Support and discussions for help in benefits.

I like your comments. @bmw123. and many others, me included agree. The White paper comes from proposals from the government on intent. The White paper comes from reading that and seeing what the hell has changed without discussion to the original PDF Documents we are supposed to adhere too.

This I received this morning, and my answer back.

This is a further comment made to me this morning about support (I believe for the Labour party, but it should be for us)

Quote:

Your first year in Government was about fixing the foundations. Our second must be about building a renewed economy: one that works for working people, supports our public services, and delivers growth in every part of Britain.

And while the Government delivers, our party must face up to the challenges ahead.

The single greatest threat to working people’s way of life is Nigel Farage and Reform.

When Labour delivers the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades, Reform tries to block it. When Labour stands with our allies, Reform sides with Vladimir Putin.  

When Labour works to bring prices and interest rates down, Reform cheers on Liz Truss’s chaos. When Labour invests record amounts in our NHS, Reform rejects the very principle of healthcare free at the point of use.

Every time, on every issue, it is Labour that stands up for working people, and Reform that shows whose side they are really on.

Make no mistake. This is a fight we must win. And it is a fight we will win.

The prize is within our grasp: a better Britain that is outward-looking, confident and prosperous. A Britain powered by the contribution of its people, hopeful for our shared future.

A Labour Britain, David. That’s the prize our movement can deliver, together.

Thank you,

Rachel Reeves

Chancellor of the Exchequer. 

  While on paper this is exactly what we should be doing, in the communities around the country, the Labour Party is being vetted by the media, by the new headline-grabbing titles, and by statements made by Reformers and other political parties.  What we are not seeing is action, which speaks louder that words.  I know that Labour is delivering on its promises, so why are you worried as to what the reformers say?  Words that we will do this or that are just that.

Written by me as a further comment:

  First reference comes from Scope, which has supported many people who are Neurodiverse and long-term sick.  Can you explain the support that has been given to make claiming Financial help these people registered as disabled or sick, and have been assessed by the NHS to receive treatment, need to be assessed again by the DWP?

  The purpose of Universal Credit was to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella, allowing any department seeking information about a claimant for access to the benefits to view.  This is subject to:  Once permission from the relevant department has been obtained, a letter explaining the need for this information, and if necessary, show the information already on file for that particular application for benefits, and inviting the Claimant to add what they believe would help the application by adding things like recent changes to medication, recent hospital visits and their outcomes, including long term treatment, any pending treatment or operations not already shown.  This all helps to keep information up to date, from both sides.

  What I don't see is how a claimant who had already been claiming a benefit and is still receiving a treatment for a disability or illness needing another assessment from an assessment company hired by the DWP, who are supposed to be experts, to give a report to the Decision Maker who then reduces the claim, or in some cases decides to stop payments for financial help because they have decided that they no longer qualify for that benefit.

  The Laws and Charters set out by the government are specific and are outlined in a PDF Format, which is not being adhered to by government departments.  This is why delays in payments or the need for FOI or MRs are needed.  Why?  The information is provided by the Claimant during the form-filling process and is supported by prescriptions, treatment records, and operations, all based on their NHS medical history, which they hold, and more importantly, is on headed paper.

  What I see is at the bottom of letters saying Office Manager, or an e-mail address: do not reply to this email as it is unattended.  Does this sound like an expert who is doing what they are being paid to do?  Yes, it is.  Because it has now a fight or battle to prove every time I am sick, ill, or need treatment at every stage of the process of claiming benefits.  This is not assistance in claiming financial help; it is mitigating responsibility to the claimant, who, remembering that they may also have a mental illness, has to fill out pages and pages of repeated questions, but worded slightly differently, and in most cases, I find, give up or accept the decision maker's decision because they cannot cope with the questionnaire. 

    Help:  Yes, we have CAB who do a good job, and people like Scope who also assist, but what are the government doing to assist?   Are they refining the system so that it is in plain English (or a language of your choice, including Welsh)?  No, the system, with its newest addition of AI, seems to be making matters worse.  This is only one comment of many of the government attitude to disability which is not a new thing, and has been trying to resolve this issue, where now even time restraints are not being adhered to and where things like answering the phone within three rings has become a minimum wait of 1/2 hour, or being number 33 in a queue, which is strange really since I am always number 33, or there is a loop that states that they will ring you back as soon as an agent becomes available, (in my case it must be 007) and do not get a call back that day?  This is where your first improvement should be made.

You would have thought by now that Scope, Mind, and other Charities registered to help the Sick and Disabled would have had enough by now, and took the DWP to court and forced them to adhere to the Charters and Laws used against us in support of keeping costs down for the DWP yet is costing more in supporting an ever increasing bill in FOI and MR paperwork and time, and court Appearances man hours to defend a decision already admitted to the court and the claimant as wrong but will not rectify.

We are now breeding a system like America of ACCOUNTABILITY, AND WHERE THERE IS A CLAIM THERE IS A BLAIM. It has no longer become an apology and a payment of back pay, but away from court the DWP still mitigate responsibility and decide what they will pay and not adhere to a Judges Directional notice. Not only by not issuing the corrected documents for later reference, but also altering the start dates by saying that we can only pay from the time we received the complaint. If it takes 2 years to go through the system and infact it started before that date because of a Decision Making error they will only start from the latest date, or end dates of benefits under dispute since some certificates only last 2 or three years and by the time the court decision is made there is only about a year to go on the certificate, but in three months when you think its all over you receive another letter saying we are reviewing your claim to make sure you are on the correct rates and it starts all over again.

This is another comment on another subject in the news.

attach when i come back.

The freedom of free speech is a powerful tool.

What a statement. I have been fighting for disability rights for as long as I can remember, and before. I have always been a Union Activist, in the front line 'of the action' so to speak. But, recently even my will to live against the continual barrage of government issues designed, lets be fair, to pay the minimum allowed by laws and Charters and if they make a mistake then change the Law to suit.

Harsh words? Not really, since when you look at how laws and Charters are formed, they are formed by meetings, discussions and by 'mutual agreement'. If for instance we had the pandemic, laws were put into place to allow easier access to benefits, by way of altering the need or to give greater powers to the Decision Maker and Assessment Providers.

This meant that the issues of not going out, restricted movement and contact with others including family members were put into place, and also the 'relaxing of assessments, so that people did not need a face to face assessment from either the assessment provider or the decision maker to be assessed for 'financial help'.

This is where everything starts to go wrong>

Question to get you to think>

What was done before that could not be achieved before the pandemic?

What changed with the assessment process, that allowed the information provided by the claimant for access to benefits, easier access to the benefit system?

Did the actual Assessment Process or information gathering through form filling change?

Was the intention of giving the Decision Maker and Assessment system provider more powers, supposed to be a permanent part of the original contract for assessment, or, was it to be learnt from and rescinded once the threat of the pandemic has subsided, allowing lessons learnt to be incorporated into the original contract of assessments.

If the last statement is correct, and remembering that the Laws and Charters had been changed, where under CONDOUR or the Duty of Care to every claimant has this been done, showing the Amendments to the original contract, which are signed and dated by both parties.

When I state both parties, I mean the DWP for the government, and the relevant Charity or benefit being applied for by the claimant, being the other party. (covered in Laws and Charters, and may include Scope, Mind, NHS, or Unions involved in the discussion process who all become our mouth piece for support of the claimant. You must also remember that laws like the Social Security Act, the Duty of Care and the Disability Act, to name some, are already set by the government, and in use.

Why? To give everyone a level playing field, where some times, the harsh side of claims, when claw backs become involved in benefit claims, is not to just administer an unacceptable method of payback that is unachievable, but to assist in showing some compassion that will allow the claimant to 'get back on track' and allow them to, if you excuse the pun, eat and keep a house over their heads, while giving them an opportunity to learn, increase there prospect's of work, and rebind their family life, to show even they feel worth and achievement going forward.

This grass roots scenario is a must, but what are we getting?

It has been said here time and time again, "We need to fight for what we should get?"

What happened to learning from ours and their mistakes and going forward so that these mistakes do not happen again? If a person has an assessment for access to benefits, then 1. It should make no difference where you are in the country the same rules apply. Because the Laws and Charters are in place to make sure this happens.

2. If you need a Mandatory Reconsideration, and it has been requested, another set of Laws are in place for this.

Because the request has been placed for a MR why do we not receive an acknowledgement letter saying we have received your request and it will be delt with in due course. That 'due course' may be over 20 weeks if they send anything, or because you ask or send in further evidence the clock starts again.

3. Even when going to a Tribunal there is another set of Laws, that must be adhered to. This includes both parties: Send in the reason for the request for a tribunal and a court will issue you with a refence number that all information will be placed into that reference, where your information will be sent to the other party in a bundle.

This is make sure that both parties will exchange information prior to the court hearing. Information can be added when it becomes available, and can also be given on the day prior to the court hearing, but to be honest unless this is say waiting for a medical file or operational result, I would not recommend this, but is still legal on the day as the Clerk will ask you if you have any further information to hand in.

If by now you have not made your case clear to the DWP, you will find that the court is to clarify why the DWP has not resolved this issue before, saving the need for the Tribunal to adjudicate.

Lessons I have learnt, (my opinion) The DWP will hope that you give up.

The offer to relook at the claim is done either the night before or on the day.

Any offer, must be made through the court once the date of the hearing is set. unless one party excepts the offer made and signs an agreement to state they excet the offer it should still go to court. What actually happens is the DWP actually contact the court sayin they have made an offer, so there is no need for the hearing. When the court is asked what the offer was, they say they are not privey to this? The whole idea of a court hearing is to get fair play yet, it is not as though the DWP don't know the rules that surround the court hearing and I have found this to happen in every case I have taken to court.

This is the reason why why its called a fight for benefits. There is no accountability for their actions or the actions of the assessment providers who also know what the charters and laws that surround CANDOUR but are never taken to account for their actions even when the case is won by the claimant.

The next stage of the fight is to get compensation and even after admitting serious grammatical and Typos errors still requires the claimant to take out a Civil proceeding against those involved, to get the right rates of payment, the correct start and end dates, a copy of the agreements 'they say' they have made in a PDF Format, but start saying to the claimant we can only pay from…… or tyhis is when you brought the complaint to us so, ……. this is why they NEVER reproduce the content of how the claim was lost in court, because for every one that they loose in court there are 10 who don't get that far because they give up.

I, and many like me, make themselves ill, by trying to prove that they are ill or disabled, after an NHS Qualified Doctor or Medical Professional says I am, they say I am not.

The wording in there files state that 'all' Professionals used by the assessment providers in the assessments process are medically qualified, and are registered on a Medical Professional Register on, and before the assessment process has been completed.

Otherwise how can they read and understand the things that a claimant sends in to the decision maker to understand whether the illness is short or long term, whether it can be fixed with medicines or physiotherapy, or whether surgery is required, and what the expected outcome, short or long term is viable to have the operation.

There is no one supporting the claims made for benefits, unless it comes from forums like this. But yet again, why are we fighting a battle to claim a benefit if when it is one we then move onto another claimant having the same problems claiming the same benefit?

Many years ago (2012/2013) in one year alone, I collated and named over ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY PEOPLE who died waiting for the DWP to pay out the back payment or waiting for a court listing in a case that they had lost, and insisted they wanted to go to court to make sure they paid the right rates of payments and benefits.

The family's left behind got nothing.

Is this were we are as a society, that the very people that are supposed to give us help and support when we need it most, (I say we, as 'we' are all included in this) are the very same people that are cutting support for the very same people they are supposed to help?

Look at the new rules that surround the U C, Fair Wages, Wage protection, pension rights, contributions to pensions, pensions index linked to keep up with inflation, pension rises and now becoming a means tested benefit, inheritance tax where my father provided for us as a family paid bills so that when he/she went they would give their children security, also classed as unearned income, that seems not to apply to the big earners or supposed big tax payers, since they all have off shore accounts to dodge the Tax system, so who is the next easiest target. You guessed it, US. Not the United States but 'us'

They know the cost of Disability, after all, Scope and many others have written papers time and time again of the cost of help needed and what should be provided, yet the help we get is by saying if you don't make yourself available for some type of work your benefits will be reduced?

My first need for benefits is to fix me, so when a Doctor tells me I have ADHD, or any other illness, then how can a decision Maker say to me, 'I did not see any of this at the assessment and recommend a back to work within three to six months?'

This caused the claimant to have other issues of self harm, panic attacks, and even a stroke, all listed with many more on his medical history, and ended up back in hospital, an admittance over 2 years ago, and now cannot be left alone and requires 24/7 care. Who is now giving that care? Unpaid family members, because they want him at home not in a hospital.

The system of assessment is a necessity, the laws and Charters that protect both the DWP and the claimant are a necessity, the ability to play fair and expect Duty of Care being applied is a necessity, but all seem to be frugal in its application.

When are we going to say enough is enough and start really fighting back and every person that has a complaint against the DWP in there application of their Duty of Care and has a result good or bad, have them published to that people around the country realise your illness is unique to you but the treatment both through the DWP and the NHS is NOT.

The NHS show Duty of Care every time you see them, why am I not allowed the same respect not given a number and placed in a queue to way for a decision already made by the NHS and Doctors note who has signed me off.

This is a campaign message for all, join the voice, sign petitions get what you entitled to.