Yes. The point is that he had been demanding payment to him personally for weeks. When payment was given, he returned the cheque and asked me to pay the company - which I had offered to do for weeks. In fact the money is still on the company's agent's account - all they have to do is transfer it.

I am embarrassed to raise this as it involves such a small amount but I suffer from MH issues and threats tend to have an exaggerated effect on me! In brief: 1. I am a lessee with a share of freehold in our block of flats. I applied for some company records for which the statutory payment was £5. I authorized our managing agent to pay this and any postage to the company secretary from a surplus on my service charge account. I got no answer. 2. I was subsequently advised by the company secretary the total inc. postage was £6.17 and asked for a cheque payable to himself personally. To avoid any confusion I therefore electronically sent that additional amount to my service charge account and authorized the agent again to transfer the amount to the company's client account. No response. 3. I advised the company secretary that it would not be appropriate to pay him personally as the fee was payable to the company, the Companies Act set out that this was the case and any out of pocket expenses he should get from the company, not me. 4. After obtaining some very unpleasant emails, I re-stated my position the money was due to the company but offered to pay the company by cheque or electronic payment if he provided the payee and (for electronic payment) sort code/account number details. He continued to demand payment. 5. By this time the matter was getting to me psychologically. I therefore wrote to the chairman of the company (with whom I have recently had arguments about whether the company was properly run - so he is not exactly on my side) asking whether payment could be made personally to the company secretary. He said yes. 6. I issued a cheque to the company secretary personally. 7. He has just written back returning the cheque and now demanding payment to the company threatening legal action if I do not pay promptly. I have offered to pay if the payee or other details are provided as requested on 9/9/14. There has been no response. 8. I believe the company and company secretary have behaved totally unreasonably. Payment is still available from the service charge account for which it would be easy to arrange transfer. I have bent over backwards to arrange payment. I believe the threat of court action is intended to cause harassment actuated by personal malice because I raised difficult issues with the company and also brought a motion to replace the company secretary. 9. Do I have a defence if a court claim is issued? Can I get it dismissed on grounds of payment made or other unreasonable conduct? Any advice would be welcome as I feel the company officers (who should be acting in the interests of all the owners of the block) are abusing their position and the resources of the company. Unfortunately a lot of the owners are non-resident, so it is difficult to hold them to account.

You need to be persistent and have some courage in this situation. I know it's difficult, I've been in it myself. If you really have difficulty and need a home visit, you must write and say so, with reasons, referring to your GP or specialist. Preferably write by email (the site has stopped me from inserting the address) or recorded delivery letter to Atos customer services. Possibly they will defer your appointment. If so and they issue another one, follow the same course, writing again and ensuring you have a copy and proof of sending. If Atos continues to disregard the matter and sends your file back to JCP and you are issued with a form asking you to explain your non-attendance, you can then respond that you had good cause on medical grounds, have requested a home visit (provide copies of the letter/emails) and they may then take notice and seek further input from your GP or specialist. Obviously, if you can arrange a brief letter from your GP supporting your need for a home visit, this will be enormously helpful. Most GPs are willing to do this for people in your position. As a PS, it sounds to me like you may have a good case for exemption, in which case Atos should have sent a medical questionnaire (113 I think) to your doctor asking for further input.This now includes a specific section asking whether you are able to attend by taxi or not - which gives the GP the option of stating no, this person needs a home visit. In which case it is very difficult for either JCP or Atos to deny you have good cause for not attending a medical centre. Hope this is of help.

Erika, I edited my mail as I agree my initial post was inexact. However, I did not state that there is a rule of law automatically to exclude evidence as admissible and suggest you read the post more carefully. In practice, to say there is no automatic rule of law excluding the admissibility of covertly obtained evidence does not in fact say much. There is a duty to consider what is in the interests of justice but there is no duty to admit evidence, merely a discretion. I distinguished between your comment that there was a duty and a discretion on a court to admit evidence. To rely on a court exercising its discretion in one's favour is, in my experience, fraught with difficulties, as so much depends on the facts. The courts may very well not show the same readiness to admit covertly obtained evidence in these cases as to admit such evidence obtained by the police on public interest grounds in criminal cases. In my second post I pointed to the problems with generalizing along the lines of your brief comment. It cannot be assumed that the approach in an employment tribunal (which is notoriously sui generis) will apply to other forums. Moreover, there is also the very difficult point about the status of the HCP involved in the medical process, who cannot be wholly equated with the company Atos for purposes of e.g. human rights law, and the contractual questions. There are also issues of credibility which can damage a party's case. I would be delighted if people in such unequal situations could safely even the score if necessary with covert evidence. However, it is not that simple. In my view the correct route is to obtain consent or press for a review of the DWP/Atos's current policy until such time as the position is absolutely clear. Even if such evidence were admitted, it may rebound on the person seeking to use it, even resulting in civil lawsuits.

PS Arnwell was an employment claim, the ratio of the decision applied only to recordings made in connection with the public element of the governors' hearing (not private deliberations) and in so far as they were acting in their public capacity. The same would not necessarily apply to a third party HCP acting for Atos. In Arnwell there was also no contractual exclusion of the right to record covertly. Is the contractual position (expressly in terms of whatever Atos has made known, or even impliedly, the same in the case of Atos medicals?) I am not saying the "interests of justice" rule could never be used, merely that the issue is far too complex to say definitively that you can record covertly and expect to use it or to escape the consequences of potential breaches of privacy against third parties. So it would be unwise to jump to conclusions about what you are going to be able to prove and act on that basis. Get expert advice.

I'm afraid I don't agree Erika and I am a lawyer. There is no duty to admit evidence, only a discretion. There may have been cases where a tribunal admitted such evidence on the special facts of the case. In theory any evidence may be admissible but you cannot rely on this. The old common law rule is now open to challenge under ec law etc.

I gather that when it does come in, those who have already been on ESA for over a year will lose it immediately if they do not pass the means test.

Oh, as for the idea of recording and casually mentioning it at the tribunal, unfortunately that won't work. I can tell you that legally the tribunal will deem any material recorded without consent of the other party to be inadmissible i.e. you won't be able to use it in a legal forum, which includes a tribunal for these purposes. They've got you all ways, I'm afraid. But see my other post about arranging it legally - plus info on benefits and work site.

There have been recent developments abaout this. Someone mounted a challenge and were given the go ahead. Full details on the benefits and work site - google it and then search under recording medicals or such.

Have to say reallymadwoman I agree with your take basically on this, though it is high time the capital and income limits for means testing were uprated, as they haven't been for about ten years, I think. There is already a lot of disinformation being put around about this. Some people who qualify because of low income or capital (or both) are worried they will be left penniless after a year. This is not the case, as I understand it, if you still qualify on sickness/disability and means grounds. Those who will be hit are the people who have accumulated savings and have just become sick, as after a year they will not qualify until their savings have reduced to the relevant level - £16K for a single person but with £1 deducted for every £250 over £6K. Oh, and if you try to get rid of your capital before the year's up, it won't work unless there are very good reasons e.g. paying off a debt to reduce interest payments. They will simply deem you to have disposed of capital unjustifiably and it will be taken into account anyway!

For those not familiar with the parties' agendas on welfare, you might want to consider the following (summary courtesy of IFS http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn95.pdf). It's a shocker, both Conservative and Labour - back to the middle ages with legalized serfdom:- Manifesto announcements The Labour Party’s manifesto restates existing government plans. Conservative Party: Replace all existing welfare-to-work programmes for the unemployed, lone parents and disabled people with one mandatory Work Programme for people on out-of-work benefits, delivered by private and voluntary sector organisations, with payment almost entirely by results, costing £600 million more than government plans over three years.4 Long-term unemployed to take part in community work programmes as a condition of receiving benefit.5 Stop out-of-work benefits for up to three years for people who refuse to accept ‘reasonable’ job offers. Liberal Democrats: A Work Placement Scheme for up to 800,000 workless under-25s, who would be paid £55 per week for a maximum of three months (estimated by the Liberal Democrats to cost £660 million in 2010–11). The Conservative Party’s proposed Work Programme is the ‘toughest’ of the work/training schemes for young people in the sense that it will be mandatory for under-25s who have been unemployed for at least six months,6 compared with ten months under the Labour plan and an entirely voluntary scheme under the Liberal Democrats’ plans. For those aged 25 and over, it is not clear at what stage in the unemployment spell the Conservative Party’s Work Programme would become mandatory.

Might want to quote this example from the Disability&Benefits Consortium comment on ESA: An example of an avoidable appeal includes a former engineer in his 50s seen by a London Citizens Advice Bureau. After feeling ill for a number of months he visited his GP and was referred to hospital and required a triple bypass. About three weeks after being discharged he started to feel extremely ill. He went back to hospital and after a series of tests was diagnosed with inoperable and incurable stomach and liver cancer. At his WCA he was found fit for work on the basis that he remarked he walked daily (although not far and not without discomfort) and could raise his hands above his head (once). None of his medical consultants could believe the decision. He appealed and was put into the support group for people not required to look for work.

My tuppence on the BW site and tigertim. I see where he's coming from, it seems to be just a genuine misunderstanding and clearly it is hurtful although no hurt was intended. For what it's worth the relevant site gives good basic advice. In Bettieboo's case for example - where she is worried about having time to gather evidence - she should just do the G24 as a holding job i.e. say "I wish to appeal against the decision and I believe I have given sufficient evidence to be found unfit for work. I will provide further evidence once I have received the full statement of reasons and medical report". Also if you are gonna use cab or legal help simply write in TBA. Then you will have your appeal in in time and they generally take ages to process it, during which you can gather further evidence. BW is reasonably cheap but it does give only very limted and generalized advice. As soon as you want to know anything in detail they simply refer you to get individual advice from cab or cls etc, which is rather irritating, although I do see they have to avoid anything like a client relationship for which they might be open to getting sued for giving negligent advice.

Only just caught up with this, but thanks for the interesting point. Actually the agreement was to at least confirm my emails had been received and action being taken, which would not involve any confidential details. Also on matters such as med certs missing, all that is required is to say yes, we are searching or we have located it - which is not giving much away. In any event email tech is now so entrenched surely it is time for the dwp and other government offices to get into the 21 century and use encryption. I understand your rationale and why that may (probably for economic reasons) be the policy but in truth it no longer holds water.

Hi Wonder if anyone has any input on this? I am receiving IS for mental health problems. I had lots of problems communicating as I cannot use the phone. After a lot of hassle, JCP agreed last year to give me an email link to a customer service officer at the relevant office to make enquiries. I don't use it too much, just when things go wrong - like letters they say they have not received etc. This was supposed to be a reasonable adjustment to help with my condition to fulfil their duty under DDA and disability equality duty. It has been going quite well, as they cannot use the usual excuses about not getting letters. Anyway, I made a couple of enquiries this last week. Then the office manager said today he has been told by the London security manager they cannot send out any emails or faxes to external people where details of someon'e claim could be identified. They could either use telephone or post (which I have found takes at least a week, so no good for urgent matters). But why is phone or post any safer than email? I think this is just trying to wriggle out of their commitment on vague security grounds. It seems a bit of a coincidence. Seems a bit fishy to me. Has anyone else come across this? It just seems like using "security" as a convenient excuse for getting round providing a proper service to me.