Jump to content


ATOS getting a grilling live on now...


Dilizjo
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3512 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

yes watching the 20 mins that does work, clearly shows the whole thing made much complex than it is and its no wonder it isnt getting fixed.

 

Your few lines said it all in very simple terms that the descriptors been used are wrong and that the atos asseesment is not accuratly assessing the descriptors.

 

Also was scary that everyone seemed in agreement that apparently been 'parked' on benefits is a bad thing for your health, yet no comment that forcing someone to do work activity they cant do is not bad for your health. I felt that the charity rep's there were saying lies to come across as cooperative as its now out of fashion to say people should have life long or long term social security support.

 

Yes, it's all very well saying someone needs support to get into work while on WRAG - but no one is actually getting the support, retraining, advice etc that was promised when the ESA scheme was first suggested. For instance, warehouse worker, no qualifications aged 47 loses both legs in an accident. He's only ever done manual work, and has no office or computer skills. He is also suffering from depression following his double amputation. Now, a good system would be ensuring the guy got intensive therapy, maybe some CBT, training in maths, english and computer skills(as needed), arranging some work experience in an office environment for a charity, helping with interview skills if needed. This actually helps someone get back into a work environment.

 

Having a meeting with a teenager about what you've done to prepare for work, is not helping someone back into work.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

can you explain more what you mean?

 

eg. if someone can use a computer it must mean they can work full time, that has very little logic.

 

its barriers that stop people been able to work not anything else.

 

I stil maintain the IB system was better and more accurate but people didnt like it because it implied we had a high amount of people sick and as such showed the country as a failure. Yet if ESA is so good and more accurate why is so many people found fit for work by the assessments not actually working. Clearly the idea "what you can do" is not right at all.

 

At least the guy suggested a system where they look at what someone can do sustained instead of been able to do it for 5 minutes. But even that is too harsh, and if someone cannot do a specific thing eg. if they have a condition that stops them been able to turn up for work regurly and regurly, then the question of what they can do should be considered'irellevant'.

 

Yes, there is a lot more to a working day than being able to use a computer. There are few jobs where you do one simple task all day. Most jobs require a number of activities, and the reality is that you don't find out until you start. I was healthy when I worked at the Benefit's Agency, but had I not been it was not simply using a computer to process claims. You needed to be able to walk a reasonable distance to the kitchen, the toilets were upstairs, the photocopiers and stationary were a good distance away as were the printers. If you went down to see a claimant, you'd need to alk around to find a room to see them in. Heavyish lifting was involved to refill the paper on the photocopier or printer. You needed to be able to use the phone. As with any office job, you need to be able to plan and organise your workload, and deal with changes in routine and stressful situations, you need to be able to deal with people, both colleagues and clients. There are probably things I've left out, but you get the idea.

 

Just because you have no problem with some of the descriptors, doesn't mean you can hold down a job, especially without support. It also doesn't mean you can get a job when competing against healthy applicants.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the link and the tech.update, Dilizjo. It seems that I am in the same boat as at least some others. Can't get past 24 mins and I hope they fix it. Very interesting.

 

 

If you get it fixed, be prepared to throw things at the screen.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed them myself just now, as it is still not working for me :sad:

 

I've just tried it again and no luck.... everyone email them maybe that will shock them into doing the job right.....

Hold on a minute I wonder if ATOS have their IT and web contract as well????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

They copied and pasted me the same reply!

 

Hi ########

We are aware of an intermittent issue which appears to be affecting the playback of archive streams for some users.

Our developers are currently looking into this issue and hope to have it resolved as soon as possible.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys have a new link for this..... get your swear boxes out:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9770000/9770606.stm

 

Thanks, that's better.

 

anyone know who the chair is, I want to email her.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, my laptop nearly flew across the room - the medical adviser guy suggesting the that the higher rates of success when represented are due to advisers 'prepping' the appellants in advance, so they give the best possible 'story' of their condition. I want to sit him down and shout at him, a lot!!!

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen the whole thing, there was so much spin, twisting of facts, and horrifying insinuations about benefit advisers and Tribunal judges that I am thoroughly disgusted with the DWP perm secretary and the medical adviser.

 

Margaret Hodge did do a good job (apart from one dodgy comment about putting health professionals on the work programme to get them to work for ATOS, which I believe was tongue in cheek anyway), but I'm concerned that they appear to be working with 'spun' info from their own civil servants. Though saying that, I suppose you can hardly expect them to diss a provider they've just given a contract to for PIP. I will email her, though I doubt that any attention is paid to individual emails.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just finished watching it all and tbh what a complete comedy of errors on behalf of Richard Devereux and Dr Bill Gunnyeon appearing on behalf of the DWP, neither of them could answer any question directly talk about skirting round issues. I never realised that to be permanent secretary to DWP you main verbal sounds had to be ermmmm, uhmmmmmm and errrrrrrrr, he almost punctuated every word with those sounds. I cannot believe that they had attended that meeting so unprepared.

 

I fully applaud Margaret Hodge, she wasn't taking no prisoners:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found really frustrating was that Richard Devereux (in my opinion) was intentionally muttering and adding lots of waffle to his answers in order to muddy the waters. I don't think you could call his answers concise to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just finished watching it all and tbh what a complete comedy of errors on behalf of Richard Devereux and Dr Bill Gunnyeon appearing on behalf of the DWP, neither of them could answer any question directly talk about skirting round issues. I never realised that to be permanent secretary to DWP you main verbal sounds had to be ermmmm, uhmmmmmm and errrrrrrrr, he almost punctuated every word with those sounds. I cannot believe that they had attended that meeting so unprepared.

 

I fully applaud Margaret Hodge, she wasn't taking no prisoners:)

 

In my experience its a good sign that people that do this are almost certainly lying. Allegedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What is the cost of all the appeals?"

Still waiting for the answer from the guy in the striped shirt.

 

I just can't watch any more, its making me too stressed.

 

Yes, I certainly felt my blood pressure rising!

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the further links.

 

"The whole shooting match is not working properly" - Kicked out of the smug and blatantly-evasive (and stripy-shirted) DWP stool-pigeon at 1:35 to 1:41, of the BBC link, by the vigorous Chair.

 

And the DWP itself asked the public accounts committee not to call Atos personnel for direct cross-examination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the DWP itself asked the public accounts committee not to call Atos personnel for direct cross-examination.

 

Yes I found that quite disturbing too.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly I cannot believe that ATOS were not there they should have been made to go, the 2 DWP reps were in my opinion extremely patronising and darn right rude especially when Margaret Hodge made one of her well informed comments. If any of my children behaved like that they would be severely sanctioned..... That was another issue they skirted round... why aren't ATOS sanctioned for so many mistakes......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly I cannot believe that ATOS were not there they should have been made to go, the 2 DWP reps were in my opinion extremely patronising and darn right rude especially when Margaret Hodge made one of her well informed comments. If any of my children behaved like that they would be severely sanctioned..... That was another issue they skirted round... why aren't ATOS sanctioned for so many mistakes......

 

He seemed to be saying it was the DWP fault, then said it wasn't the DWP's fault. He wanted to have it every way - DWP not to blame, Atos not to blame - the insinuation was Tribunals making different decisions because the appeallant had worsened in the time between WCA and Tribunal, and they can't figure out was then and what was now - which is crap. Dr Bill actually said something about the process making people's mental health worse, which I thought was amusing as he said it as a defence of the process, when actually it is appalling that a process to assess fitness to work can make a person less fit - were I a journalist, I'd have a column about that alone. The blame was also put on reps for coaching clients - I've never coached a client in my life. So with everyone else to blame, no sanctions for ATOS. This is what was skirted over and I'd like to point out to margaret Hodge:

 

Yes 1% were obvious mistakes by ATOS - this means that they said someone could walk when they had no legs or other such idiot things.

30% decided on the same evidence - this means the DWP decision maker and ATOS made a mistake - the DWP DM should have picked up that the points scored by ATOS did not match the evidence and change the decision and points accordingly.

66% decided on oral evidence - this is also an ATOS error, in that had they asked the right things and not made assumptions that someone is fit for work because they watch TV and own a cat. Tribunals ask a lot more questions and allow the appellant to elaborate and say more than yes or no.

 

So I make that 97% of decisions reversed based on ATOS errors (at least 30% in co operation with the DWP)

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been useful if the CAB rep mentioned that benefit advisers are issuing a printout of section 3.1.2 on page 42 of the revised WCA handbook,

 

3.1.2 Reading the Documents

In preparation for the interview, you should read carefully the documents in the file /on MSRS. All the medical evidence should be considered, including any medical certification, Factual Reports, previous papers and other documents, including Tribunal documents. Particular attention must be paid to the current claimant questionnaire [ESA50] and all areas where the claimant indicates that there may be a problem must be fully explored. At times the claimant may also bring additional evidence to the assessment. Any evidence bought by the claimant must be read and the report should make reference to the evidence that has been considered and justification provided if there is a conflict between the opinion of the HCP and the other medical evidence.

 

Showing the HCP this bit of information generally changes the tone of the assessment as the claimant has demonstrated that the HCP has to read any medical evidence the claimant provides.

  • Confused 1

 

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...