Incapacity Benefit: DWP appealing the tribunal's decision?

[ErikaPNP]

They will be requesting a statement of reasons for the decision so they can see exactly why the decision was made; If they believe the first tier tribunal has erred on a point of law, they can apply for permission to appeal to the commisioner. They have one month from the date of the decision to request a statement of reasons and a further month to apply for permission to appeal from when the statement of reasons were sent to them.

 

If they do submit a request leave to appeal, to the upper tier will decide whether the DWP appeal can go ahead.

 

Whilst this is being considered, they can suspend any payment due as a result of the first tier tribunal's decision.

 

They can only appeal to the upper tribunal on a point of law, not on findings of fact or the first tier's medical findings.

 

I have moved your post to its own thread to attract more traffic.

[ErikaPNP]

You're not "thick". You just don't know what it means, that doesn't mean you're thick. Don't put yourself down.

 

It means there is an error in the way they have applied the law to a case.

 

When a decision to award benefit or decline benefit is made, it is made in accordance with the law that has been set for that particular benefit.

 

So if the DWP feel that the tribunal has wrongly interperated the law or feel the law should be further clarified, they appeal to the upper tribunal.

[ErikaPNP]

If you have a look around CAG, you'll find lots of people complaining about these medicals, some are taking action.

[ErikaPNP]

Have a look around by typing ATOS into the search facility to see posts on the subject. You will also find plenty of stories by googling. If you want to discuss this though, please start a new thread in the appropriate subforum rather than cloud over this member's thread, where advice is being sought on the appeals process.

[ErikaPNP]

Just for clarification - Social Security Commissioners who transferred in are now Judges of the Upper Tribunal. In the Upper Tribunal, cases are usually decided by a judge sitting alone, although sometimes they will have legally qualified "members" sitting in with them. Both members and Judges have to take the oath.

 

They are specialists in the areas of law they handle, and the process for making decisions hasn't changed as it is still the point of law that is considered in an Upper Tier Tribunal - just a new name more or less. Same as within DWP Adjuication Officers changed to decision makers. Decision Makers Changed to Administritive Officers/Executive Officers. This then changed to Benefit Delivery officers/experts. Give it a few years, they'll be called something else!!

[ErikaPNP]

It's better when they don't send someone - then they can't put their argument across.

[ErikaPNP]

They aren't obliged to provide you with the full name of the decision maker, unfortunately. DM's in DWP make decisions on behalf of the secretary of state, and are not obliged to give out their full names. They can use pseudonyms also - as long as their line managers are aware that this is the name they will use in the course of their duties.

 

Complaints are made about the decision which was made, then the DWP would deal with the matter as any employer would, as it is an employment issue if the DM is not performing as they should be within their role.

 

If legal action is to be raised, it is to be raised against the DWP.

 

Antone would probably be better placed to talk more intensively about internal staffing matters than I, but as far as accountability is concerned it is an employment issue for the individual, it is DWP that would be held to account as an organisation (or the SoS) for the incorrect decision.

[ErikaPNP]

Hello Erika,

 

Yes it is true that decisions are made on behalf of the S of S and that names do not need to be given but as an aside when you speak to a person on the telephone then they will give a corporate greeting which as very few people from experience use a pseudynm will contain their name.

 

However previous fit of pique aside I am not really interested in names just interested in ensuring that if I am not treated fairly or competently it does not go without being investigated.

 

When a person logs on to a departmental computer system they must use a smart card and input a password. When they press a button to make a decision their staff number is recorded. Therefore it is very easy for the DWP to identify who was involved in a decision making process. A complaints process exists for the purpose of giving customers a voice and everyone can be assured that complaints are taken seriously and investigated and action taken if appropriate.

 

The issue is of accountability and to keep it simple the DM cannot say you can't touch me I was only doing it for the S of S. If errors were made by the DM along the way or you were not treated fairly by the DM then they will have to account for what they have done.

 

Hi Melissa.

 

I am fully aware of how DWP staff are tracked in their employment. What I am saying is that it is the same as any other company where you complain against the company. They then find the member of staff resposnsible and deal with it as an employment issue. In the same manner as any other error made in the course of employment, they have to establish how that error came about in the first place. They can only be held to account if they are accountable in the first place, which unfortunately is not the case in many of these nil awards.

 

Was it a staff member who had not had sufficient training and thus not the tools to do their job effectively, or was it an administritive error, something the DM overlooked - if so, is disciplinary action required, etc. A staff member for example, can't be held to account if they do not have the tools to perform their job which unfortunately is becoming common place in the DWP with the banning of employing permanent staff, they are employing fixed termers on 12/18 month contracts, paid off most of the experiened staff as they closed multiple offices. They need to cut costs somewhere and what they decided to do was a mass culling of contracts of permanent employees, the implementation of the ban of new permanents, only allowing fixed termers (so as to keep costs down from salary increases and staff pensions), and cut out the training methods. I said this would happen (as did many Welfare organisations) when they shut down many of the offices, turned some officers into call centres and processing centres, and started making the majority of their experienced staff redundant. We could literally see the trouble that was to come, unfold.

 

The training is thus not what it once was, and far more errors are being made than ever before as there is little resource for training. This is something that I see day in and day out, when people come to me for help with their benefits. It's like banging my head against a brick wall with it. Aside from training, some of the issues I often experience is the attitude of the staff themselves. These little blighters who walk into a job and think they are God because they get to "play" with people's lives. (No offence intended to the DWP staff who assist here - they are worth their weight in gold with the help they give CAG, but they will know what I mean and probably are cringing because they will have heard their colleagues on the telephone) Every decision has to be backed up with evidence and justified. If it isn't, questions need to be raised as to why.

 

This is where complaints need to be made in order for the powers that be to realise that they need to provide their staff with adequate training to perform. It's just not good enough when poor training results in decisions which affect people's lives. It's not good enough to say "Oh dear, X hasn't been trained properly, let's retrain them" - it's too damned late for the poor beggar who has lost out as a result, as they are left to wait in the balance for their appeal. It's far worse when some of these people are suffering with mental health issues and cannot help themselves, and haven't got an appointee/POA/other representative to help them.

 

The argument from DWP that I have come across frequently is that the appeals system is in place for a reason, to clarify decisions, so that people can have an independent body to peruse if they believe the law has been applied incorrectly. My argument is that if they trained their staff effectively in the first place, there would not be a requirement for the volume of appeals being submitted, it would reduce cost to the DWP and people would not be living in hardship whilst they await their appeal. Unlike ESA and IB some appealable benefits do not pay the claimant any benefit whilst they await their final determination on appeal.

 

I fully believe in working with the DWP rather than against them to acheive the best customer service, but unfortunately neither I nor others can do that whilst some walk along sticking their fingers in their ears singing a song.

 

The problem is that not enough people complain. They'll come on here in desperation but once their benefit is in payment, quite often they will just be relieved to have it sorted out and leave it at that. The more people who complain, the more notice the powers that be will have to take that their "new and improved" system of staffing/training is just not working to the benefit of claimants and they need to go back to the drawing board.

 

I apologise for the rant - it frustrates me greatly and to see more and more people coming here with the same issue time and again, as well as what I hear of from the people I liaise with outside of CAG, it is clear the issue is widespread. I'm frustrated with it, and I only help people with their issues, I don't live their lives so all I feel is a fraction - goodness only knows what you must be feeling and poor Ruby has been going through this frustration for months. It isn't often I lose my cool here, but I am afraid it has gone beyond annoyance. People's lives are being disrupted irrantionally and unreasonably. Something HAS to change. I'm not ranting at you Melissa - far from it. I'm not ranting at the staff either, I'm ranting at this terrible "solution" that have been put in place which has only served to detriment the people who need the help of the Welfare State.

[ErikaPNP]

It's just blinking ridiculous isn't it, Melissa? And it is not getting better. However I have heard wind that DWP are to introduce throughout their offices a new strategy called "LEAN" It focuses on "doing more for less" - reducing cost and waste whilst improving practices. It also supposedly involves more of listening to people on the front line rather than them above that have no customer contact, who don't deal with claims or forms or owt - simply set policies. Some offices have already implemented it, and have seen a little improvement in some areas. It sounds like a great idea. The trouble I have with it, is they have had these inititives before. Your husband will have seen many of them. Improvements have began to appear with them too, but none of them have lasted. The other issue I have with it, is it is already being used in other public organisations, which haven't seen much of an improvement since the introduction.

 

Google it for more info, if you are interested.

[ErikaPNP]

Erika

 

Just looked at my prior posting and realised I should have offered you t

As in heartfelt not hearfelt.

 

I never even noticed, I'm that high upon my horse tonight.

 

It's a shame as there are DWP employees who come on here daily to help others, they are so committed to helping people, they come on here every night of their own free will, giving up their own time, even after the amount of abuse some of them get in their roles daily. It's a real shame people at the top end of the scale can't see that they do have employees who care and are commited to their claimants, and listen to them. Those are the ones who make a difference to people.

[ErikaPNP]

good news,good news,dwp are not appealing against the decision,still keeping my fingers crossed for everyone else going through this appeals process,any one what i do now,do i just sign off jsa?

 

Great news. Have you had your original benefit reinstated, or received notification of when it will be reinstated?

[ErikaPNP]

You could possibly claim hardship. Failing that there is the option of a Crisis Loan as an alignment to benefit. There is a point to this; when a person applies for a Crisis Loan where benefit is due, they will contact the benefit sections and "pressure" them to make payment, as Crisis Loans are not intended to pay for living expenses when there is payment of benefit due to the claimant.