Jump to content

taraquin

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. There is no such thing as 'proving your innocence'. You are innocent until proven guilty. My attitude given the circumstances of the OP's friend is to force the Council's hand and let them make the first move. I would never volunteer any information one way or another and certainly would not volunteer a taped interview under caution without first knowing what the evidence against me was. If they want to come and arrest me, fine, much better than going voluntarily. When under arrest you have more rights. And you still have the right to say nothing. Get to see the evidence first before making comments.
  2. There are two parts to your problem as I see it. 1. The previous claim 2. the new claim You are well out of date with the first. There is an absolute period of 13 months in which you can ask for a late appeal to be accepted. You can complain but that would be as a matter of principle only. As regards your new claim, it will not be backdated to beyond the date you claimed. It certainly would not go back to 2009! I do hope you are not intending using any evidence from as far back as 2009? The max they would accept would be 12 months old, and the most important report you could obtain is from your GP. He/she would have to certify that you have the needs you quote, AND nothing about your illness. eg, he would have to confirm that you need help to wash, go to the toilet, dress etc and for mobility that you cannot walk any further than 50 metres in a slow and difficult manner. The more the GP loads the report with that sort of info the better. I lost my DLA 7 years ago and didn't appeal due to illness. I reclaimed this year only on what I was like now. It took two goes at getting a decent GP report. I had to write everything down for the GP telling as it is. The GP then called me in and we went through the report form together. Mine wasn't backdated - it was my fault for not appealing in time.
  3. Just had a reconsideration letter. They have refused all of my medical reports etc and are adamant that the condition I have now, albeit exactly the same (PTSD) as I had from years ago, is NOT the same. I have had two illnesses of PTSD for exactly the same type of injury!! It seems I had only just got better when all of a sudden the same thing happened to me again resulting in another bout of PTSD which is NOT an industrial accident - because I no longer work. It is becoming very clear that the DWP are doing everything possible to thwart IIDB claims. Even to the point that the claimant is now having to prove that the current problems are because of the original accident, and not related to another identical one. I give up.
  4. I too have had a similar problem with ATOS. Having had 5 previous assessments and a whole load of independent medical reports, they came up with the idea that I have had two identical accidents! What I am suffering from now is identical to what I was suffering from before, but they have taken the view that it does not relate to the original accident, but another identical one which has happened recently. They are of the opinion that the condition I had before has been cured and that I was very unfortunate in suffering another one that isn't an Indutrial accident. Without them saying in so many words, I have had two identical accidents - 16 years apart, and that I am trying it one to suggest that I am trying to get IIDB for the second accident. There has only been one, but how on earth can I prove that!! They have ignored all of my medical evidence saying that it is immaterial and does not relate to the incident 16 years ago, but a more recent one. I haven't got a hope in hell in challenging it, so gave it up as a bad job.
  5. You are only allowed to claim for the debt in buying the property in the first place. You can get some help with the money used for improvements, but the improvements are very restricted as you have found out. From your figures and if you include £50 off the arrears, you should get help of £111.93 a month leaving a shortfall of £308.07 a month out of your other income. I don't know where they get there £104.00 from. You should get 3.63% of £37000. Based on your figures including income of £135 every two weeks, keeping the house going is a non starter. Best you look to move to a rental place and cut your losses. Either way as you only seem to be getting £135 every two weeks as other income, how on earth are you going to find close on to £150.00 out of it? Unless you have more income coming in than you have said, keeping the house going is not going to be financially possible. Best start looking for a rental place in my opinion as there is far too much going against you.
  6. Yes they would. They look at the situation from a different perspective. The DWP assessment is purely to examine if you fit the criteria set for DLA, not how ill you are, what your medical history is or what medication you take. Being a taxpayer then, do you not feel that it is right that there are checks put in place to make sure that only those that are entitled get it? After all it is your money that is being paid out to them.
  7. I see, there is every possibility that someone has contacted the DWP saying that you are a benefit cheat and that your claim for DLA was exagerated. The DWP send out these forms to check you out if they are suspicious. If that is what has happened, you will have twice the job of proving that you are entitled to DLA.
  8. Was this the first time that you have been re-assessed in the past 8 years?
  9. I have no idea. I went from no DLA to LRM & MRC after sending in a copy of a letter which was sent from the psychiatrist to the GP explaining the diagnosis, a copy of my care plan and oh yes details of the meds I have been put on by the psychiatrist. Considering everything else that is wrong with me and my ability to cope, the mental health aspect is a walk in the park. I honestly don't have any problems with it, it doesn't create any needs. They seem to have accepted that because of the evidence, I MUST have the needs but haven't told them what they are!!!! The SOR clearly says that they have only considered mental health. I'm not going to argue with them and I still I fight on for the needs relating to my other problems to be recognised. UPDATE WoW!!!! Just received the post this morning and I have had my LRM uplifted to HRM Indef!!!! It just goes to show that by telling your GP what your problems are they repeat it to the DWP!!! New Car shopping and can sell the current 5 year old car and pocket £10,000!!
  10. Unfortunately the DWP see it different, as do the majority of the UK taxpayers. To satisfy them that you are entitled to receive taxpayers money, you are responsible to hold yourself out to be examined on a regular basis. We can't have a situation that some do and some don't as that could lead to cases falling down the cracks. Better that everyone is tested annually to ensure that only those claimants receive taxpayers money. My suggestion is to try and get away from the different assessments for different benefits. That is a waste of valuable money. Better to have one assessment that is devised to cover ALL benefits in one go.
  11. You don't have to try to convince me - you have to convince the DWP when you are tested against the relevant criteria. Why would you object to regular annual reviews if it meant that you could hold your head up high and say that 'I am entitled as I am reviewed by the DWP on a regular basis'? To me those that object to more in depth regular reviews have something to hide and are seriously worried about the loss of their benefit.
  12. With respect those are medical tests carried out soley for the purposes of treatment. They have absolutely nothing to do with qualifying for a benefit using the criteria set down by the government. I have CT scans every 4 months, blood tests every month, MRI scans once a year, retinal scan every year, not including the US scans, and physical examinations every 6 weeks. Those do not mean that I shouldn't have to qualify under the present DLA criteria for benefit, never mind ESA. As for medical cures, you are getting yourself confused with treatment and the criteria which you must pass to qualify for DLA. That is why an OT (HCP) is far more appropriate to assess your abilities than your GP or Consultant is.
  13. Very few illnesses are for a lifetime. Medication can improve the quality of life as could surgery. Yes I will agree that there are some conditions that will never improve irrespective of drugs or surgery. The waste of money is having separate assessments being carried out for the DWP for each type of benefit claim. Far cheaper to have a combined one. Then how do the DWP decided who should and who shouldn't have an annual assessment? Yes those that have a terminal prognosis of less than 6 months should be exempt of course. A GP's or Consultant's report is only as good as on the day it was given. In order to catch those that do have improvements in their health but fail to notify, it will only be fair to assess everybody. Otherwise the DWP will stand accused of picking and choosing, with those chosen complaining - why me? DLA is nothing more than a payment that will be used by the claimant to pay the costs created by the extra needs they have. It has nothing to do with "an acknowledgement that those on benefits for a long time need more financial help than those on JSA". ESA & DLA are two different benefits with different criteria, but it would not take someone with a PHD to devise a medical that covered all of the criteria including IIDB and AA. Universal Credit I see as the opportunity to re-examine those claimants on an annual basis simply to satisfy the general public that their money is going to those that truly qualify and need it. I could also argue that ALL benefits should be means tested, as someone earning 1/2 million a year should be precluded from these benefits. But that is another problem to be solved at a later date. Personally, I have no objection to being assessed against the relevant criteria on an annual basis if it results in those currently receiving benefits, but not entitled to it are taken off.
  14. But having HRM and failing to get any points for mobilisation, means that the DLA has accepted that they can't walk and failing the ESA test means that they are fully able to walk and/or use a wheelchair. It would only be right for DLA to question that. Yes it may be that they can mobilise for ESA in a wheelchair, but it would be wrong for DLA not to check it out. IIDB & AA are also assessed for different crtieria not just DLA & ESA. What I would propose is a combined assessment covering ALL of the criteria for ALL of those benefits on an annual basis. It may be longer in terms of time taken, but it would avoid these different assessments for different benefit claims and it would save an awful lot of money and by being annual, it would weed out those awards that are made but very rarely checked on for upwards of 3 years where the claimant happens to forget about telling the DWP of an improvement in health. I'm in the Support Group of ESA for 3 years. How does the DWP know what I am like now 18 months down the line? Too much is put on the honesty of claimants.
  15. All I can say is that the sister is one switched on lady! It may be the case that this sale took place to try and avoid having to fund care in the future. However, by doing this the sister has 'cleaned' mum out of all the money. The sister now has her own house on mortgage using the mother's money and that mum is living with her The council could well undo that 'gift'. To be honest, the sister need do nothing. In my humble opinion the sister has stitched up the rest of the family for her own needs. What can I say? I've seen this happen so many times before. Have one case, where the mum sold her house and gave it to her daughter. Mum lives in the converted garage as a studio flat. She's not even allowed into the daughter's home. Daughter has carers coming in and goes to respite regularly. All paid for by SS. Her son isn't very happy about it all, and didn't realise that mum's name isn't on the deeds of the house that she paid for. He's lost out big time. Then tell me why daughter and husband with no kids need a £750,000 6 bed house for themselves mostly paid for by the mum?
×
×
  • Create New...