Let's be honest - well I will for a start and see where it takes us. I get ESA (since Oct 09) been in the Support Group since Jan 10 for 3 years. Get DLA (HRM & MRC) + IIDB at 40% rate. Having said that, I know full well that despite my problems I could for the majority of weeks work (doing something I am capable of ie desk job, computer etc) a full 40 hours. Other weeks maybe 16 hours. They have found me incapable of work but am I? By their definition I am, but not in reality. Is there anything wrong in me doing some work for my benefits?

I think that the idea is to tie up the Work group claimants with the JSA claimants. It make complete sense if they were to make JSA & ESA one single benefit.

The 'loophole' as you so call it will be covered by a Statutory Instrument - put simply they can change the law as and when and how they like.

There are many self employed secretaries that take shorthand for a reasonable fee. Writing notes longhand will take time and important bits could be missed - shorthand is much better. Plus you can call her/him as a witness to the Tribunal if necessary to verify the contents of those notes.

I am aware ot that. I only made the comment as a warning that because the poster has failed 3 ESA assessments yet receives DLA, it is probable based on what has been mentioned on this site previously that the DLA award my be revisited in the light of those 3 failures.

Why then are DLA awards reviewed in the light of evidence that someone has failed their ESA claim? It happens all of the time, and you only have to read the posts on this site to confirm that.

I'm very surprised that they haven't re-visited your DLA award on the basis of the repeated failures to get ESA awarded. Mind you if you do send a copy of the DLA award notice to ESA, they will as likely contact the DLA people to put them in the picture of you being found nothing wrong with you!

You are getting very close to the requirements contained within the rules and regulations appertaining to a 'Suspension of Benefit'. Within those regulations they have to carry out all of the checks you have mentioned and many more besides before they can even consider suspending a benefit award. Unfortunately the DWP consider that the regulations are too one sided in favour of the claimant. Consequently all too often they ignore the protection the claimant has and just carry on regardless with the suspension. This leaves the claimant having to fight for their rights which can take many months. I have also come across a couple of cases where the DWP now cite 'inhibition of benefit'. They explain that this isn't actually a suspension, but a computer driven application as a consequence of action or non action in the claimant's hands. They (the DWP) are finding that this method of action gets round the restrictions placed on them by the 'Suspension regulations'. Dirty trick I know, but, if it makes life easier for them and worse for the claimant, it is worth considering.

Has appealing against the decision been mentioned yet? If not you can appeal against the sanction. You will have to show why you didn't comply illness, death in the family etc etc. Putting on your appeal that you knew about it but didn't bother to do it or just simply forgot, will in my opinion not be well received. "I was given there was a specific order to send my CV in by a particular date but I didn't do this". I would mention as well, that there are other regulations that will come into play if that having the same attitude, something is not done within a 1 month period of being told to do it, the claim would be closed. Notwithstanding that the information may then be sent in after the 1 month period and after the closure of the claim, you will have no right to demand that the claim be re-opened. Your re-course would be to appeal to the Tribunal on the basis that the closure did not follow the rules of termination. I've been there and done that and lost the case on the basis that 1 month is long enough to comply. In my case the closure was backdated to the date of the original decision that awarded the benefit because the original decision made 6 months earlier was revised. Consequently I then received a demand for the 6 months worth of benefits that I had received but deemed now not to be due. Additionally I had to make a new claim which took months to process and in all that time I was severely short of money. All because 'I forgot all about the need to comply within the 1 month'. I did send the info in but it was 2 weeks too late.

I have been told many times that officially they have to review an ESA50 before they call you in for a face to face assessment.It may be the case that based on what is in the ESA50, you don't need to go for an assessment. However what should happen is not the same as what actually happens. I received a phone call off ATOS to arrange an appointment before I received my ESA50 - it came a few days later. The assessment took place and the decision was made 2 days before they received the ESA50. When I asked the assessor about not knowing much about me because I was still holding the ESA50, he tole me that it didn't matter anyhow, they are very rarely looked at if at all. That is the job for the DWP. So how is it decided if I need to have an assessment? No idea !!

I'm so glad you mentioned that. Yes they will use any other evidence for a different benefit. It is not unknown for the DWP to question a DLA award and eventually take it away from someone on the strength of a failed ESA assessment, even if the claimant manages to get it overturned at appeal. My 3 year Support Group review will be coming up anythime now. I also get HRM & MRC. I am seriously considering giving up my ESA claim for that very reason. I don't want a DLA review.

Unfortunately yes you are expected to maintain an up to date file of your condition, who you see, and what is reported. I know many that don't bother with their GP as there is little that can be done for them and I know that the Tribunal, should there be an appeal, don't look favourably at those that say that they have problems yet don't seek help - they see it as an admission that the problems aren't as serious as they are making out. Someone told me that the best way to secure any sickness or disability award is to make sure the GP is kept upto date on a regular basis on how you are coping. Otherwise a GP report for the DWP will read - Care - able to self care - Mobility - can get into the surgery occasionally. Those that 'play the system' know all of this and make a nuisance of themselves with the GP by having regular meetings. They are even known to keep on asking for drugs on repeat but never taking them. They build up a picture in the head of the GP as well as for the DWP. They probably will get an award over the poster because they know how to play it.

This thread is getting completely lost. I don't get it? Of course I do. I don't care what the banks have done or continue to do. If the bankers receive millions in bonuses good luck to them. This thread is all about someone who admits that they didn't comply with a JC directive. If you don't play by the rules of JSA, the consequences are that your money will stop! If you want the money than do as they tell you and don't argue about it. Good grief it's not rocket science is it? Insurance? you mean benefits? Yes I receive them, but unlike the OP I make sure that I don't rock the boat too far that causes me to lose the money! I have my own mini battles with the authorities but I let them win the war!

No that is your job! If you want a benefit it is up to you to get the evidence to prove that you are entitled to the money.

The difference is that the banks bought the debts. The poster wants money from the state. The banks still owe the money to the government. You make it sound like we handed it to them on a plate FOC. Irrespective, if you want benefits - you play by the rules. If you don't the money stops - simple!!

He didn't have the ESA50 because I hadn't posted it back! It wasn't due to be returned until after the date of the assessment. That was down to the DWP for not arranging to send it to me before ATOS had telephoned me to make the appointment. If I had have refused the assessment on that basis, they would have stopped my claim!

There is truth in that statement! When I had my last ESA assessment the assessor knew sweet ** about me as he did not have the ESA50. So not to worry he said, it won't make any difference to the assessment.

They can with my blessing. They will probably come up with the idea that I am too fit to retire!!!

No one is actually objecting to building low cost homes, what they are objecting to is building them close to where they live. They have identified another site owned by the council which was a rubbish transfer station that has been closed for some time for the developer to build on that is well away from the village centre.

I give up as this has absolutely nothing to do with the question posed by the OP. I would suggest that you have a word with the Editor in Chief at Private Eye if you want to carry on this futile argument. Me, I have more important things to be doing.

But how are you to know what points you were given and for which descriptor. It's like trying to do it blindfolded. There is no point in asking for the ESA85 as that takes weeks to come through if ever! The letter is on par with some of the worst that I have ever seen. It tells you absolutely nothing so there is no way you can rectify anything. And all of that is based on the assumption that you have a copy of the ESA50 that you submitted. Like many others, I don't keep such copies.

What on earth is that letter on about. "if u think we have not taken into account something that you have told us about your illness" How would you know? If they say that they have used all of the information that you have sent them then they must have used it??? Maybe they forgot to use some of what you have already told them but are expecting you to be a clairvoyant and know which bits that they had forgotten to use. It just couldn't be made up.

OK I'll bite just one more time. The state of the country has nothing to do with our banks. It all started in the States when some idiots decided it would be fun to offer mortgages, no questions asked, to people who clearly should never have been given one. Then the American banks decided to off load this 'toxic debt' onto the financial market wrapped up with other debts that were 100% secure. Some banks in this country bought these debts and didn't bother to have a look at what had been wrapped up inside the package. When America collapsed because of this 'toxic' debt our banks went with them. The only thing our banks were guilty of was not checking what was in the box - they just relied on the picture on the front of the box. Additionally for years building upto the crash in this country we as a nation were living way beyond our means. Releasing equity out of the homes to subsidise a way of life. It was only going to go one way - disaster. We borrowed ourselves into it thinking we were 'entitled' to a standard of living well beyond our station. Don't put all of the blame on the banks - we borrowed the money that we couldn't ever afford to repay. We even had people taking out 100% mortgages of 5/7/9 times income - and were willing to do so by telling lies about the household income!! Then what did we do - made ourselves bankrupt and walked away from it leaving the banks with a mountain of debt that they could not recover. We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in.

I do have to agree with you that it is wrong, but, how many times do we hear of stories of the 'rich' getting legal aid. You only have to look at the most recent case - Polly Peck to realise that it could not and should not be allowed to continue. Then there is the other side of the coin. Those that have a full time job and are not disabled are already having to fund their own legal eagles, whereas those that are on benefits can access the same legal advice for nothing. Why should those that pay a considerable amount of money to the government via taxes have to subsidise those that 'choose' not to work (that is how they see it and it is not my opinion). Then those same people would also argue that why should others already on benefits receive legal aid in order to try and get more out of the taxpayers in the form of additional benefits? It is a double edged argument and I can see both sides. However it does leave those who can't afford legal representation at the thin edge whilst those that can afford it, have a much better chance of winning. It's a country of those that have and those that don't, and unfortunately it will, as you say, only get worse. This government and certain newspapers have done a fantastic job in segregating the poor, ill, disabled and unemployed from the mainstream of society. Never no more so than in my village where it is hoped to build an estate of cheap housing to purchase or rent. There has been an uprising by the vast number of residents close by who own their homes (mainly 4/5/6 bed detached properties) who want the permission refused as they don't want 'those type of people living on our doorsteps - even to the point of arguing that house breakins, anti social behaviour and robberies will automatically come with the influx if they are allowed to build them.

I think that this brings out a very important point. For those who are disabled and work for themselves. It is much easier to prove a cash wage, either using the employer's records or your own bankings of the cash. However when it comes to being self employed there is no evidence of the amount of cash received for sales. How does one prove their sales figure if you only deal in cash? Try telling the LA that you work for 16 hours yet only receive £50 cash. Is it for the LA to prove that it was only £50 and that no cash ended up in the back pocket with no invoice being issued? Or is it for the individual to prove to the LA's satisfaction that you only received £50 and didn't receive anything else? Many has been the time that I have paid someone in cash to get a cheaper bill - no VAT added for a start. That money won't be recorded in his books or in his bankings.