Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So no agreement /account number referenced anywhere on the claim form ?
    • I agree that what you describe is not a "salary sacrifice".  It may be that your employer has heard of the term and mistakenly thought it applied here.   It seems to me that you and your colleagues (who weren't furloghed) simply agreed to be paid less because of the current Covid circumstances.   What do you actually mean by:  "... and full payment would be returned this December"?  What did you actually agree to?  You obviously think it means that in December you would get backdated arrears of the 20% you had previously foregone, but it could equally mean that they would just start paying your full salary again, and the 20% you weren't paid has gone forever.   (PS - I notice in a couple of other posts you mention: "... that it would be paid back in full in December this year..."  I'm afraid that is still not necessarily the same as your employer agreeing to pay arrears.  What is the exact wording of what you have agreed to?  Not what you think it says - what it actually says.)   Depending on (1) what your contract of employment says about your wage/salary and (2) what you actually agreed to in terms of a wage/salary reduction, then you are entitled to be paid whatever has been agreed.   But if your employer simply can't afford to pay you because of Covid etc, then they can't afford to pay you with money they don't have.   Are you in a union?
    • We've not heard anything from CCBC or LC Asset following initial acknowledgement of defence from CCBC on 23 Sept 2020 and now being beyond the 28 days notice we're wondering what's next. Presumably CCBC will dismiss or stay the claim?
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Upper Tribunal rules the WCA puts people with mental illness, autism and learning


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2568 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

:jaw:

 

Press release by Public Law Project http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/documents/press_release_WCA_assessment_discriminatory.pdf

 

]A three judge court rules that the Work Capability Assessment discriminates against claimants with a mental health disability[/b]

 

Today at the Royal Courts of Justice, a three judge panel of the Upper Tribunal has ruled that the Work Capability Assessment substantially disadvantages claimants with mental health problems, because the system is designed to deal with a high volume of claimants who can accurately report the way in which their disability affects their fitness to work.

 

The judges recognised that claimants with mental health problems have a number of specific difficulties in self-reporting, for example they may lack insight into their condition, their condition may fluctuate day by day, or they may be unable to accurately explain how it affects them. Not all Atos assessors are medically qualified (many are nurses or physiotherapists), and almost invariably they have very limited knowledge or experience of working with people with mental health problems. The interviews are often hurried, and rely on applicants to explain the limitations on their ability to work.

 

cont....

 

Case numbers

 

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Decisions/forthcoming3JPs.htm

 

Employment and Support Allowance

 

JR/2638/2010 & JR/2639/2012

 

Whether the duty under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 can be enforced by judicial review. Whether the Department for Work and Pensions is in breach of its duty to make adjustments in respect of those with mental health problems when undertaking the preliminary stages of a work capability assessment.

 

DWP Twitter Response (who wasn't expecting this?) https://twitter.com/dwppressoffice

 

We disagree with today’s ruling on WCA and will appeal. Already made significant improvements to the WCA for ppl w/mental health conditions

 

Press coverage:

 

http://mind.org.uk/news/show/8895_victory_for_welfare_campaigners_as_judges_rule_controversial_disability_benefits_procedure_is_unfair

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/22/fitness-work-tests-mental-health-unfair

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22620894

 

Twitter

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very interesting stuff, speedy and will affect a lot of people here.

 

Thank you for posting it. :)

 

Edit: I got quite excited about this until I came to the bit about the DWP appealing. :( I suppose they're not about to admit it isn't fit for purpose.

 

HB

Edited by honeybee13

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DWP should be refused leave to appeal, it's become a predictable knee jerk reaction from them every time a decision goes against them.

 

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

The government have clearly said they will appeal and dispute the findings, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

Personally I totally agree with the findings, as will most who experience the system, but that's not what the government wants to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit: I got quite excited about this until I came to the bit about the DWP appealing. :( I suppose they're not about to admit it isn't fit for purpose.

 

HB

 

me too, was overjoyed until read that part... they seem inhuman... i dont think there should be a disagreement about this... i am currently sufferring from atos and dwp cruelty and have had a very bad day and got drunk... just wish my tribunal would come soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they lose their appeal. What exactly are they appealing against? They, like claimants, can only appeal on points of law and not because they don't like the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope they lose their appeal. What exactly are they appealing against? They, like claimants, can only appeal on points of law and not because they don't like the decision.

 

They only have two choices - make changes to the way mental health claimants are treated in the assessment process.....or appeal.

 

As the JR was regarding section 20 of the Equality Act, basically the JR decision is that the government is in breach of the law in how it conducts it's assessments. The only way NOT to make changes to the assessment process is to appeal the JR.

 

But as has been said permission to appeal will undoubtedly be refused. I'm hazy on the process from there, but normally the decision can be appealled directly to the next court if permission to appeal is refused - someone correct me if that is not the case here.

 

It makes me angry though, that the government's position is to appeal, rather than actually listening to the points of the judges and make the required changes so that they no longer breach equality law.

 

Also, surely this case can be used by some claimants to support their Tribunal appeals (once the full written decision has been published).

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, surely this case can be used by some claimants to support their Tribunal appeals (once the full written decision has been published).

 

That's what i was hoping...but i guess we have now a long wait while the red tape gets sorted out...hope not too long ,it's the first meaty tangible ruling we have had... and gives one hope of change.... but yes , unbelievable that this "government" will go to any length to make life worse for those of us with mental health issues..i hope karma will finish them off soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope they lose their appeal. What exactly are they appealing against? They, like claimants, can only appeal on points of law and not because they don't like the decision.

 

And as previously they can just change the law to got thing the way they want.

 

I don't think anything is above these scumbags

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

What has happened to this country? Compare the way we are as a nation now to how we were during the blitz for instance people with resilience, grit and determination steadfast in the belief that those who wish to do us wrong will not win the day.

Since then our spirit has been watered down with a mixture of political correctness and the nanny state,

half the country is afraid of it's own shadow frightened to say anything in case they upset some minority group, or government department, scared sh1tless in case we make a mistake with a job search, or fail to fill out an ESA50 properly.

 

God forbid we ever face invasion again what with bugger all armed forces and sheeple who would just lay down and die rather than make a stand. We are allowing the likes of IDS and the DWP to ride roughshod over the law. If government is allowed to change the rules to suit when things don't go their way, where will it end? Dictatorship, that's where.

 

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

ConDem Cruelty.

Amount gained with benefits cap: £17 million.

Amount saved by cutting Legal Aid: £350 million.

Amount gained with bedroom tax: £465 million.

Amount saved by scrapping disability benefits: £1.4 billion.

Amount lost to corporate tax avoidance: £69.9 billion.

Amount spent on bank bailout: £500 billion.

Finding and exposing evidence of ConDem cruelty: priceless.

There are some people money can’t buy. Everyone else is a Tory politician.

 

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
  • 4 months later...

Thanks for the update on the situation, Margaret - guess we'll have to wait for the next decision now. Though I suspect if it goes in the condems favour then the matter may end up at ECHR.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

the system is designed to deal with a high volume of claimants who can accurately report the way in which their disability affects their fitness to work.

 

Just the mentally ill??? Ye gods, what about those that are not articulate or just see the ESA50 as a mind blowing exercise in filling it in? I'm quite able to deal with these forms yet with the first one I had, I just ticked a few boxes and put a little information down expecting the DWP/ATOS to not only contact my GP but all of the other medical professionals that are involved in my care. They contacted no one and instead called me to have an assessment. I was honest at that assessment which got me nowhere. The final ATOS report was pure fiction. Obviously I was told that I was fit for work and that I should claim JSA which I did. Yet after I spent time obtaining my records from 4 hospitals and my GP at a cost of over £270, I put together a report that completely rubbished the ATOS report. The DWP made another decision to say that I should be in the Support Group for the next 3 years - Jan 2010 - Jan 2013.

 

What would have happened if I wasn't capable, not because of a mental illness, to do this level of work? Not everyone is a budding barrister or is able to understand what the law requires.

 

At my review last January I purposely tested the system and once again ticked the boxes and gave no further information. I gave full details of all of my consultants etc, but omitted to give information that would have enabled ATOS/DWP to actually contact them. I also failed to put in any details that could have identified my GP. The ESA50 went off and I sat back to see what they would do - waiting for the fun and games to start up again.

After a few weeks I contacted ATOS who told me that they had issued a ESA113 to the GP that was shown on my 2010 ESA50. When I suggested to them that I might have changed GP's in the meantime, they told me that they would have looked at the ESA50 again?? None of my consultants have ever been contacted either in 2010 or this year.

 

As it was, my GP replied by way of a letter to the ESA113 telling ATOS/DWP that what I had put on the ESA50 was the truth.

 

With that letter and the partially completed ESA50 they decided to keep me where I was - in the Support Group for another 3 years.

 

It just goes to show that when ATOS/DWP are challenged with detailed evidence and a decently prepared submission they back down. But as I said, what happens to those that simply can't work to that level for any reason?

Edited by bedofweeds
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep the government say that A level exam results have been dumbed down then expect some poor person with mental problems to fill in a form that requires a degree in English to complete.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep the government say that A level exam results have been dumbed down then expect some poor person with mental problems to fill in a form that requires a degree in English to complete.

 

dpick

 

You need not have any form of mental illness to be unable to fill in the ESA50! In fact many aren't articulate enough to be able to write a simple letter to someone they know describing what their day has been like.

 

I have A levels in both English and Mathematics as well as a degree in Law! On top of that I have professional qualifications in the accountancy field, yet I needed my son in law solicitor to help me understand exactly what ATOS/DWP wanted as opposed to what they ask for on the ESA50. When you look at the descriptors that make up ESA, I found it very difficult to equate them to the questions and subjects on that particular form.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You need not have any form of mental illness to be unable to fill in the ESA50! In fact many aren't articulate enough to be able to write a simple letter to someone they know describing what their day has been like.

 

I have A levels in both English and Mathematics as well as a degree in Law! On top of that I have professional qualifications in the accountancy field, yet I needed my son in law solicitor to help me understand exactly what ATOS/DWP wanted as opposed to what they ask for on the ESA50. When you look at the descriptors that make up ESA, I found it very difficult to equate them to the questions and subjects on that particular form.

 

I find I am having to agree with you again, I have a degree in health care and twenty years experience as an R.G.N and it took me some time to figure out the ESA50. To quote my G.P "What does this mean?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
To quote my G.P "What does this mean?"

 

That is more or less what my GP said when faced with the ESA113 form.

 

I had to help him understand what the DWP were trying to get at and why. When the penny dropped, he told me that he would find it impossible to give a factual report based on the questions asked of him. Instead he wrote a letter telling the DWP to accept that what I had told them was all the true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...