Somewhere in the back of my mind this situation was mentioned on Rightsnet.com. If I remember the argument, the Welfare Rights Officer was not very happy that two cases were to be heard at the same time. An old ESA claim and one that was made some months later on grounds of a deterioration. It was felt that the two cases if heard together might prejudice each other. The Welfare Rights Officer objected to this happening and in the interest of justice had the two cases heard on different days with a different panel. I could see this happening with your case. Two totally different sets of criteria being rolled into one hearing. Recipe for a disaster. Have a word with CAB or whatever, and I think you will find that you should be objecting to this ever happening. Justice should not only be done, it must also be SEEN to be done. How you are going to argue on two totally different benefits without getting yourself tied up in knots at the same time worries me. Google Rightsnet - see what you come up with. Good Luck

Has this not been mentioned? I can't find a reference to it. But as she is pleading guilty before the Magistrates, it is a strong possibility that the case may be sent to Crown for sentencing by the Magistrates. Crown having more powers to sentence more harshly, also have the power to reduce what a Magistrate may impose. I have been out of this for years but I thought that you could elect to go to Crown instead of Magistrates and know that at least you will get a fair hearing of the mitigation by an experienced Judge instead of somebody that sits a couple of times a year as a Magistrate and runs a pub full time! I know that if ever I was charged with theft and fraud I would sooner take my chances with a Judge than a Magistrate. I know too many of them and how they think!!!

Why? There aren't any jobs! Many have been looking for months and still unemployed.

Oh my other half will want to read all about this! What on earth is the Civil Service coming to? He is a retired senior Civil Servant (retired Dec 09) at age 60 and 6 months. He thought about staying on part time on half hours for half pay + pension, but he had had enough. Too many targets, his time wasn't his own anymore. He was paid to do a job, but spent half of it controlling his staff with reports for this and reports for that. Oh those days when he used to say that being in the Service was like being with a large family. He used to spend time having a cuppa and a smoke thinking about how he would deal with his next case. He would go for a 15 min walk to clear his head. Nope he is well out of it if what is happening is the way things are now.

What you are told and what actually happens is generally miles apart. The ESA113 is supposed to be sent out when the Decision Maker is looking to allow ESA based only on the ESA50, but needs a little more confirmatory evidence. Whether that happens is another matter. The DWP readilly admit that they would prefer an ATOS report over a GP report any day. I have noticed that the ESA113 has now been changed to reflect the new descriptors that came into force in March this year. The old style ESA113, was more condition and illness related. The new one is asking the GP to comment more on the patients ability to perform the various tasks. How the GP will know that is another matter. I see this as a very subtle way of getting the GP to look at your inability to do any work especially when the MED3 (sick note) is completed. It is asking the GP to view his/her patient through similar eyes that ATOS do. This I presume is suggesting that the GP take more care when issuing MED3's out in future, and not issue them willy nilly for everyone that has a bad back, a headache, a strained muscle and of the course a bout of flu!

Yes I know it was wrong advice, but my father didn't tell me until he had paid for it himself. He also has an open coal fire, but nothing was said about that.

Warm Front do! They were given a big pot of money and told to share it out with those that came within the scheme. Out of that pot they were allowed to keep a % as their commission for organising the scheme on behalf of the government. If the full amount was not taken up because you didn't at that time come within the full scheme (although there are many examples around that WF say you can't have it when infact you can, but they rely on your limited knowledge of the scheme) WF are are 'bending' the contract to suit themselves in order to push up their income. They keep the difference. If you then need further help, and if the scheme was running as it was, you would re-apply, and if lucky be given another £3500. They would take away what you have used already, leaving you with the balance to go against the new work. In your case you would be allowed £3200, and say that the work came to £2000, they would keep the £1200!! So be thankful that you may contributed to one of the director/shateholders new swimming pool!!!

I presume you were talking about my father's boiler. If not, I'm sorry if I have confused the issue. His boiler whilst working was condemned by British Gas as dangerous. They put a tag around the inlet supply and a long sticker on the face of the boiler. So whilst it would still work it was illegal to have it in operation. As with the original question, efficiency is why the whole scheme started. If you have a fire that loses some 50%+ of the heat up the chimney, it should be replaced. Whether it works or not is immaterial, it is all down to the safety aspect and tha Energy Ratings..

Warm Front are nothing more than a company, a private agency run for profit out of the distribution of grants. They have the 'customers' who request work to be done within the terms of the scheme. They contract out the work that they say the scheme allows for. They do not ask the government for a bit here and a bit there depending on what work is coming up over the next month. They were appointed by the government to run the scheme and were given a 'pot' of money to have the scheme work. The government were more than happy as the cost to the taxpayer was less this way than if it had been organised by a government department. Nothing different than having ATOS run the medical side of benefits. Likewise the various 'charities' that used to run the Pathway Scheme for JSA claimants. They were paid a pot of money to provide the scheme. Scheme didn't work, but the charities kept the money! Warm Front take their 'profit' as being the commission agreed with the government plus any left over (total grant allowed less cost of work completed). In my father's case, he had a condemned boiler (rust on the exhaust vent). They refused to carry out any work even though he came within many of the allowed conditions viz. nearly 90, receives Attendance Allowance at the highest rate etc. Reason: the boiler still worked. They only repair/replace boilers that are not working. You find that restriction mentioned anywhere - It doesn't exist! He was clearly entitled to a new boiler under the scheme. He was made to feel that he wasn't entitled so off he went and had one put in out of his own money - £2,000 (what bit he had of it!) He just believed they were being honest and right. I knew different and as you have pointed out, they are very deceptive. In his case they clocked up another £3600 which they didn't need to pay out.

Isn't this the ESA113 form? From what I know and have had letters from the DWP about this with regards to my husband's problems, they very rarely send these out. I wanted to know why my husband didn't have one sent out. I was told that the ATOS assessment is more reliable than what a GP could say! http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa113-interactive.pdf

Being of an age where working doesn't affect us anymore as I am nearer to 70 than 60 and my husband not that far behind me and is chronically ill, I have just had a look at the Jobcentre website as I can't believe that there aren't any jobs. I put my postcode in, asked for a max of 5 miles to where I live and asked for any job. We live in a rural area with the nearest town 10 miles away and a city 70 miles away. The result, nine pages of jobs came up! Most are paid at the NMW but surely that is far far better than what you are getting on benefits isn't it?

Thankyou We are waiting to see the senior GP with PALS at the end of the month. I note your comments about repeat prescriptions. No the GP has never had either of us in. I've been on my medication with no change since 2003, and my husband on his since April 2004 when he came out of hospital. My repeat list is two pages long and his runs into 5!! We just keep taking the pills. Incidentally and I didn't really want to say this, but because he takes upwards of 100mgs of Morphine every 12 hours he is now addicted to them. He should only be taking 70mgs, but needs the extra to make them work. He also finds that Oramorph works quicker and better. But that has nothing to do with this thread. Going to a court hearing is the last thing either of us wants or feels able to cope with. We were told about them before but we put in new claims instead of appealing.

The 6 month rule is there for two reasons I believe. one, as it is based on your past contributions, there has to come a time when you have had enough back. two, the government consider that 6 months should be long enough for the average person to find some type, any type of job.

I am presuming that you are receiving MED3 forms from your GP? (sick notes). And I presume you are handing them over to your employer? OK, when your SSP comes to an end you will have to claim ESA (sick pay) from the DWP. You will have to send the DWP your sicknote and fill out a form.

Am I right in thinking that you are aware of the debt, that you accept that it has to be repaid? If so, how can you be in hardship by not receiving a backdated payment? You have lived so far on the assessment rate and have been paying the debt back at £4.50pw. The backdated payment is an 'extra' payment and has nothing to do with your current and future financial position. What were you intending to do with the £1200 if you didn't pay off the debt? In fact you are going to be at least £25pw better off than you have already! Given that, I can't see how paying the debt back in full out of this unepected bonus will affect you, unless I have missed something. With it paid off you will be another £4.50pw better off as well. It seems the most logical thing to do. No more worry, no more debt and be at least £30pw better off than you have been in the past. Besides which, do you think it fair that the DWP continue to accept your £4.50pw for as long as it takes to clear the debt, yet take the whole of the £1200 underpayment to spend as you wish?