Is it worth appealing a failed atos work capability assessment?

[chelle123]

Hi, I had my assessment on 1st September, and two days ago received a letter to say that they have decided that I do not have limited capability for work.

 

I know that I am unable to work, please don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to work, I worked full time in a care home for several years, a job which I loved, but had to leave due to ill health.

 

My question is, is it worth appealing, as the process can take months and i'm not sure how I would manage on £65 a week until a decision has been made?

 

I ask because I am confused as to what other options I have.

 

Any advice or suggestions would be very much appreciated..thanks...

Edited November 17, 2011 by chelle123

[antone]

In most cases I would say it is worth appealing, although it's certainly hassle and it does take a while. In practical terms, your alternative options are limited. If, like most of us, you are not independently wealthy and can't manage without an income of some sort, your most likely practical alternative would be Jobseekers Allowance. This isn't a great idea if you are too ill to work.

 

So yes, I would say that if you believe the decision to be wrong, you should appeal. There are plenty here who have done just that and who post their experiences and knowledge here to help others.

 

This reply is based on what's in your post which is, of course, all we know about your situation. If there's anything major we don't know about (for example, do you care for disabled relatives or young children) then the suggestions might be different.

[Tiajunior]

I have only ever claimed contribution-based ESA, so know nothing about income related opportunities.

 

If you appeal and are successful, the shortfall in ESA payments will at least be backdated. If you do not appeal and accept the decision, you become unemployed and perhaps eligible for JSA. Not sure there is another option if you cannot work.

 

 

 

Hi, I had my assessment on 1st September, and two days ago received a letter to say that they have decided that I do not have limited capability for work.

 

I know that I am unable to work, please don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to work, I worked full time in a care home for several years, a job which I loved, but had to leave due to ill health.

 

My question is, is it worth appealing, as the process can take months and i'm not sure how I would manage on £65 a week until a decision has been made?

 

I ask because I am confused as to what other options I have.

 

Any advice or suggestions would be very much appreciated..thanks...

[Nystagmite]

your most likely practical alternative would be Jobseekers Allowance.

 

Which you may not even get. Some people are in the ridiculous situation of being too ill for JSA and not ill enough for ESA.

[antone]

Which you may not even get. Some people are in the ridiculous situation of being too ill for JSA and not ill enough for ESA.

 

Agreed that it is ridiculous. Policy (when I worked there a year or so back) was that, if you'd been found fit to work at the ESA medical, JSA couldn't then tell you that you weren't fit for work. But the wider problem is that the conditions that people on JSA are required to meet are often too difficult for folks who are genuinely ill, regardless of what the WCA says.

 

I can't see a downside to appealing, based on the original post.

[Tiajunior]

I too have come across the no-way-back to ESA problem, despite what your GP might say. The Govt's completely dishonest approach is that if you are fit to work (as by WCA) and you do not, it is your "choice" which means no benefits. There are some good websites to help anyone through the maze and hopefully a growing awareness of what is really going on. A few DWP Decision Makers (past or present) with a conscience and willingness to talk out loud would help a lot.

[antone]

I too have come across the no-way-back to ESA problem, despite what your GP might say. The Govt's completely dishonest approach is that if you are fit to work (as by WCA) and you do not, it is your "choice" which means no benefits. There are some good websites to help anyone through the maze and hopefully a growing awareness of what is really going on. A few DWP Decision Makers (past or present) with a conscience and willingness to talk out loud would help a lot.

 

I'm happy to discuss my thoughts on the process and the injustice, unnecessary complexity and so on. I did work for the DWP but was never a Decision Maker, merely an AO.

[Dilizjo]

From personal experience yes it is worth appealing the decision, it does take a lot of effort and strength at times but in the end is worth it of you are successful, I would read the stickies at the top and follow their advice.

If you send your GL24 form (recorded delivery) in to start the appeal asap your ESA payment will be restored and if you are successful the top up amount will be backdated to the 14th week of the claim. Ask for a copy of your ATOS report so that you can read the wonderful work of fiction that has deemed you fit for work, when you receive it I would advise that you have someone with you so you can rant out loud and be listened to......

As mentioned in the previous posts this is the wonderful ConDems at work with their "Let's cut benefits" policy hitting the most vulnerable in our society.

[frank_begbie]

Hi, I had my assessment on 1st September, and two days ago received a letter to say that they have decided that I do not have limited capability for work.

 

I know that I am unable to work, please don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to work, I worked full time in a care home for several years, a job which I loved, but had to leave due to ill health.

 

My question is, is it worth appealing, as the process can take months and i'm not sure how I would manage on £65 a week until a decision has been made?

 

I ask because I am confused as to what other options I have.

 

Any advice or suggestions would be very much appreciated..thanks...

 

 

I think you'd find it even harder to manage on nothing.

[Nystagmite]

Indeed, Frank.

[RaeUK]

It's certainly a crazy system but, unfortunately, it's the only one we've got. If you can't meet the criterea of JS then your only recourse is to appeal. And wait. And wait. Then have your Tribunal.

I've been on the assessment rate continually since August 2009 and I don't think that's going to change any time soon. Yes, it's tough but at least it's something.

[Bustard]

yes - by all means appeal - 40 % win without advocacy , 70 % with , in trial areas it's been 80 % when ATOS Origin have failed 33 % , some CAB staff win 90 % - dreadful figures proving the WCA is not fit for purpose . Plenty of horror stories about ATOS Origin on some damning internet sites .

[niness]

Hi, I'm a newbie to this forum but I happened to come across this thread. The anser to the original question is YES, YES, YES, - you should appeal.

I was in a simlar situation after having a back injury, then surgery and then being made redundant. I've had several of these ATOS medicals for different reasons, and I can tell you from bitter personal experience that the doctor's(?) report will almost certainly be very inaccurate, will not be a true record of what was said and what happened and will have untruthful statements, (or lets be honest downright lies), etc etc. I could go on, but at the end of the report there will probably be a sentence saying you are fit for work. I'm absolutely convinced that the DWP decision makers do not look any further than the last sentence, and that the ATOS people have an interest in finding people fit for work. Predictable this has been denied by ATOS and the DWP.

I had 2 ATOS medicals for ESA in 2 years and both stated I was fit for work - despite still being under hospital consultants and taking so much medication I was a danger to myself never mind other people. Both of these cases went to tribunal and I won them both and was then put on the higher level of ESA and had the payments back dated.

I agree with everything that's been said here, and based on what you have said I would contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau for help in making an appeal, but do it now and get a copy of the medical report. Check it has your name on it because the chances are you will not recognise it from what is written! Yes, it can be tough and draining but I kept going because I thought I was entitled to the money and the DWP are obviously be delighted when people do not appeal these ridiculous decisions. The other reason was because I was told by that I might get JSA, but maybe not if I wasn't fit for work????? What was I supposed to live on?

As mentioned above there are many independent sites to help with information but one I found is particularly good and it has a lot of information as well as giving some mental support, it also makes you realise you are not alone and how many others are in the same, or an even worse situation.

Can someone tell me if it's ok to post links to others sites here?

[niness]

Hi Chelle123, I just wondered if you had given it any more thought?

I was going to PM you but I've only got 4 posts and I need to have 5.

[frank_begbie]

they and UNUM have taken quite a bashing recently in Private Eye , the on line site is very interesting hint , hint

 

The Why Wait for Forever site is mentioned in one article in the back .

 

interesting article ? http://think-left.org/2011/11/22/welfare-reform-and-the-us-insurance-giant-unum/#comment-816 Welfare reform and the US insurance giant Unum.

Posted on November 22, 2011 by syzygysue

 

 

http://www.whywaitforever.com/ like the song - depressingly true IMO ....Can't think why the Condemn Govt was likened to a dodgy insurance firm by one of it's own peers - they certainly have a used car salesman leading the party

 

http://www.candocango.com/union-ridiculed-over-defence-of-atos-healthcare-workers/ Prospect Union ridiculed for it's defence of Health Care Workers

 

http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com/2011/11/know-your-enemy.html#comment-form Sue Marsh's excellent blogs - however we all should not be too hard on ATOS , " Colourful " Ex City Character Lord Freud says after 4 weeks signed off it's " an incubator for idleness " and Dame Carole Black says they're only giving people self worth so it's for own good really and we shouldn't be cynical and negative thinking this is all Corporate Cobblers - not sure about jobs though with " massaged " figures of 2.6 million unemployed , maybe they are in the IBS - " Magical World of Jobs " and we haven't tried hard enough to find it .

 

http://benefitclaimantsfightback.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/support-the-atos-2/ Two charged with aggravated trespass for protesting against the wonderful ATOS Origin

 

 

This comment from the last link made me laugh.

 

I have today been told that I am 100% fit for work again … so this will be my second appeal. I won the last one in about five minutes flat .. the medical report was so inaccurate. I have also won three appeals for DLA … I really don’t know about aggravated trespass – it’s a wonder nobody has put their windows in …

They call our local centre lourdes – you go in disabled and come out 100% fit for work …

[Bustard]

I do know of someone with a heart condition bringing his Consultant in on a ATOS Origin " medical " to ride shotgun and pull rank . He was in and out in five minutes flat , no disingenuous and underhand closed questions about East Enders , Facebook , computers , no pen handed to him by the ATOS security guard and searches for recording equipment or having to pick up pound coins to try and fail someone on spurious grounds .

 

The reassessments are purely to create false statistics , in the Kafkaesque world on Planet DWP if someone wins an appeal against a ATOS Origin " medical " , apparently ! the matter is investigated and the result que surprise is send that person for another medical ! .

 

IMO You are dealing with a very , very regimented style of management , a very dated top down style , managing by diktat - with no doubt a culture of fear , everything is to a predetermined outcome and everything is purely to impress someone more senior - the justification for this is that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet . Some of it will have something to do with " public sector reforms " that were first popular in the 80's and then under Blair and then a concept called " New Public Sector Management " where any concerns are dismissed as vested interests are involved - the NHS is no different hence the management horror stories defying all credibility and logic .

 

I'd also imagine you'd have a very static career if you don't sing the company song . You are also dealing with some very institutionalised people that don't know anything bar the DWP too . They have finished a few people off with the stress of this cat and mouse game and the horror stories beggar belief .

 

The kindest thing I can say about the DWP is that there appears that Politicians more interested in Daily Mail headlines aided by Senior and Junior civil servants are trying to micro manage the DWP ....very , very badly ...New Labour were particularly guilty of this but the Condemns are taking things to extremes .

 

The reality re the Welfare Bill is that 50 % is on State Pensions - the 65 - 75 yr olds would appear to be the " low hanging fruit " , at one time these people didn't really live that long after 60 - 65 now they do , however this group is prime voting fodder so they're left alone , also they can quite often be typical Daily Mail , Express and Telegraph readers and we all know what party these papers support . 20 % is on what arguably are middle class benefits like Child Allowance - Millionaire Osborne claimed child allowance and also avoids £1.6 million tax , Cameron claimed DLA for Ivan , his wife's father allegedly owns half of one county and receives £3.5 m in subsidy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261389/SamCams-father-exploits-Labours-green-subsidy-wind-farm-nets-3-5m-year.html . So why not pick on people that are least able to fight back and are hardly likely to vote for them either ? .

 

My apologies for quoting off a rival thread but this appears to be a hard but fair analysis and summary and explains things very well .

 

By Deeply Blue on Money Saving Expert Com

 

" I agree that it is more useful to discuss the test of functioning as we have it, rather than a medical diagnosis - which it isn't. However, at this stage, I think what you are quoting is the stated aim of the test, not the actual rules.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that when we are considering the overall function of the test, it makes sense to remember that the re-drawing of the definition of a condition which prevents someone from taking up paid work, was not done just to try to make everyone think more positively. It was first drawn up under the last government to try to reduce the benefits bill.

 

 

 

 

 

They wanted to do this two ways. First they were going to try to identify those who should not have been in receipt of benefits in the first place - those who were either actively committing fraud or working the system. Unfortunately there were not enough of those to (despite the wailings of the Mail and the rant in the Sun), so they decided to re-draw the lines about what made someone disabled enough to warrant state help.

 

 

 

 

 

The new tests attracted a lot of criticism, both from those who thought them too harsh, and those who thought them poorly designed and badly implemented, regardless of their severity. They were, however, a real learning experience for the DWP.

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly they found that the company carrying out the "disability assessment" was capable of reducing those who were regarded as "unfit for work" on an indefinite basis to a mere 5% of the original applicants, and consigning another 30-40% to "work-related activity". This was very much better than the DWP had expected.

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly they found that, amongst those who appealed (and many didn't) there was an unexpectedly high level whose original refusal was over-turned. The Appeals Tribunal was not saying that the original test was unfair or too harsh, just that the original claim by any particular person plus the evidence that was available amounted to a claim which should have succeeded by the rules as they stood.

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone agreed that this level of reversal by the Tribunal was undesirable. The DWP didn't want to pay out the money from people they thought should have "failed", ATOS didn't want the embarrassment of explaining why their results were so unreliable and the claimants didn't want the stress and time of going to appeal. And nobody (including the hard-pressed advice services) wanted the much greater degree of cost and effort involved in going to appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

One answer to this problem would have been to improve Atos's assessment procedures, another one would have been to encourage the DWP staff who made the final decision on the claim to look more carefully at the documents.

 

 

 

 

 

The DWP chose a third method - they looked again at the test (as outside observers had urged), tried to improve the way the test was put together and - principally - made the test even harder to pass. This meant that those who were "simply" blind, wheelchair bound, or autistic would no longer be disabled enough.

 

 

 

 

 

The tests were tweaked not to improve the fairness of the test, but to fine tune the desired outcome. The DWP, having scented blood, realised that they could get even “better” results if the tests were a little bit more consistent and the Tribunals had fewer opportunities to overturn the original decision.

 

 

 

 

 

The new tests have a gloss put on them for disability organisations and doctors, that they are designed to help people with disabilities to function better in society, or at least better in that sector of society you encounter in the workplace. “Work,” they trumpeted, “is good for your health. Unemployment is worse for your health than 10 cigarettes a day.”

 

 

 

 

 

To the wider public they produced the wave of “most of these people are not the real disabled, they are just scroungers. These people get hundreds of pounds every week just by saying they have a bad back and no one checks on them for years at a time. All we are doing is checking up on the scroungers and tightening up the rules a little, to stop those who are working the system. It will all be better for the “real” disabled.”

 

 

 

 

 

The underlying truth is that the bill for looking after the elderly and the disabled is not going to go down without a lot of help. The government cannot say out loud that some of these people are going to have to starve or suffer or (best of all) die because we can’t afford them any more. They think that they cannot put up taxes any more, so trying to reduce the amount of money being paid out is the best answer. It is this, more than anything else, which is driving the change in the tests for sickness and disability benefits.

 

 

 

 

 

The rules are not designed to see what you can do – they are designed to make sure enough people “fail” the test to bring down the welfare bill by at least a pre-determined 20-25%. They are part of the fallout from the demographic time bomb.

 

 

 

 

 

No matter what anyone does, that reduction in the bill is the over-riding priority, and about 1 recipient (or potential recipient) in 4 will have to have all their benefits taken away, or even more of them will have to have them reduced by some mechanism. The number of those who commit fraud or exaggerate their claims is not enough to get back enough money – even if there were a foolproof method of detecting them (which there isn’t).

 

 

 

 

 

All that can be done by individuals is to look after their own selfish interests - make sure that someone else is in the “for the chop” category. There are going to be genuinely disabled people who will not get this benefit, any claimant has to prove, indirectly, that he or she is more disabled than others. Nobody should be in any doubt about this.

 

 

 

 

 

The worst aspect of the debate here, and everywhere else, is that the WCA pretends to be an objective, absolute test. "Meet the appropriate definition of disabled or sick and you will get the benefits." This is like the height test at fairgrounds - if you are a certain height, you can go on the ride, don't meet it and you can't. But it doesn't work like that in reality. If too many people meet the height test, they will raise the bar. If 250,000 (number picked out of the air - I haven't time to research it) people qualify for ESA and the DWP and the Treasury between them think the country can only afford 200,000, then they will change the qualification.

 

 

 

 

 

No amount of good advice and careful preparation is going to change that horrid reality. All the advisor can do is to say, "Make sure that your case is better than that of the bottom 25%." This is what "unsustainable" means - it's now a competition, not a right.

 

 

 

 

 

If we manage to prove that the sick and the disabled are being unfairly targeted then something or someone else is going to have to make up that shortfall in the budget. When the immediate problems from the crash of '08 have passed, and assuming that another such disaster is not on the way, the demographic timebomb will still be with us.

 

 

 

 

 

Consider the implications of the fact that all three main party leaders have children under the age of 3. I cannot think of any other period in our modern political history (the last couple of centuries, say) when that has been true. The government of this country has passed into the hands of the young and the healthy.

 

 

 

 

 

George Osborne, who is in charge of the nation’s money, is also young, fit (as far as we know), healthy (ditto) and above all, rich. He can afford to restrain his sympathy for the old, the sick and the poor. He sees no inconsistency about trumpeting about how evil it is that somebody should live off money they have not worked for when that somebody is too ill to work, whilst himself living off money for which he has not worked, because he inherited riches.

 

 

 

 

 

So the place of the sick, the disabled and the old in the great scheme of things is set for the next decade at least, and probably the next two or three generations. They are “unsustainable”. This situation will affect almost everyone, since most become sick or grow old, and many are or will become disabled. One way or another the cost to the government for the welfare of all of us will have to drop. Currently that way is via the WCA and, soon, PIP. (It has also impacted on pensions, and that one too is not going to get better.)

 

 

 

 

 

To that extent, ATOS is merely the tool and not the task.

 

 

 

 

 

There's another part of the story, however, which I'll post later. Sorry this is so long, but I haven't the time to edit it down " .

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bustard

[frank_begbie]

So in short, they just keep moving the goalposts till the punishment fits the crime.

 

Its just the sneaky way they go about things, "You are better of in work than on benefits, Your health will improve if you are in work"

 

I can't see the government picking on the pensioners. Since Jack Jones got them to realize what power they had if they got organized, each party has steered clear of annoying them.

 

People with power only respect others with power.

[Nystagmite]

"You are better of in work than on benefits, Your health will improve if you are in work"

 

And how many people have to leave work because it's made them ill? I know quite a few that's happened to - their work was making them ill.

[grahamengineering]

I think sometimes ATOS is getting a bad rap. A lot of people on sickness benifits were doing so because they were unable to return to the same job. But remember that isn't what the benifit is there for. ATOS are not saying that you are able to return to the same job but could be capable for other work.

[Nystagmite]

I think sometimes ATOS is getting a bad rap. A lot of people on sickness benifits were doing so because they were unable to return to the same job. But remember that isn't what the benifit is there for. ATOS are not saying that you are able to return to the same job but could be capable for other work.

 

What other work?

[RaeUK]

I think sometimes ATOS is getting a bad rap. A lot of people on sickness benifits were doing so because they were unable to return to the same job. But remember that isn't what the benifit is there for. ATOS are not saying that you are able to return to the same job but could be capable for other work.

 

Hahahahahahahaha! ...

[watchinginvestigation2011]

I think sometimes ATOS is getting a bad rap. A lot of people on sickness benifits were doing so because they were unable to return to the same job. But remember that isn't what the benifit is there for. ATOS are not saying that you are able to return to the same job but could be capable for other work.

 

Poor atos I could cry

NOT:!:

 

As soon as employers find out true extent of illness and risk of going sick due to ongoing issues, they as much as got to supposedly consider you to not discriminate will just return, sorry too many applicants or lets see, not bother to reply even !!!!!!!!!!!!and thats on top of not being fit for work in the first place but told the visit to atos lourdes as quoted prior xx makes you well again.

 

Their computer programme should have been called lourdes

 

Op hope you are appealing

Edited November 29, 2011 by watchinginvestigation2011

[Dilizjo]

Grahamengineering.... How can you even think that ATOS are getting a bad rap? They provide the country with a service that has been proved on numerous occasions to be defective and yet this Government still pay them hundreds of million pounds to do this. Their reports are fictitious and many appeals are overturned. If you contracted someone to for example: clean your home and all they did was dust the lounge and nothing else you would not pay them let alone keep employing their services.

 

As for them saying you are fit for work in another field than you are trained for well maybe some people are but you find employers that will employ people that have to take excessive time off due to appts and not being able to move some days etc

 

So NO! ATOS are not getting a bad rap at all!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nystagmite]

They're getting what they deserve. If it was say, 0.1% who won their appeals, then yeah, no problems. (no system is 100% and you'll always get the odd person who falls through the system) But, if it's as high as it is, then you've got problems. Especially when some are found fit for work and JSA says no.

[chelle123]

Thanks everyone for all your replies, just to keep you updated, I have decided to appeal, the first part the gl24 form, I sent last friday by recorded delivery. I have also requested a copy of the written assessment from Atos, and from what I have read in previous threads, should prepare myself and make sure my name is on the top.

 

Thanks again to you all, it has helped me enormously, and I will try and keep you posted.