‘likely’ should be interpreted as meaning that it could well last 12 months, rather that it is more probable than not to last 12 months. 

When considering whether an impairment is long-term account should also be taken of the reoccurring effects of an impairment. In circumstances where, due to the nature of the condition, the substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities ceases then the substantial adverse effect is treated as continuing if it is likely to reoccur, with ‘likely’ again meaning that the substantial adverse effects could well reoccur. However, the likelihood of reoccurrence needs to be considered in light of what a person could reasonably be expected to do to prevent a reoccurrence. 

  This is a brief outline on what I will be bringing to 2025 with a view of making accountability of report writing a pre-requisite of “every report” and that under the Bond Solon Rules where statements and reports are written that the writer of the report fully understands the legality of the report that they have written and should compensation be sort would also include the Manager of the Department since it is the training of the Assessors under the Risk Assessments and Method Statements provided to the DWP that has allowed them to gain the contract. 

  It must also be known that the DWP and PIP who fail to review the content of the reports written by assessors does not negate their responsibility. 

In fact, the opposite, as holders of the main contract, it is their responsibility to resolve issues brought up by the claimant long before the need for a Tribunal through the Decision Maker. 

  Even more so when requested by a court to produce documents and don’t, changing the decision as late as 1 hour before the Court Hearing, and not contact the claimant but contact the court to say an offer has been made, but when asking the court to state the offer, the court says it has not been told what the offer is and do not need to know? 

  The Tribunal is supposed to be an arbitrator, yet why do they not enforce the rules where a claimant has asked for paperwork to be shown and it is not adhered to allow further time for the DWP or PIP to allow this.  I have 5 cases with the Tribunal and every case the DWP and PIP have failed to appear where fraud and forging of my signature on documents, rewriting Medical Files, altering the result of a Tribunal, failure to give just cause and even when instructed by an Upper Tribunal to resolve and pay compensation, 4 years later have not done so. 

  It is my intention to take the DWP and PIP to an Upper Tribunal where the Secretary of State to appear and resolve further issues caused by the DWP and the time frames leading to the eviction from my own property in ********* Street, the forcing of me to go into a 5 YEAR IVA, and still break the rules of the IVA by making arrangements outside the IVA to pay back a debt already cleared by me and alter the adjudication of a Tribunal and Benefits being paid back to me by still giving two different start dates to my claim for benefits and issuing a document (a pdf File) had made 4 amendments to the document, without a single document showing the reason for the amendment and noting that there was an amendment and dating it saying this is the document that should be used on the front copy, which should be signed by both the DWP and ME. 

  This means that every few months when asking where is the new document?  I must explain everything again to a new decision Maker or an operative on the phone, even failing my own security questions? 

  With this in mind and asking for a meeting with the DWP and PIP in Cardiff to resolve why the DWP can refuse to pay benefits that I am entitled to and having me evicted 5 times, and the latest being October 2024. I will be taking legal proceedings against Cardiff City Council for the latest eviction, since they approved the move from a 4 Bedroom house ** ********* Street Cardiff, CF24  to the Property of *** ***** ***** **** *****.  CF15. 

  Since the move was because of an eviction, Cardiff City Council, the Money Advice Center, and Shelter were all involved with the relocation. 

In attending meetings with CCC, more than one feasibility study was completed months before the move, and even though Rent Smart Wales assisted.  In the weeks before the move I was promised Reallocation Costs, and money towards White Goods that were damaged in the property due to Damp and faulty Wiring. 

  Even after the Housing section knew I had found a property, assistance was supposed to be given, including the hire of a “skip” to bin rubbish that was not going to be taken to a “new property”  

  I can show appointments dating from the **of September2024 and before showing feasibility studies were done, but because CCC took so long to answer the agents' requests, (remembering the costings had already been worked out) I lost 3 properties.  One being directly across the road from the school the kids are in.  ( ****** Llanishen.) 

  Prevention Appointment at Star Hub Letter Dated ** August 2024  Ref Number ********/  booked for ** August 2024 for 9.30 am which allowed me 90 minutes and had to bring 5 year address history, proof of benefits (me and Partner/Wife) Copy of Tenancy agreement, 3 months of Bank Statements Copy of Landlord correspondence, Proof of Deposit protection, Proof of I D for all household members, Landlord and Letting Agent contact details, Proof of Medical Details including medication being taken, 

** August 2024 Housing Options Centre, Name of Officer, Antonio Sparano, Designation: Prevention. 

• Meeting:  To maximize my chance of rehousing before ** of February 2025. 

Prevention and Help to secure duties (S66/S73 HOUSING (WALES) Act 2014. 

We will work with you to secure accommodation in an area of your choice. 

• Final Housing Duty (S75) - We will work with you in an area of your choice but that may always be possible.  (This is where there was a suggestion to look outside Cardiff. Where you would get more property for your money. 
• Any offer of temporary accommodation may not be in the area you have chosen.  

That form comprising of 3 pages. 

It also consisted of Letting Agents and Housing Associations who give priority to my needs, with a list of useful web pages.  With all this in mind and more than one interview with Housing options, and asking for a “ball park” figure of what is affordable to me, it was found that Cardiff City Council were under paying my rent and had been doing so for some time, and in realigning the correct rent saved me £20/week of my top up.   

  Something the Benefits team would not admit. 

 I found a property (*************) where the team then completed another Income and expenditure form, and this form was submitted to *** and ****** the Agents for the property. 

  It was now found that with the increase in the correct payment to me I could afford a house up to the value of £1500/4 weekly.  Since the property was only £1400/Calander Month.  The calculation would have meant that my top up would have only been about £86/4 weekly, another saving. 

  Before *** would release the Bond and one month rent in advance, CCC had to send an Agent to the property for inspection. The Property like the previous property was registered with Rent Smart Wales and had been reduced by £100 to £1400/Calander month.  ***** and ***** did a check on me and CCC completed their checks.  Within 6 hours **** and ****** said they were willing to except me over the other people who viewed the property, yet CCC to a further 3 weeks before they would release the bond, almost costing me the property. 

  CCC Renaye on all the promises made to me about moving costs, and skip hire, along with a voucher for the goods that they say they were going to purchase for me, and infact at that time would only purchase a single bed for me even though they promised much more, and that they knew my wife is in receipt of attendance allowance and has a curved spine so she required a mattress, also damaged at the property saying we can only give things for you and not your wife?      

Is this Duty of Care? 

  None of this mattered since they also forced me into debt by having to purchase everything myself for me and my family.  It also now seems that although CCC have released both the Bond and the First Month’s Rent it does not cover the property and Rhonda Cynon Taff have decided to put me through the same thing all over again. 

  They are not paying the full rent, where they have decided to base the rent on a head count of the property and not based on me and my wife’s disabilities and since moving up here I have found I could not tell you what they are paying since in contacting the Agent I have received another letter stating that the account is in arrears this is the THIRD such letter I have received. 

  RCT also state that I must pay my C Tax in cash?  I have always had a direct Debit on my account for all bills so that I can budget. 

  Rhonda Cynon Taffs answer to me months ago when asking for the income and expenditure form, they had and a breakdown of the calculations they used was, it's obvious you should have never moved here, and you need to rescind the Eviction notice and look for some where more suitable.    

  They keep filling out and telling me they are going to send me a CT and HOUSING REDUCTION FORM, where no amount of telling them I was evicted from the previous property so I can’t go back, and that you accepted the payment from Rent Smart Wales and since then you have never sent me a receipt of where the amount of rent you are paying is going since I can only assume like OVO Energy they were still topping up ****** ***** meters not ****** ***** and had to explain that I now have 4 ACCOUNTS WITH OVO and need this to be rectified. 

Can you get Rhonda Cynon Taff to explain why they accepted the rental of ****** ****** and the Amounts they received and yet 3 months later are still not paying the correct amount of full Housing and council Tax if they say I have an excess income of £43 and take the equivalent of 85% in council Tax and Housing Benefits, leaving me with around £2.90 a week to pay the difference. 

  I cannot work as for every pound I earn HMRC take 85% which equates to 0.015 PENCE AN HOUR. 

  I would like to no longer be disabled and go on the dole where my skills as a lecturer are still required. 

Can Rhonda Cynon Taff show the Calculation used that only allows a 3-bedroom allowance and also show in the calculation why the underlying care allowance given is only £45 when the web Page shows £86 PER DISABLED PERSON. 

  I WOULD LIKE A MEETING WITH HEADS OF DEPARTMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS after taking 12 years to resolve and the DWP and PIP owe me money more than £20,000 and have still not paid me any compensation for the errors that have led to 5 Evictions that they can still send me bills. 

David Simpson. 

This statement from Capita-PIP. 

  Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a non-means tested benefit for people aged between 16 and state pension age who have a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability, which means they have difficulties with some everyday tasks or getting around. 

  If this is the case, why do we need another assessment to get financial help if the medical help has already been given by the NHS. 

This is the basis of my case on Wednesday, and has now become complex, not form my side but the actioning of Judicial and Medical Reports written for the court by a court appointed doctor, that stopped the assessment when reaching 29 points required, and wrote on his report it would serve no further purpose in continuing with the assessment. 

 This happening 3 years in a row, when the DWP decided to reassess me 6 months after the Tribunal gave me my benefits back. 

 Not one single amendment made to my claim this being in 2010, 2011, and 2014.      

 Fast forward 2025, I am still awaiting any communication from the DWP as to the documents I requested, or a copy of any amendments to my Claim since 2008.