me and my Various benefits story

[stardust_john]

The trouble is antone a lot of working people automatically class all dwp claimants as 'scroungers' you just have to read the papers to see that. It becomes a genuine fight for those in need to have to prove themselves as otherwise, hey we feel guilty enough, when we shouldnt, when it should be obvious as it is to welfare rights that we are claiming what entitled. Atos are not in the game of helping the cases I have read about, why is it becomming more prominent in the news, they are forcing ill people off their correct benefits.

 

So I would secretly record untill they do it automatically as they do in fraud cases, I am sure if offered most claimants would accept a copy for record.

 

ps. To aid those in wheelchairs or house bound, why not conduct these interviews in the claimants home. Surely we would feel more at ease then.

Edited July 18, 2009 by stardust_john

[EYEBALLS01]

I believe that they will have a quota or service level agreement with the DWP. They would have had to put in a very competitive tender to get this contract.

I was lucky with this Consultant because I was able to see him privately as part of my RTA claim. He is actually a Prof who has worked in war torn countries and if `googled` is well documented.

He took over 3 hours in 2 sittings to come to a decision about me and only told me right at the end that he knew I was genuine.

I would have thought that given this the health care Dr would have taken this as guidance to avoid embarrassment.

Let`s see how we go then!!

[stardust_john]

Good luck EYEBALLS01:)

[EYEBALLS01]

Thanks mate

[ukbix]

ps. To aid those in wheelchairs or house bound, why not conduct these interviews in the claimants home. Surely we would feel more at ease then.

 

You can ask for a home medical, not sure of the exact circumstances they will grant one, but they do conduct home medicals for some people.

 

I'm not going to make any comment about secretly recording people as they go about their lawful business

 

The problem is, many people have experience of ATOS staff going about 'unlawful' business - hence the need to secretly record for some people.

 

Others have read or heard many of the reports of how ATOS operate, and again, in the interests of public interest and self protection would wish to protect themselves and expose the wrongdoing with a recording.

 

If the doc/nurse/therapist is going about their business lawfully then the recording is of no worry to anyone...

[EYEBALLS01]

Asked for home visit but was basically told I had to be dying to get it!!

I thought it a bit risky to refuse to go through ill health as I thought I ma lose my ESA

Strange then that I was assessed at home for DLA and got high mobility low care!

[antone]

The problem is, many people have experience of ATOS staff going about 'unlawful' business - hence the need to secretly record for some people.

 

 

That's a serious accusation. I'm not saying it's wrong or right (as I already said, I can't comment on ATOS, though I suppose I can make it clear that I do not work for them), but if you're accusing their staff of lawbreaking, you need to be sure that your evidence amounts to more than "we disagree over the outcome of a PCA/WCA".

 

And if the recording is not professionally made, who's to say it hasn't been altered by either party? If all you want is a personal record, take notes - just like they do. Or would it be OK if they secretly recorded you without your knowledge or consent? That wouldn't be OK with me - even if I had nothing to hide, it would be a gross invasion of my privacy.

[Conniff]

I don't think that is leveled just a ATOS, there is a deep mistrust of 'all' authoritive bodies, especially those in Westminster.

 

I know for fact that things have been said on phones by those in authority only to be denied later when questioned about what was said.

A paper copy can also be altered, but even though a non-announced recording is not permissable in evidence, it gives the person who did the recording the proof that they say one thing and mean another, and piece of mind to take things further.

[antone]

The trouble is antone a lot of working people automatically class all dwp claimants as 'scroungers' you just have to read the papers to see that. It becomes a genuine fight for those in need to have to prove themselves as otherwise, hey we feel guilty enough, when we shouldnt, when it should be obvious as it is to welfare rights that we are claiming what entitled. Atos are not in the game of helping the cases I have read about, why is it becomming more prominent in the news, they are forcing ill people off their correct benefits.

 

So I would secretly record untill they do it automatically as they do in fraud cases, I am sure if offered most claimants would accept a copy for record.

 

ps. To aid those in wheelchairs or house bound, why not conduct these interviews in the claimants home. Surely we would feel more at ease then.

 

Yeah, but a lot of claimants class any other DWP claimants as "scroungers", etc. In other words, it's not only working people who express this contempt. And this was my point. "I'm genuinely ill, but you keep giving all your money to those Polish people who just came here to claim benefits." Not true, but let's not pretend it's only working people who think such nonsense.

 

Of course most people who claim ESA, IB etc are not "scroungers". But I wouldn't let the tabloids hear me say that. This is what I was getting at. The system can be restrictive, or it can be liberal. Personally, I go with liberal, because I'd rather accidentally give money to "scroungers" than fail to give money to those in genuine need. But, as I said, these really are political decisions. In the end, DWP operates within laws set up by the people we elected.

 

As to secret recording, I can sympathise. But how are you going to prove the veracity of your recording? How could you ever prove that the voices on the recording are actually the voices of those involved? How could you ever prove that the recording was not altered to your advantage? Without an audit trail, how could you even prove that the recording wasn't made three months earlier by a couple of actors?

[ukbix]

As to secret recording, I can sympathise. But how are you going to prove the veracity of your recording? How could you ever prove that the voices on the recording are actually the voices of those involved? How could you ever prove that the recording was not altered to your advantage? Without an audit trail, how could you even prove that the recording wasn't made three months earlier by a couple of actors?

 

A tribunal operates on the balance of probabilties, its highly unlikely a benefit claimaint would be financially in a position whereby they could

 

1. Hire someone with the skills to impersonate a doctor/nurse to the level where it would fool a independant examination whereby the doctors voice was compared with the voice on the recording.

Especially as to impersonate a voice accurately they person would have to be a master at impersonations, and have considerable access to a vast amount of source material containing the doctors voice to practice with.

 

 

2. Also be able to do the same with the voices of the receptionists etc if they are on the recording.

 

Plus analysis of the recording of the original persons voice compared to the original recording should highlight if a impersonator was used, unless they can impersonate exactly...

 

3. Hire someone, or have the skills to edit any recording to a level where edits could not be detected by a specialist hired by the defence. Maybe a top holywood studio may stand a chance, but not a benefit claimaint.

 

Its virtually impossible to fake a recording to the level where edits cannot be spotted, not without going to considerable expense,time and effort - which simply would not be a viable proposition for the amount of money in question.

 

Not only that, but if the problem of people recording months before hand using actors was a real problem, then people could use that excuse with the police, as they could say the tapes in the recording machine contained pre-recorded content, done months in advance by actors, and they were not actually recording at the time.... They just supplied me with a pre-done tape your honour....

 

Its just not a viable argument really.

 

However, I seriously doubt (but would love for it to happen) that ATOS or the DWP would ever take it to a court, as the resultant bad publicity would be enourmous, and the questions asked about their policies quite embarassing, not to mention it could encourage others to come forward with their recordings and testimonies to the press. They have to much to lose, yet the claimaints have so much to gain - justice for one.....

 

ATOS/DWP could easily stop the problem before it occurs, simply allow recording without over the top rules, rules so silly they are even above and beyond police evidential rules. But they dont, which raises questions as to what they are hiding, and even points to them failing in their duties of health and safety, ie not protecting their staff. They state their is a lot of vexatious complaints, and considering that will pose a risk to the staff, they should be doing all that is reasonable to protect their staff, by recording interviews - unless the claimaint requests otherwise.

[ukbix]

Or would it be OK if they secretly recorded you without your knowledge or consent? That wouldn't be OK with me - even if I had nothing to hide, it would be a gross invasion of my privacy.

 

the dwp do it all the time, if someone suspects fraud....

 

however,they are bound under the RIPA act, the public is not, and is quite free to record as they wish, especially when it is in the public interest...

 

A tribunal even considered the use of secret non-pro recordings and allowed them to be used as evidence..... Its only when you tell them about the recording at the time, and they stop the medical that a seperate case in a tribunal found against the claimaint.

[Conniff]

However, I seriously doubt (but would love for it to happen) that ATOS or the DWP would ever take it to a court, as the resultant bad publicity would be enourmous, and the questions asked about their policies quite embarassing, not to mention it could encourage others to come forward with their recordings and testimonies to the press. They have to much to lose, yet the claimaints have so much to gain - justice for one.....

 

Recordings that are taken without notifying the other parties can be for personal use only, they cannot be used in court or released to others.

[ukbix]

Sorry,thats not quite true.

 

They can be presented to a tribunal, as they decide what to accept.

 

They can be presented to a court and its up to the court to decide if they are acceptable as evidence.

 

Evidence gathered covertly has been used as evidence in trials before, look at the likes of watchdog, rogue traders etc who give the footage to the police for prosecution/further investigation etc, all done in the public interest.

 

Its up to the court on the day what evidence they accept.

[ukbix]

one example of a covert recording that was submitted for evidence in a trial is

Hearsay, bad character and identification evidence | The Law Gazette

 

and the article discusses various means of identification of voices, and the lengths a court can go to, in that particular instance the covert recording was not accepted as the quality was far to low to identify the voices with accuracy, however a recording done between a examiner and a patient the other side of the desk is likely to be of much higher quality, even with off-the-shelf equipment.

[Conniff]

Sorry,thats not quite true.

 

They can be presented to a tribunal, as they decide what to accept.

 

They can be presented to a court and its up to the court to decide if they are acceptable as evidence.

 

Evidence gathered covertly has been used as evidence in trials before, look at the likes of watchdog, rogue traders etc who give the footage to the police for prosecution/further investigation etc, all done in the public interest.

 

Its up to the court on the day what evidence they accept.

 

You are correct, my mistake. I took my post from the fact that secret recordings cannot be just presented as evidence, the court can be made aware that there are recordings and can decide if they should be used.

[banks01]

I have used this method. Record the conversation, do a transcript, list it in the evidence bundel as a 'brief of the telephone conversation' and not a transcript. This way you are not informing the court you did record the conversation but the evidence is there and hard to deny. If they do deny what they said you then tell the court you have the recordings as evidence.

[banks01]

in relationto edited recordings this can and is done.

 

I covered this area in dept and It takes a FBI specialist to try to uncover but he can never be 100% certain he can only give a prfessional opinion

Edited July 19, 2009 by banks01

[stardust_john]

What would suggest the average claimant on benefits had not made a composed or false recording of the conversations- A long forgotton and important sence most of us have (apart from someone whos something to hide and procastinate for the sake of it) COMMON SENCE:)

 

Very important and luckily a lot of judges have it too, I hope.

[stardust_john]

Any how whatever the arguments, I am stil recording my interview when one is needed for my sake and peace of mind. Might even look into secret filming through pin hole for the fun of it, oh theres another mine field started. What they going to argue then, that head is not a true likeness of me, he he he.

 

They dont a like it, tough:D

 

PEOPLE POWER

Edited July 19, 2009 by stardust_john

[JrnyFan4Life]

I wish I had recorded my partner's interview with Atos, the whole thing was a joke. She has bi-lateral deafness and has done since birth, she wears 2 hearing aids, and for her hearing test the "Medical Professional" made her stand at the end of the room with her hearing aids out, said a few words then completely b*llocksed up the report by saying she isn't deaf! I mean how much more proof do they need?

[ukbix]

I wish I had recorded my partner's interview with Atos, the whole thing was a joke. She has bi-lateral deafness and has done since birth, she wears 2 hearing aids, and for her hearing test the "Medical Professional" made her stand at the end of the room with her hearing aids out, said a few words then completely b*llocksed up the report by saying she isn't deaf! I mean how much more proof do they need?

 

Im suprised the report didnt also say she would recover in six months to a year....

Heard of ludicrous things like that, and repeated assessments for conditions that never change etc.

[JrnyFan4Life]

Im suprised the report didnt also say she would recover in six months to a year....

Heard of ludicrous things like that, and repeated assessments for conditions that never change etc.

 

Actually ukbix, you're not far off the mark, the report said she could return to work within 6 months.

[wheresmyhairgone]

I wish I had recorded my partner's interview with Atos, the whole thing was a joke. She has bi-lateral deafness and has done since birth, she wears 2 hearing aids, and for her hearing test the "Medical Professional" made her stand at the end of the room with her hearing aids out, said a few words then completely b*llocksed up the report by saying she isn't deaf! I mean how much more proof do they need?

 

I,m sorry but i can,t let this one go without a comment:

 

My daughter suffers from this complaint and has recently started a job since finishing college.

 

there is a difference between NOT WANTING to work and NOT BEING PHYSICALY ABLE TO WORK.

 

There are many ligitamate reasons for people not being able to work my friend and that is not one of them.

 

If there are loopholes in the system i am all in favour of them being exploited (after all the M.P`S, big business ect use them all the time) but don,t complain when they are closed, just be grateful she was able to take advantage of it when it was there.

 

And for anyone who cares to reply to this post, just remember it,s attitudes like jrnyFan4life`s and his partner that make it harder for people with genuine claims mentaly or physicaly/

 

being partialy deaf IS a disabilty, but it is not a Disability that means you cant work!

 

 

because of my daughter i have met many people, young and old that are completely deaf and work for a living

 

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO

Edited August 9, 2009 by wheresmyhairgone

[JrnyFan4Life]

Excuse me, but my partner does work, if only that it's voluntry, but at least it's work, and secondly she's had a rough ride these past few months for reasons I'm not going to discuss on here. I never said she didn't want to work.

[wheresmyhairgone]

and secondly she's had a rough ride these past few months for reasons I'm not going to discuss on here.

 

So have millions of paid workers, disabled or not