Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About twoconcernedsisters

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Ok I'll go along with your suggestion and submit the evidence I have in support of the claim. I then just answer all of the questions asked of me giving explanations and reasons to the assessor. Now at that point what guarantee have I got that all of what I have said in the way I have said it will be translated correctly by the assessor onto the drop down menus on their computer? What guarantee would I have that my ability to communicate at that level in a calm and professional manner with them would not be used against me? My worry would be that I can be very well spoken, display a good level of intelligence, assimilate on the questions raised by the assessor and expand on the answers I give. However what my medical history shows and the conditions I have together with the drugs I take would lead a normal person to believe that one doesn't fit with the other. No doubt the assessor would have their opinion that there is nothing wrong with me despite what the written evidence suggests. That evidence would suggest that I would be unable to function at nothing more than at a very low level. Me being me, would shoot myself in the foot if I allowed that to happen. Then consider how a Tribunal would view the report?
  2. only if it was less than 6 months from when the original decision was made. Given that appeals/reconsiderations are taking more than 6 months from the decision date, you could reclaim for the same condition after being found 'fit for work' on the same day as the Tribunal decision was given. Consequently you were able to receive ESA continually even though every decision went against you. I seem to remember that you did that reclaimed straight after the Tribunal decisions that also failed you? There needed a break in that ridiculous situation. It was wide open to abuse by those who decided that claiming JSA was too aggravating. All you needed were sick notes which allowed people to keep on the 'magic roundabout/revolving door' year after year even though they had never passed the ESA test!
  3. For a start not everyone is capable of handling an assessment to the extent you suggest. What is the success rate to be awarded ESA? 40%. On that basis I would have had a 60% chance of failing no matter what I would have said. My personal view is that I would give the least amount away with those answers and let the assessor read into my replies what they wish. If I haven't said anything meaningful they can't very well say that I said something totally different in their report. I would rely more on a tribunal to look at the situation with relevant evidence sent to them than I would the assessor or the DWP. I certainly would not be offering myself up on a plate to the DWP for me to fail.
  4. There is nothing stopping you giving the following answers: YES, NO, I DON'T KNOW, I'VE NO IDEA or I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. They may attempt to warn you that you are deliberately refusing to co-operate which you aren't. Much the same as someone that is either shy, has anxiety issues, nervous or is easily confused - what answers would they give if they gave any at all? The danger of allowing yourself to be 'drawn in' is that you will have to be able to be very quick in understanding and realising what the purpose of the question is and then deciding what the best answer is. Alternatively if the assessor is using a computer to enter information in, there is nothing stopping you saying 'uumm' after their question and wait until they ask the next question but you then answer the first one. If the assessor uses the 'silence' technique, you must avoid the urge to have to talk. Take your time. There will be nothing more annoying for the assessor if the feedback they get back is totally noncommittal. If it was me I would be the typical 'village idiot' who mumbles a lot and who doesn't know much about anything.
  5. I'm surprised that this 'loophole' hadn't been closed down years ago. It wasn't called the 'magic roundabout' for no reason. It was a cynical way of remaining on ESA with the same condition going from assessment to Tribunal and back to assessment time and time and time again. Effectively you remained on ESA (Income based obviously) for years until you got lucky. Don't start blaming the government for this change, blame those that have played and abused this system since 2008. To suggest that there is no alternative is wrong. JSA can be claimed in a modified form in the interim until either there is a deterioration of an existing condition or a new one pops up.
  6. How can you give the wrong impression if when you normally go out you make sure that you are clean, decently dressed and act appropriately? Are you seriously suggesting that if what I have stated is the norm then you should go out to the assessment as though you have just come from doing a few hours in the garden, dirty finger nails and all? With respect I feel that you are at best trying to advise others to 'play the system' and at worst, condoning deceit. Surely the honest way, the way I would deal with it, is to be honest in your answers and probably only give yes/no answers. If the assessor wants to draw inferences from those replies so be it. If they do not delve into the subjects deep enough or phrase questions along the lines of asking if, despite saying yes, does it vary from hour to hour or day to day, then they have failed in their duty of care. All of this remembering to qualify each and every answer you give is, in my honest opinion, asking far too much of a lot of people who are being assessed in a strange place with officious examiners.
  7. Well there must be differences up and down the country. We lodged an appeal involving Council Tax Benefit a few years back. It took three adjournments and two years before the case came to court where the Chairman/Judge gave directions to both parties (us and the LA) to supply better & further particulars along with details of which stated cases and court decisions we were to rely on with regards to our appeal. We managed to get legal representation via a Law Clinic from the local university (one of the lecturers represented us). During the hearing, we were both completely lost after about 5 mins. I have never heard so many legal arguments being raised and challenged. We won, but the LA have now given notice that they have leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That will be another story no doubt. So without that professional backing we would not have won anything never mind be able to argue our own case. It was an argument on how Regulation 50 should be interpreted for what was Council Tax Benefit.
  8. You did quite well then, I am pleased for you. However you must remember that not everyone is able to control a tribunal hearing from the point of view of the Appellant. You have to be convincing in your arguments, understand when and if questions are raised that are necessary or material. At best you would have to demonstrate some knowledge of court procedure.
  9. That is quite difficult to define. My dad will go days without a shave or a wash, yet when he goes out he bathes, washes his hair, shaves and dresses himself quite well. Would it be normal for him to go looking dishevelled or smart and clean?
  10. No, you have to approach it from a honest perspective. If you are having a good day you tell them, if other days are worse tell them that too. Deceiving them into believing that all of your days are bad is said to be leaving you open to a charge of benefit fraud.
  11. It's a bit like trying to defend yourself in a court or having a good quality barrister with you doing the job. These representatives are another name for experienced welfare rights officers who actually do know how to do their job quite well. The results of cases can be quite astounding. From memory you are almost twice as likely to get the result you are hoping for if you have someone representing you.
  12. Unfortunately you are correct. I was only talking to friends yesterday about mum and dad, when she brought the subject of her parents up and how they had been treated by the DWP. Being of senior age both had claimed Attendance Allowance and both had failed in their attempt. I asked if they had appealed against the decisions and she said not. They were apparently put off with the long and arduous task of asking for a reconsideration and then a formal appeal to the Ministry of Justice. They have both given up in their quest. Seems that this would signal what you are saying - the fewer the number of appeals - the greater the belief by the government that they are doing things correctly.
  13. Hello, yes that seems to be the case. Still amazed that you can carry out a benefit fraud and depending on who deals with it - police/DWP/LA will dictate whether you have a criminal conviction that will come up on a disclosure report or not.
  14. Thanks, I wasn't aware that there was any difference. Reading what has been said on here, the person concerned clearly admitted a criminal offence but dealt with by the la instead of the police. Criminal is criminal to me.
  15. Hello and thanks. Dad never gave anything away, he didn't have anything to give away. He was never recorded on the deeds of the property. Up until when the trust came along and paid off the mortgage, the house, according to the deeds, only had one owner - our mum. I agree and if it was only the trust that is involved, that would be the best way forward. However, the council are involved and they want the 50% that is registered in mum's name. The council are saying that as dad has no legal right to occupy (he only has a licence to occupy which can be rescinded at any time) the property or obvious financial interest in it (mum has 50% and the trust has the other 50%), they would like to see the property sold. The trust isn't bothered either way, it has no objection if the council want to go down that route. Ironically it was dad's money that was used to buy the house in the first place - deposit of £280,000 I think, and dad paid the mortgage (£280,000) every month out of his earnings for years. He put the house (as he did with previous homes, in his wife's name as security for her if anything should have happened to him. Put it bluntly, dad is being treated as a squatter. The council have told him that it is their intention to rescind the licence when they obtain the powers from the court thereby making him homeless.
  • Create New...