Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Former ATOS Nurse Apologises...


RaeUK
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4219 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

A spokeswoman said: “Our trained doctors, nurses and physiotherapists use their clinical knowledge and apply the Government’s policy and criteria to each assessment.

 

considering most of the ATOS staff are "health care advisors, which they fail to mention

 

funny how ATOS can do an ill health medical retirement from work as occupational health, then in the guise of DWP, SAY YOU ARE FIT FOR WORK

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow im shocked that its costing the goverment 50 million for the appeals process , they think they are cutting costs when in fact there costing themselves more ..idiots

 

i read somewhere too that atos had signed a 3 year contract with the DWP in scotland and england and wales got a different company which is odd ... but therefore i could be wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

now Margeret.. how can you insult such caring, sharing, hard-working healthcare professionals, who are doing such a sterling job, for the hard working tax payers of this country, by denying us workshy the benefits we were never entitled to in the first place....we should wake every morning and salute these stalwarts for the hard decisions they have to make daily........

or alternatively we could hang the lot from the highest gallows

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember 'officially' atos dont make the decision, dwp do. But im not sure if a decision maker can disregard what atos says, so how can it be a decision , more like a rubberstamping of atos.

 

They can overturn, but most often they don't. After all, the DMs aren't medical staff and don't often feel qualified to overturn the opinion of medical staff. Of course, that still leaves open questions - regarding, say, the quality of the assessments and of those whose job it is to carry them out.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can overturn, but most often they don't. After all, the DMs aren't medical staff and don't often feel qualified to overturn the opinion of medical staff.
So long as the medical staff work for ATOS! DM's have no problem overturning the opinion of a claimants GP or specialist, and they have no qualms about ignoring supporting medical evidence.

 

Under this scenario ATOS HCP's are omnipotent, and the rest of the medical profession are a bunch of quacks and charlatans.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So people,

 

It will never change. end of:-x

My advice is based on my opinion and my experience. It is not to be taken as legal advice as I am not legally qualified

If my advice has been helpful, please take a moment to click on the scales

on the bottom left hand side of my profile :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Record's been running regular stories on the ATOS and ESA assessments, and is looking for people who feel they've been bullied by Atos to contact them. Labour MP Tom Greatrex commented 'I'm pleased the the Record have taken up this issue , bringing campaigning journalism to bear on the assessment process' .

 

One of yesterdays' stories was about a council bus driver off work for 9 and 1/2 months with a nasty leg break which developed complications. He'd had 78 hospital visits during his time off work. The council were happy to keep his job open till he recovered. He only claimed benefits before returning to work, but was pulled in for ATOS interview. Still in plaster up to his hip , the woman assessor told him if he could lift a phone he could work. He'd already told the council he'd do a desk job meantime but the council couldn't accomodate him due to health and safety reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Record's been running regular stories on the ATOS and ESA assessments, and is looking for people who feel they've been bullied by Atos to contact them. Labour MP Tom Greatrex commented 'I'm pleased the the Record have taken up this issue , bringing campaigning journalism to bear on the assessment process' .

 

 

More need to do the same if anything will be done.

My advice is based on my opinion and my experience. It is not to be taken as legal advice as I am not legally qualified

If my advice has been helpful, please take a moment to click on the scales

on the bottom left hand side of my profile :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I had my theories and this seems to say I am right.

 

I posted before that I think anyone who makes it to an assessment is already on the backfoot because ATOS will assume things. Then irrelevant questions get asked like do you live alone.

 

I would love to see figures for how many people who are not passported (not passed without medical) actually get WRAG or SG on the medicals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted before that I think anyone who makes it to an assessment is already on the backfoot because ATOS will assume things.
Of course! The government's plan is, and has been since inception to make ESA a one tier system, support group only. Anyone that does not make it into SG either works or starves and gradually with the able assistance of ATOS they are achieving that goal.

 

The ConDems have turned 'survival of the fittest' from a cliche into reality.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course! The government's plan is, and has been since inception to make ESA a one tier system, support group only. Anyone that does not make it into SG either works or starves and gradually with the able assistance of ATOS they are achieving that goal.

 

The ConDems have turned 'survival of the fittest' from a cliche into reality.

 

Hasn't that been the intention all along? The Support Group equates with the old IB.

 

The 'new' category of 'The Work Group' was only brought about to mop up those that aren't that ill enough for sickness benefit but not yet well enough to be working. A half way house sort of thing.

 

That is how I see it. Instead of under IB, you were either ill or fit, under ESA you still have those two categories plus one in the middle. Isn't that why the government are trying to get those in the work group back into work?

 

Maybe I am missing the whole point of ESA, but it seems quite clear to me what is happening.

 

The only argument I have is that they are not being careful enough in their decision making into which group people should be put. The system seems a good idea but it is being failed by bad reporting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how I see it. Instead of under IB, you were either ill or fit, under ESA you still have those two categories plus one in the middle. Isn't that why the government are trying to get those in the work group back into work?
WRAG only works if there is:

a) support to return to work, or support for those that have never worked, currently there is no real support for either group.

 

b) an abundance of jobs available, which there aren't, even for the 100% fit population.

 

WRAG is a one size fits all 'solution' for those not placed in SG, there are too many variables in terms of claimants conditions for it to succeed as a means to getting people back to work, Grayling's often touted 'tailored help' was just smoke and mirrors.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't that been the intention all along? The Support Group equates with the old IB.

 

The 'new' category of 'The Work Group' was only brought about to mop up those that aren't that ill enough for sickness benefit but not yet well enough to be working. A half way house sort of thing.

 

That is how I see it. Instead of under IB, you were either ill or fit, under ESA you still have those two categories plus one in the middle. Isn't that why the government are trying to get those in the work group back into work?

 

Maybe I am missing the whole point of ESA, but it seems quite clear to me what is happening.

 

The only argument I have is that they are not being careful enough in their decision making into which group people should be put. The system seems a good idea but it is being failed by bad reporting.

 

In my opinion it had potential to be a good idea.

 

A good implementation would have been to use WRAG for short term conditions that are fully expected to heal such as a broken leg. Those in the WRAG be offered counselling service (if mental issues), therapy services, training, jobs reserved for them like working from home jobs, and so on.

 

If any doubt whether someone is expected to heal or not they would be put in SG, if the doubt is there make it short term SG eg. 1 year (not something silly like 3 months), anyone who is clearly not going to get better I would expect to have a mininum of 3 years before reassessment.

 

eg. if I was offered voluntary training for jobs I think might be a worth a try without risk of loss of benefits if it didnt work out I would consider taking it up. A especially important issue is the lack of special treatment on job vacancies. eg. now they treating this with fear, they tell people to do what they say such as the work programme and taking placements that would clearly make the health worse and not work rather than preserving working from home jobs for the vulnerable. Remember the government is the biggest employer in the country. The NHs etc. will have jobs that could be done from home. The fact this isnt been done means they dont care about any of that, they just want less people on benefits full stop. I do expect WRAG to be eventually discontinued as well, the argument will be the people in WRAG have successfully been doing work related activity and as such are fit for work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...