Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Email and call your local councillor, their details should be on Google.  Just explain everything to them and they will have the bailiffs off your back in short order.   Do it now, and this could be resolved by tomorrow.  
    • Your latest ramblings make no sense in relation to the issue (which is whether a person hearing an SD can question the maker as to its truthfulness and reject the declaration if they are not satisfied as such).     It's not within 21 days of the hearing it's within 21 days of learning of the conviction of which they were unaware. I don't know what it is you are reading or are referring to but there is no "debtor" involved in an SD that is made to have a conviction set aside. When an SD is heard in court the only officers involved are the court's Legal Advisor and the Magistrates themselves.   I’ve just been looking back at the original post which started all this off to ensure I wasn’t going mad. I’m pleased to say I don’t think I am. Instead I am of the opinion that you did not properly grasp what originally happened to the OP and compounded that by providing incorrect, misleading and confusing advice whilst plucking bits of irrelevant legislation from thin air randomly when you commented. Here’s a few of your quotes and my comments for you to consider.     The OP said no such thing. She said she had moved three years earlier. For some reason unknown, her change of address was not recorded by the DVLA. She said she was happy to accept the speeding allegation. This indicated she was driving (a fact she confirmed absolutely soon afterwards). Nowhere did she ever say she was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time.         So, from advice to plead Not Guilty to advice to plead Guilty inside two hours, with no new or additional information provided. Still you mention somebody else being the driver.         What is an “out of time statement” and where and when was one ever mentioned?     Then from the OP:       Your response:       The cause of any confusion was your comments. She said from the outset that she did not live at her old address when the offence was committed (in fact she went to some lengths to explain that was why she did not receive the court papers). Nowhere did she suggest she was not the driver nor that she could not or would not disclose who was.     No it isn’t. A Statutory Declaration voids the original conviction as if it never happened. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act is not involved with the resurrection of proceedings following an SD. That Section grants the Magistrates powers to re-open cases to rectify mistakes, etc. There has been no mistake here, the Magistrates will not be called upon to re-open the case and could not prevent it being revisited even if they wanted to.   Then we set off into the intricacies of the Statutory Declaration process which is covered above.   I’m not surprised the OP in this particular case became confused. Her matter is straightforward enough (for those who know the law and the process). In summary: She moved; She thought the DVLA had her vehicle registered at her new address but they hadn’t; Her vehicle (with her driving) was detected speeding; She (unsurprisingly) did not receive the notification of that offence or the request for driver’s details; She obviously didn’t reply to that request, she was prosecuted for it, convicted in her absence and without her knowledge.   Happens every day and simple to deal with.   Unfortunately, not when you became involved it isn't. Firstly you grasped the wrong end of the stick by assuming she was not the owner and/or the driver. You advised her to plead Not Guilty on that basis. Then, when you had grasped some idea of what had really happened you suggested she plead guilty to the S172 offence purely on the basis she had moved and the speeding information was sent to her old address. Very poor advice. Then you scared her witless by incorrectly suggesting there was a chance her SD would be rejected if it was thought her declaration may be untruthful. There also followed discussions about the six month time limit for prosecutions and the 21 day limit for SDs to be accepted unconditionally (both totally irrelevant).   I don’t suppose you will accept any of these criticisms but whether you do or not you clearly caused the OP considerable confusion and probably distress. My comments are not based on something I've heard on the net or on barroom (sic) knowledge. They are based on my knowledge of the law and of Magistrates' Court procedures.  It's obvious you will pay no heed to me so when I see any such clearly misleading information provided to an OP by you in this section in future I will simply report it to the site's administrators.
    • Just ignore unless you receive a PAP letter.    Chances are you will run out the clock and it will become SB'd.    
    • Sure I read somewhere that PayPal MADE 2.2 billion dollars in 2018, so I guess losing out on say 10 million a year in negative balance is more cost effective than paying tax in the UK?  Dont get me wrong I’m by no means saying “sod it” they can afford it, I’m just hoping they don’t take me to the cleaners and at least give me time. 
    • I apologise profusely for my actions in this case. I pride myself on my integrity and honesty and I feel shameful for my moment of very poor judgement. As the sole income earner for the family (my wife is on maternity leave), a criminal record would be devastating for us as my employment relies upon a clean criminal record.   On the 22nd I was travelling to London Bridge and needed to connect at Three Bridges. When purchasing my ticket in the morning I only bought a ticket to Three Bridges by mistake.   I made a bad error and I am just so sorry for my actions and the inconvenience caused to all involved.   I am happy to make immediate payment of the unpaid fare and any incurred costs that my mistake have caused.   I would appreciate your consideration and I sincerely hope that you can show some leniency as an criminal conviction would impact my employment and ultimately being able to provide for my family.   Regards   I cant offer to get a monthly ir annual as I only travel a handful of times per year.
  • Our picks

unclebulgaria67

Another ATOS death

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2326 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/11/disabled-man-dies-after-atos-stops-benefits-chris-grayling/

 

Makes awful reading. Apparently 1700 deaths are being linked to failed ATOS assessments.

 

Perhaps the government should release full details of their risk assessment into this policy, as surely they must have told ATOS on what basis to assess people as being fit for work.


We could do with some help from you.

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

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 per week, bloody shocking and a disgrace. Value on a human life? Atos knows, dwp knows shame its sensitive commercial information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus christ what is this; legal genocide? This needs blowing wide open by the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 per week, bloody shocking and a disgrace. Value on a human life? Atos knows, dwp knows shame its sensitive commercial information.

 

I heard that figure has long been past, into the 70s now. Soon be over a 100, perhaps when people start seeing people they know disappear they might say something. The frightening bit is they just finished reshowing Nazis a warning from History on the TV, yet still nobody is seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that ATOS are incentivised for finding as many people fit for work as possible and then the DWP don't really assist people properly afterwards. It is no good saying people are fit to work and then offer no resource to help them. They seem to just say no, cut the money and then the benefit claimant has to apply for JSA without any help being given.


We could do with some help from you.

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

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good friend of mine was on esa, is dissabled, had to endure the atos medical failed it, was put on jsa, who found her a job in a nusery, 30 hours a week my friend was in agony trying to pick children up that the owner sent her home because she couldnt cope with the job, she went to her GP, who gave her a sick note, but she doesnt know what will happen now because she cant work shes to unwell, so what about other disabled people who get sent to work but are to ill for the job, will they get sick pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst i believe that atos and indeed the whole benefit system is broken and does need radical reform -not sure what though- it is very easy to blame these deaths on atos when i wonder how many direct cases there are. I am not sure the Nazi thing is quite appropriate. That was a whole different set of circumstances and a whole different argument imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the deaths are not directly related, after all Atos isn't treating them. The point is that these people are being declared fit for work and then dying. So blaming atos or the gov for it misses the point somewhat, however it shows how incompetent atos are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who commit suicide from the experience of dealing with atos would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zonker, this thread did not mention suicide at all. I agree even one suicide is one too many but it is a complex issue. Do you have any statistics on that? By the way in my experience, and i do have a little,most people who commit suicide seem perfectly able and in control,or at least in no danger of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK accepting they might result in suicides, but the majority of the deaths mentioned aren't that. Trust me I have no love for atos having been through the hell of their system with my partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The DWP said it did not have research data on the impact of assessments on people's mental health and that no links could accurately be made to suicides.' , from

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19437785

 

and also this FOI request ,

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/suicide_and_attempted_suicide_du

 

which shows they are aware of suicides , but they dont collate the information and wont search for them under cost grounds for FOI requests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that the truth is being hidden for various reasons. But ATOS are not totally to blame. They have been given the job by DWP and told what to do. The real blame is with DWP for not providing appropriate resources to assist people declared fit for work. The DWP should be working with NHS professionals and Job Centre Plus staff to see what is needed to support the people. ATOS are just involved in a box ticking exercise, paid a fee to run the assessments against a limited criteria. I think a number of Doctors have resigned from ATOS, as they were unhappy with the assessment process.

 

The other issue is whether the UK economy can provide the 35 million jobs that would be required to have full employment. The government have just removed some financial support from Remploy causing the loss of many jobs. This is a bit silly if you ask me, as if you want people with disabilities to work, then government does have a role to play. There are many employers who would not offer employment to people with disabilities, as the cost implications to make reasonable adjustments, may be too much.


We could do with some help from you.

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

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many have died due to an unrelated medical condition? Like the person who has a heart attack or something? There is no proof that all these deaths are to do with ATOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but when we lose someone we need someone to blame.It makes grieving easier however as in this case it can promote a backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not always someone elses fault though. I know that some commit suicide - it's possible that this isn't just to do with ATOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't blaming anyone,i was saying we look at people to blame. When a person commits suicide we may blame ourselves for not having done more,if someone has a dies suddenly we may blame a doctor or the fact we didn't force them to the gp last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is really about a process that finds people fit for work but whoare clearly so ill that they have died soon after this decision was taken. Ifyou are so ill that you die within weeks or months of being assessed as"FIT FOR WORK" there is something seriously wrong with the system.

You do not need a degree in medicine or even been a qualified nurse ordoctor to see this needs changing.

ATOS are responsible for the assessments and are therefore responsible forthe gross misjudgement but the government is ultimately responsible for givinga Multi Million £ contract to a company which is not fit for purpose.

Any of us could find ourselves so ill or disabled that we would be UNFIT forwork. We need a system that takes good care of vulnerable people not makingthem more vulnerable and insecure than they already are.

Please help by signing this petition.....Thank you!

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/letter-to-the-icc-at-the-hague-re-mistreatment-of-the-disabled-and-sick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't DWP partly responsible too? They surely get all the evidence (including ESA50) to make their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...