Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About mikejgk

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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 n
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 aft
  11. 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
  12. 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 wal
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  • Create New...