Tribunal 'partial victory' placed in WRAG.

[worried33]

18-24 months get the waiver for the full prognosis time, however I don't expect that particular concession to last much longer. December seems to be the month of change for the DWP, so I expect a raft of new conditionality to be rolled out within a week or so.

The agenda is to get anyone not in support group signing on for JSA, (in the case of mandatory revision before appeal) and force the rest onto the Work Programme. Either way, it's a no win for ESA claimants.

 

Is this agenda from within the DWP and pushed onto politicans or you think its from outside of the DWP been pushed onto it? (since the DWP's agends didnt really change between labour and tories except under the current government they seme to have ramped up the speed they dismantling the safety net).

 

I had a conversation with my dad yesterday, normally when I mention politics he changes the subject or something else to avoid it as he is typically a hardline tory so to avoid arguing, but his comment was he is sick to death of cameron and co, his words not mine. "All they b***** interested in is welfare cuts when its doing nothing for this country. They have no other ideas" Make no mistake my dad loved thatcher, but even he sees these guys are taking it to another level.

 

Also my younger sister has already told me she is voting labour due to the policy on utility bills, according to her lots of her work colleagues are thinking on the same lines, so I dont think the tories even have that much support from the people who they think they winning over. But are cameron and IDS going to go all out and push really hard for all these changes before the election knowing a new government will have a hell of a job to change things back, as after all it has taken decades to get these safety nets in place, and I think unum or whatever they are called have their dirty paws on all the major parties.

[Bazooka Boo]

Voting simply encourages them, besides there is no difference between any of them, they are all the same, they all collude and corroborate with each other.

There is no longer any need for a government, they no longer work to serve us, they only wish to feather their own nest and work for their own benefit.

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank you for everyone who has contributed/advised, and simply divulged their knowledge.

 

Today I went to my local Veterans Outreach service, a monthly drop in centre for veterans to 'drop in' for advice and guidance.

 

Spoke to a rep from the RBL who put it all into language I could understand, not laymans terms, but baby speak!

 

So it turns out, that even though I won my appeal, and they have given me 12 months before I am reassessed, what they deliberately WON'T tell you is that, the reassessment starts from the date of your ORIGINAL assessment, so although the tribunal appears to be friendly and impartial, they forget to inform you of the truth and actual fact.

 

So, whilst I am about to appeal, yet again! their decision to push me in WRAG rather than the support group, it would seem that, in the time I demand a 'statement of reasons' I may also be in receipt of another flawed corrupt ESA85 form to fill in and send off, to await yet another criminal interrogation by fake doctors and nurses for a disability they have no expertise in!

 

Now I am also going to be looking at suing the DWP for the costs incurred during this farce, not only have I been indebted as a direct result of their actions, my Mother has also been financially disadvantaged by them also, by having to put her own money into my bank account on a weekly basis since they F'd up.

 

I am ready to go now, I've not calmed down since last December when the fake Dr ticked boxes on his speak & spell, if they seriously believe they are going to continue with this, then they, and most certainly he, have a very big surprise coming to them.

[Lilly_Monroe]

Voting simply encourages them, besides there is no difference between any of them, they are all the same, they all collude and corroborate with each other.

There is no longer any need for a government, they no longer work to serve us, they only wish to feather their own nest and work for their own benefit.

 

Agree, the only thing to look at is our own personal circumstances, and decide what party might benefit us.

But as they all shoot from the same gun, then there is not much difference.

 

They all spin promises in the run up to an election, then when they are in power out they all go with the bath water.

[osdset]

So it turns out, that even though I won my appeal, and they have given me 12 months before I am reassessed, what they deliberately WON'T tell you is that, the reassessment starts from the date of your ORIGINAL assessment, so although the tribunal appears to be friendly and impartial, they forget to inform you of the truth and actual fact.

 

My original assessment was on 21/01/12 I won at appeal on 02/08/12 and was given 24 months before review, the DWP and JCP have both confirmed that my next review will be 01/08/14. So in my case the reassessment clock starts from the date of the appeal win.

Either I'm lucky or you have been given the wrong info.

 

The tribunal service have no jurisdiction over reassessment frequency, they can only make recommendations to the DWP who routinely ignore those recommendations.

[Bazooka Boo]

My original assessment was on 21/01/12 I won at appeal on 02/08/12 and was given 24 months before review, the DWP and JCP have both confirmed that my next review will be 01/08/14. So in my case the reassessment clock starts from the date of the appeal win.

 

Ah I see, maybe I have been given the wrong advice?

I guess I will just have to wait and see, if nothing else at least it wont come as a shock if another interrogation application drops on my doormat.

I was also told that ATOSsers had lost the contract to do the interrogations, when their current contract runs out?

[worried33]

Agree, the only thing to look at is our own personal circumstances, and decide what party might benefit us.

But as they all shoot from the same gun, then there is not much difference.

 

They all spin promises in the run up to an election, then when they are in power out they all go with the bath water.

 

There is differences but they do collude on various things, I think social security is one of those things.

 

Notice how every change to the social security system is designed to affect a certian generation, and the older generation gets protected and MP spin it off as "fair"

 

eg. raising the pension age to 70 for those born after a certian date is seen as fairer than cutting a % of existing and new pensions whilst keeping the same pension age.

raising the qualifier for full support to 25 than later to 35 so that generation is "used to" reduced help, in approx 10 years I have no doubt single room rate will apply to those under 45 to keep up with the generation change.

job centre staff giving older people an easier time of it. am I talking rubbish? why is the work programme dominated by young people.

council tax changes protecting pensioners.

 

the baby boomers had free university, factory work, full time employment vs temporary agency work, proper sickness benefits, dole without forced slave labour, better housing support, retire at 65, high wage inflation, cheaper houses, final salary pensions and more.

[Bazooka Boo]

Well that's it!

Come next month, the 7th Feb, my ESA contribution based stops, and I will be living, er surviving off my Army pension.

In a way I'm pretty pleased not to have to jump through anymore hoops and be accused of Benoit fraud on an annual basis by the DWP, but on the other hand, I am stewing slightly that those who have put into the pot are forced to live in poverty with a little help here and there by charities.

 

This government sucks.

Edited January 18, 2014 by honeybee13

[Nystagmite]

 

If your situation has changed, you could try and claim for support group if you meet the criteria.

[stu007]

Hi Bazooka Boo

 

Hope you don't mind me asking but is your Army Pension - an Attributable Pension by any chance?

[Bazooka Boo]

No sorry, my pension is a SIP, not a SAP, service invaliding pension as opposed to service attributable, although that is a bone of contention, and a very long story.

[stu007]

Hi Bazooka Boo

 

I know this mentions Attributable and it is a Pain if you just have SIP as for SIP to be classed as Attributable the percentage has to be 20% or more:

 

Armed Forces Attributable Benefits are paid where the injury, illness or death was caused by service before 6th April 2005. The benefits are paid under the attributable rules of the AFPS 1975 and Attributable benefits scheme order 2010. Full details of the legislation specific to each arm of service may be found at the link below:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/armed-forces-pension-scheme-1975-regulations

 

When a War Disablement Pension has been awarded under the Naval Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement or Death) Service Pension Order 2006 at the percentage rate of 20% or more, for the same illness/condition which the SIP from AFPS is payable, then the SIP changes to an attributable benefit which is then defined as a wounds pension.

 

A War Disablement Pension as defined in Section 150 of the Social Security contributions and benefits Act 1992 includes any retirement pay or pensions to which any of the paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 641 (1) Wounds and Disability Pensions of the income tax (Earning and Pensions) Act 2003 apply. All of these payments are tax free and include a wounds pension, retired pay of a disabled officer and a disability pension granted to a member of the armed forces on account of medical unfitness attributable to or aggravated by military service.

 

What this essentially means is that the armed forces pension is aligned with the war pension because a war disablement pension is paid for the same condition that a service invaliding pension is paid for.

 

A seperate stand-alone scheme the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme was introduced for those whose injury or illness was caused by service on or after 6th April 2005. The attributable benefit is paid from the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS). Although Tax exemption may be granted to the occupational pensions benefits under section 641 of the income tax (Earnings and Pension) Act 2003, the occupational pension from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme becomes aligned with the AFCS award only when a Guaranteed Income Payment has been granted from the AFCS for the same condition that resulted in medical discharge from active service.

[Bazooka Boo]

Thanks stu, I will give this a damn good read! Thank you!

[Bazooka Boo]

Well, I have sent off a letter requesting a statement of reasons and await the response.

In the meantime, my benefits stopped yesterday, and today saw me drop in to my LA to see about claiming HB, which has left me fuming to be honest.

 

It appears that as I owe them a monkey and a half, this will be deducted from any entitlement I get.

It appears that even though I wasn't getting my full entitlement of ESA because they cured my brain damage, that the HB entitlement I was getting, has now got to be repaid because my ESA was backdated?

 

Spitting feathers to put it mildly.....so, I have just completed a 'maladministration' complaint letter which will go off in the post tomorrow, lets see just how good their financial maladministration compensation is, as I am also going to be adding the money my mother put into my account every week just to keep me afloat...

 

I will start a new thread for this one I think, as it will undoubtedly be a long one!

[Perseus1]

Sorry, my apologies, and thank you all for your time and responses.

 

My prognosis, is a mere 12 (twelve) months......whilst I look and sound perfectly normal, whatever 'normal' means, I am not articulate enough to put into words how my brain injury affects me....

 

I am unsure as to whether I should appeal, accept their decision, or just drop out of society all together, and by that I mean, claim nothing, therefore pay nothing, just live off my Army disability pension, pay my rent, and electric and ignore everything else?

 

I actually cannot believe I served Queen & Country for 18 years,

 

Contact a group called Headway who help rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injuries. They do not do benefit advice though.

 

Note that you will be seen by a ATOS doctor and it is the DWP that will make the decision.

[Bazooka Boo]

Cheers Perseus, I'm a service user mentor for my local Headway group.

[Bazooka Boo]

Long story short, usual case with the welfare cull.

Scored zero points, went to tribunal, decision overturned, placed in WRAG (appeal in process currently)

DWP paid backpay (11 months worth) however in the time they weren't paying me I accrued some debt as a direct result of their flawed decision, including my own mother who paid her own money into my own account every week to keep me from sinking.

 

DWP have continually ignored this, I started their complaints process, the last letter being sent to the next level of the complaints process as the local office wouldn't deal with it.

 

I have now received the response, which has been passed back to the very office that wouldn't deal with it in the first instance.

It again regurgitates it's same old paragraph;

''Whilst it is appreciated that the tribunal service found you have limited capability for work, we do not accept that there has been any maladministration in this case''

''All decisions made by the DWP take fully into account all evidence that is available to the department at the time the decision is made, customers (yeah right!!)can provide further evidence to the tribunal to support their appeal which was not always made available to the DWP at the time of the original decision''

 

''They are confident that all processes and legislation have been followed correctly''

 

Now they have also decided in their infinite wisdom that it is not a complaint about the service they have provided, but a complaint about ''policy'' related matters??

 

My complaint to them, was that if they did not have enough evidence at the time of making the decision that they should not have been making a decision at all?

 

Is it just me? Am I looking at this at the wrong angle? Have I missed something obvious?

 

If they did not have enough evidence in the first place, why not ask for it?

Why make a decision on minimal limited evidence?

I have the evidence to show that my family were putting money into my account each week in order to keep me afloat, surely that is cause for financial redress due to maladministration??

[tomtom256]

Did you provide further evidence at your tribunal or was the decision based on evidence already held?

[antone]

What you've missed is that is your responsibility to provide evidence that will allow the DMs to come to a decision about your entitlement. You cannot assume that they will request further evidence - if what you supplied is insufficient, they will likely just base their decision on that insufficient evidence. If you gave further evidence to the Tribunal that allowed them to reach a different decision then all well and good, but as I said, it is not the responsibility of the DWP to make your case for entitlement to benefits and you cannot assume they will do this.

 

If you wish to pursue this further, perhaps your MP or the Independent Case Examiner could help?

[Shendor]

I'm no benefits genius, but why did you get your folks to pay direct into your a/c? Surely if this was short term help they could've given you cash in hand? Sorry if I missed something here.

[Bazooka Boo]

I'm no benefits genius, but why did you get your folks to pay direct into your a/c? Surely if this was short term help they could've given you cash in hand? Sorry if I missed something here.

 

Because they live 300 miles away.

 

Yes the tribunal did ask for more info, my med records from my DR, but at the tribunal which lasted 3 minutes, they asked me no further questions, gave no reasons for the change in decision, just that they upheld my complaint and overturned the original decision of being fit for work.

[Bazooka Boo]

Usual story, on IB since 2007 following a near fatal RTA and subsequent Brain Injury.

MD'd from the Army after 18 years due to the severity of the brain injury.

 

IB to ESA migration by ATOS, Dr and DM awarded me nil points, appealed, went to tribunal, partial victory appeal upheld but placed in WRAG, started the appeals process again, except it has taken the tribunal since November 2013 until today to send me the ''statement of reasons'' !! Almost as lethargic as ATOS and the whole dysfunctional appeals process..

 

Anyway, now that I have their statement of reasons I can see huge gaping holes in it, they've simply cherry picked bits and pieces of info from the date of my RTA (2005) to the current year......??

 

The get out clause here is that if I want to escalate the matter to the upper tribunal, then I have to find an ''error in law''?

 

I truly despise the use of that word ''Law'', as I know that what they are really referring to is rules and legislation, but I won't go down that route.

 

My point is, that not only do I disagree with the decision, but it seems I am unable to progress the matter, as how in the hell do I find an ''error in Law''?

 

I'm getting tired of this now, been fighting against the on an annual basis since 2007, if it isn't accusations of fraud, it's overpayments because they claim I negated to divulge some sort of information. Then the constant jumping through hoops to justify my disability, ignoring letters of complaint claiming not to have received them yadda yadda yadda.

 

They're doing a very good job of wearing me down, it's a war of attrition, and here was me thinking all my battles and conflicts were over?

Edited April 14, 2014 by honeybee13
Pejorative terms.

[BazzaS]

I read "error in law" in 2 different ways:

 

A) (as you have mentioned) : a misapplication of statute or their own rules / regs, or the wider sense of

B) "not a question of fact / new evidence", so you can't say. "They've interpreted the evidence wrongly" - but still leaving open the challenges (as per Diplock / CCSU / judicial review grounds) of:

i) illegality

ii) irrationality, and/or

iii) procedural impropriety.

 

So, you can't say "I disagree with the conclusion they have drawn from the evidence", but can say "I disagree with their conclusion as it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic that no-one could reasonably have reached that conclusion" (it is a pretty high hurdle to get over!)

 

Illegality grounds would include such as : "they have taken into account irrelevant factors OR not taken into account relevant factors"

 

Procedural impropriety would be such as bias.

 

I'm no expert on welfare / Upper Tier Tribunal appeals : is there a support group of people who have been through the "system" and know the "rules" for " playing them at their own game "?

[estellyn]

Ok, what you need to focus on is the grounds that you feel you qualified for the support group on, and provided evidence for.

 

 

So first tell us what the grounds were and summarise what evidence you provided to the Tribunal (both written and oral).

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank you both, very much for responding.

 

Greatly appreciated, and will attempt to respond tomorrow.

 

The only evidence provided at the tribunal was written, they negated the need for any oral evidence, which could very well be a procedural impropriety, I am able to use the RBL ''independent living'' team to attend my tribunal, but once again, these are people who Know nothing about me and are merely in attendance as my ''appropriate adult''.