Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


mrpopperspenguins

Call to scrap disability assessments

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1209 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

 

I'm of the view with ESA claims, that if a claimant has medical evidence, reports from a specialist ect, that confirms someone's condition, then unless they have very good grounds the DWP should award the benefit, these assessments are a waste of money and they know it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the view with ESA claims, that if a claimant has medical evidence, reports from a specialist ect, that confirms someone's condition, then unless they have very good grounds the DWP should award the benefit, these assessments are a waste of money and they know it

 

But it's not based on the condition. It's based on function. (or lack of)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's not based on the condition. It's based on function. (or lack of)

They don't seemed to be based on anything other than those who are able to fight the decision and not just lie down and die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the assessment is to get more information. So if a claimant doesn't give enough information, what is the alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the basic fault in the current system is that the default outcome is set at 'not entitled to benefit', be that ESA or PIP, or in other words, claimants are assumed to be lying on their forms. If it were turned around so that the default position is that a claimant is telling the truth and is entitled to benefit unless proven otherwise, the system would be much fairer.

 

Whilst the DWP go on about the number of successful appeals being only a small proportion of the total claims, the bottom line is that at least (since not everyone who might have succeeded will appeal) 60% of decisions to deny benefit are wrong. As an analogy, take HMRC and self-assessment tax returns. If they decided that 60% of returns were 'inaccurate' and those people had to pay double the amount of tax there would be riots - particularly since they simply do not have the number of staff to investigate that number of returns! Given that a lot of claimants have medical evidence and self-assessment returns do not require you to submit any supporting evidence, the bottom line is that the government is assuming that accountants are more honest than doctors!


RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea of the assessment is to get more information. So if a claimant doesn't give enough information, what is the alternative?

 

But, surely people do give enough info and are just ignored, or else why would so many be winning their appeals not all who appeal submit more info (I didn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won my appeal at Tribunal and i too did not submit any further evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had my pip reassessed early (3 year award, sent reassessment form bang on year early) had my care removed and mobility lowered from enhanced to standard !

I sent in all my medicines proof and proof I now take more medicine and condition has stablised but not gone - purely due to medicine, if i stopped my medicine I'd be constantly in hospital.

 

Call back from someone basically said I didn't send any supporting medical evidence, even though I clearly not cured ! I'd need new lungs to be cured !

Been told to go tribunal if I don't like it !!!!

 

Fuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's not based on the condition. It's based on function. (or lack of)

Gp's i think can refer patients to occupational therapists, they could give their clinical expert findings /opinion of how physical health conditions are likely to affect what someone is capable of , and a expert in mental health conditions is way better than what the DWP sub contract to for WCA's

 

There was little wrong with the older system when it was called IB, though that was harsh on some ,

But the idea of satisfying the descriptors for points isn't a fair way of assessing if someone is unable to work or not far from it, ESA it's self was not intended as a long term benefit,. they whole thing is rigged in the favour of the establishment thanks to IDS and NEW labour before him in i think 2010 the BMA condemned the WCA why has it not been changed so that it is fair & fit for purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My GP will not write supporting letters, he maintains all my info is there for them to see, and if he prescribes or feels I am not well enough to work - then that is his view after being my GP for over 20 years, not some 30 min medical by a none qualified person.

I know this does not help but that is his view.

I won my PIP appeal as the person who saw me had NO idea what border line personality disorder was, she kept asking did I have OCD (of which I don't) and commented in her report how 'together' I looked. She had read none of the report from my CPN or the psychiatrists report.

Her decision was overturned in a phone call.

 

It seems like a lottery to me, and nothing to do with how ill you really are, but more down to who you get to see and what way the wind is blowing that day.

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...