How do we really get a better deal? — Scope | Disability forum
Please read our updated community house rules and community guidelines.

How do we really get a better deal?

onebigvoice
onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
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.
 

Comments

  • janer1967
    janer1967 Community member Posts: 21,964 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 
  • wilko
    wilko Community member Posts: 2,458 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 member Posts: 11,519 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.
    2024 The year of the general election...the time for change is coming 💡

  • janer1967
    janer1967 Community member Posts: 21,964 Disability Gamechanger
    Welcome back Mike that was a very brief absence from the forum 
  • Lisatho11987777
    Lisatho11987777 Scope Member Posts: 5,911 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 
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Community member Posts: 53,333 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.
    I would appreciate it if members wouldn't tag me please. I have all notifcations turned off and wouldn't want a member thinking i'm being rude by not replying.
    If i see a question that i know the answer to i will try my best to help.
  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
    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. 

      Username_removed 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 Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering

      
      
        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 Community member Posts: 53,333 Disability Gamechanger
    It has been said several times in previous threads that PIP and work capability assessments are not medicals.
    I would appreciate it if members wouldn't tag me please. I have all notifcations turned off and wouldn't want a member thinking i'm being rude by not replying.
    If i see a question that i know the answer to i will try my best to help.
  • AndrewHall
    AndrewHall Community member Posts: 230 Pioneering
    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. 
    Never allow DWP assertions to define you. They never have evidence of your true circumstances.
  • IntneNavy
    IntneNavy Community member Posts: 7 Connected
    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 Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
    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.
     
  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
    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.
      
      
      

  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Community member Posts: 53,333 Disability Gamechanger
    I still don't know why you insist on calling it a "court" it's a Tribunal....
    I would appreciate it if members wouldn't tag me please. I have all notifcations turned off and wouldn't want a member thinking i'm being rude by not replying.
    If i see a question that i know the answer to i will try my best to help.
  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
    I still don't know why you insist on calling it a "court" it's a Tribunal....

    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?



    I do not understand your comments, as to whether I call it a court or a Tribunal?  I call it a court because in my opinion we are supposed to get a resolution to a problem by arbitration and to give every one a level playing field.
      You know exactly what I mean, yet only comment on that?  What about a Tribunal which sides with the Secretary of State when the reports written by BOTH the assessor and the decision maker are bluntly incorrect? 
      At my last Tribunal I asked both parties (their side) whether the document of 11 pages produced know as a L203 (c) form was read and correct and that it is an enforceable/legal document both said yes.
       A copy was not sent to me, in reading the document and again turning to page 5 of the document after pointing out 4 other errors still on the document not amended they stated slip of the pen, so in asking did they want to read it again with the letters sent to both showing their errors to say no this is correct, I had asked for my claim/listing to be removed and in force the document because on page 5 it stated that I was entitled to £245 PER WEEK.  In the Tribunal the SSS was asked to explain and given 21 days to answer or be dealt with on the paper submission, another 1 month extension and no answer and we are now in November this was March?
      I am now with the parliamentary commission since in filling out a Compensation form (sscs3) 21st July 2020 the ICO have not reacted to that?
      No its not a level playing field.  But slowly it being levelled.  and will continue to climb up the ladder till I get a change IN THE LAW that allows every one to have an assessment that is true and not bias under the rules set out by this government.   
      

  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
    Every Tribunal is supposed to receive an L 203(c) form from the DWP.  This form explains the reasons for the change, or offer put to the Claimant, it outlines history, the proposed changes, the working out and start dates whether it is to re-coupe money or to increase a rate or rates of benefit, the proposed start date.  This is also sent to the claimant PRIOR to it implementation, not after, so nit is also illegal to send a communication to the Tribunal by phone saying you have made a better offer without also including the signed statement that the claimant has SEEN THE OFFER, and agreed to its content.
      The tribunal will close the listing down without site of this.  And it all starts again with another MR.....
     
  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 736 Pioneering
    You dion’t understand why we call a tribunal a tribunal? 

    Er, because it’s a tribunal and not a court. Because it is thus governed by an entirely different set of laws, rules, case law and guidance than you think are applicable. Because it is a tribunal.

    Please withdraw your comment that we have only commented on that. It so untrue as anyone can see by reading the posts. 

    Tribunal offers do not require a tribunal to receive any form. Any offer which has been refused would be routinely appended to the appeal papers and appended to the sub. Accepted offers trigger the form to lapse.  
    I do understand why it's called a Tribunal, because they are supposed to impartial, and allow BOTH sides to present a case if necessary as a rebuttal against documents presented "to the Tribunal"
      If the Tribunal (and they do) except a call from the DWP about a benefit stating that they have made a more favourable offer to the claimant so the listing is now lapsed?  Explain what the offer was to the claimant?  The offer is site unseen by both the other parties, goes against the "Tribunal rules " which state all evidence is to be submitted to the Tribunal once a date is set, so that it can be added to the bundle of the other party before the hearing.
      If the DWP ring the Tribunal and state they are making a more favourable offer to the claimant, why is this not discussed with the claimant?  How do you explain the practice of ringing the night before and saying they have reviewed the claim and made a more favourable offer to a person that has mental problems and does not understand what is being offered.
      The reason I state this is that is what I have been doing the last few days, where an offer to the claimant ( not their representative) was made where a lower offer was made, in this case Standard Rate Mobility of the Care component.  The case was because of the volume of "medical evidence" I supplied an Enhanced Rate for both components.  In ringing last Wednesday asking again what they used to assess, they said it was on the way, Friday two more calls to the claimant offering her another rate but no hard copy and when I spoke to them Friday they said they would review it again.
      Monday Morning a copy of the original statement of benefits turned up and at the bottom stated that it is under review, Tuesday another call to the claimant and the revised payment was in her account?
      Never once in the conversations did they send any thing to the representative, all after calls from me, they are now on enhanced Rates for both without a single explanation of  the change the score sheet in both cases showed a change of points, so the decision maker has overridden the Assessors original report TWICE.  So my first question is How can a decision maker over ride an assessors report and score more point when s/he has no medical background?
      On altering it the second time.  Why or what was used to alter it since the first decision to go from Zero to Standard rate mobility was already looked at and already on its way for payment, before a second review was undertaken?  This DOUBLED THE AMOUNT of back payment plus more, with out a signature in site from the Claimant to say they had excepted it or agreed to any of the content?
      Would the same tactic be used when instead of UNDERPAYMENT and back pay the claimant was to PAY BACK money that the DWP decided was an OVER PAYMENT?
      AS FOR SENDING IN A SIGNED LETTER:
      The signed letter is so that the "Representative" is recognised by the DWP in helping fill forms and get relevant information about the claimant directly to the DWP.  The reason for the signed section as giving access to their medical files is for the same reason that the DWP require it, since it also stated that I wish to send in further medical information to you about the claim, and in the paperwork already sent in 2018 you had been given permission to access there medical files and to use the same information in any way that the |Secretary of state may need as long as they are required by law.  This example is the Universal Credit.  Since the information is put onto one central computer the DWP can access this for Council Tax, Housing Benefits, sick payments and History, to name some this includes your bank account.
      In stopping them using any further access I have asked before the claimant sends in any more
    medical since the first is free, would now cost £60 for any further letter being produced including Medical history.
      Yes probably my way is time consuming for me but from start to finish this has taken 9 weeks, with a positive result.
      My methods seem odd to some but how without permission from the claimant do you represent of send in information to the other party?
      Another case closed-ish, with a Three year review, also changed from 6 month, to 1 year to 3 years, no explanation?

      
       
  • calcotti
    calcotti Community member Posts: 10,010 Disability Gamechanger
    1 - it should be obvious that if an appeal is to be lapsed, correctly or otherwise, there is no need for any new decision or administrative document to be put into the appeal papers as, somewhat obviously, lapsing means there is no appeal. 
    I think the above paragraph was missing a no.
    Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Rules may be different in other parts of UK.

Brightness