Completely agree. It just shows - again - how broken the whole assessment system really is.
I am at a loss to understand this assertion. Any Daily Fail reader will jump up from under their bridge and tell you it's the fault of those on benefits period. Yet those of us who choose to live in the real world, know that benefit fraud is miniscule.
(ps sorry Jason - obviously I agree)
..It now remains at less than 1%. But guess where all the true fraud lies..? Oh yup right at the doorstep of all those atypically associated with rags like the Fail. You do have to laugh at the inate stupidity of these unbelieveably hypocritical people. Most fraud in the UK is some kind of tax fraud, which is more prevalent the richer one becomes. BUT because numbers wise, there are fewer of these cheats - it seems the DF readers are incapable of getting their brainwashed noodles around the fact, that this is because there are also far fewer people with this kind of money in the first place.
It's not the poor who rip off the country. It's the rich..simple fact, always has been, still is and likely always will be.
Surely the purpose of the original decision had nothing to do with the right assessment but getting across, the lengths and measures,---how hard these decision makers are prepared to be towards other claimants.
It is blindingly obvious this decision was going to be questioned and reversed, so why make it?
I am left to wonder how many claims have been rejected or left to go to appeal off the back of the original decision involving this man.
( If we can do it to this man, what chance do you think you have with a claim or appeal),
Nothing to do with fairness or need, all about being seen to be hard, government savings and targets.
A spokesperson from the DWP told The Huffington Post UK that the decision was changed after Bailey submitted more evidence to support his case for having his benefits reinstated.
The spokesperson said: “Decisions are based on the medical evidence provided.
“Mr Bailey has given us more details of his medical history, and has now been found eligible for the benefit.”
Looks as though this has been revised in house by a DWP decision maker, and never got to the independent tribunal stage.
I wonder how much influence the media publicity had in that?
Looks as though this has been revised in house by a DWP decision maker, and never got to the independent tribunal stage.
I wonder how much influence the media publicity had in that?
none probably, his treatment by the dwp is very common, refuse it first and then allow if a reconsideration is asked for, you have to do that first before you can go to a tribunal.
edit:
this is what sick people are having to go through:
A seriously sick and disabled woman has been told her vital disability benefits will be cut, despite having had two kidney transplants and requiring oxygen to be able to get through each night.
Ann Forster, 56, says she is a victim of the government’s “flawed” benefits assessment system, after a face-to-face assessment found she wasn’t ill enough to continue receiving £220 a month is disability benefits.
Mrs Forster was assessed for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) at her home in Kirby-in-Ashford, Nottinghamshire.
A subsequent decision letter claims she could stand and move more than 200 metres with no significant difficulty or breathlessness.
The letter says Mrs Forster “completed all movements at a normal pace with no pain, discomfort or breathlessness”.
“You said you have difficulties with moving around, but I have decided you can stand and then move more than 200 metres as the examination showed no significant restrictions and no breathlessness was observed.”
But Mrs Forster’s husband Geoff says his wife “didn’t even leave the room” during the 30-minute home assessment.
“She didn’t even leave the settee but for a metre to stand up and bend over, that was it”, he told the BBC.
Under the rules these Tories have in place and or how they are interpreted, nothing surprises me with them and their general hardline stances on such things.
This reminds me when a Labour MP asked David Cameron a brilliant rhetorical question that "Could the PM confirm the reports that ATOS have declared Richard The Third fit for work"!
none probably, his treatment by the dwp is very common, refuse it first and then allow if a reconsideration is asked for, you have to do that first before you can go to a tribunal.
Reconsiderations are mandatory when a decision is disputed, but the majority of PCA cases are rubber stamped in favour of the original decision, not withstanding additional evidence, as the staff are not medically trained. Only then will it proceed to appeal, if the claimant has made it clear that it is an "appeal", as opposed to simply a dispute.
At the PCA appeal tribunal, there is always a Doctor present to weigh up all the original and additional evidence.
Reconsiderations are mandatory when a decision is disputed, but the majority of PCA cases are rubber stamped in favour of the original decision, not withstanding additional evidence, as the staff are not medically trained. Only then will it proceed to appeal, if the claimant has made it clear that it is an "appeal", as opposed to simply a dispute.
At the PCA appeal tribunal, there is always a Doctor present to weigh up all the original and additional evidence.
you`re just adding to what i said so i`m not sure what you`re saying.
It seem's that every single person who has to take these assessment's end up needing to appeal to get the decision overturned. I am yet to see one person say they have scored enough points to keep their benefits.
This system is flawed and they know it. It was set up to get people off benefits, not try and work out who is and isn't fit for work.
It seem's that every single person who has to take these assessment's end up needing to appeal to get the decision overturned. I am yet to see one person say they have scored enough points to keep their benefits.
This system is flawed and they know it. It was set up to get people off benefits, not try and work out who is and isn't fit for work.
my upstairs neighbour just got pip from indefinite middle rate dla, full rate, no in person assessment, mental health, it all seems rather random.
Anyone who thinks it would be different under Labour is foolish at best. The world has changed - the benefits budget is way out of control and any party winning at an election, once they have seen the books, is going to change nothing.
The current and predicted populations are only going to make it worse - we already have not enough schools, hospital and care beds. Population growth with or without immigration is growing exponentially.
It is VERY wrong that those in genuine need do not get what they ought to - but I work in the NHS and I see malingerers every working day. The only thing is - those shirkers know how to lie, cheat and fill in the forms!
Anyone who thinks it would be different under Labour is foolish at best. The world has changed - the benefits budget is way out of control and any party winning at an election, once they have seen the books, is going to change nothing.
The current and predicted populations are only going to make it worse - we already have not enough schools, hospital and care beds. Population growth with or without immigration is growing exponentially.
It is VERY wrong that those in genuine need do not get what they ought to - but I work in the NHS and I see malingerers every working day. The only thing is - those shirkers know how to lie, cheat and fill in the forms!
So you are happy for these assesments to continue knowing what the effects are to the genuine?
These assesments could easily be designed so the genuine will be supported, but they are not. They are designed to take people off benefits, genuine or not. There is also a lack of common sense applied where it's pretty darnm obvious that they are genuine.
Anyone who thinks it would be different under Labour is foolish at best. The world has changed - the benefits budget is way out of control and any party winning at an election, once they have seen the books, is going to change nothing.
The current and predicted populations are only going to make it worse - we already have not enough schools, hospital and care beds. Population growth with or without immigration is growing exponentially.
It is VERY wrong that those in genuine need do not get what they ought to - but I work in the NHS and I see malingerers every working day. The only thing is - those shirkers know how to lie, cheat and fill in the forms!
So, if the benefits budget is out of control, why penalise those who need it the most?
So you are happy for these assesments to continue knowing what the effects are to the genuine?
These assesments could easily be designed so the genuine will be supported, but they are not. They are designed to take people off benefits, genuine or not. There is also a lack of common sense applied where it's pretty darnm obvious that they are genuine.
So, if the benefits budget is out of control, why penalise those who need it the most?
I said that it would be no different with ANY government and stand by that - never said I was happy with the assessments or that genuine claimants should be penalised.
Please enlighten me as to how to reduce the number of people on benefits?
I said that it would be no different with ANY government and stand by that - never said I was happy with the assessments or that genuine claimants should be penalised.
Please enlighten me as to how to reduce the number of people on benefits?
For a start they could apply common sense and see their medical records. Only qualified people should do the assesments and it needs to stop being a ticked boxed exercise.
You think endless appeals is saving taxpayers money?
For a start they could apply common sense and see their medical records. Only qualified people should do the assesments and it needs to stop being a ticked boxed exercise.
You think endless appeals is saving taxpayers money?
There's also no point of constantly assessing people for whom there's no cure or treatment for their conditions.
Comments
I am at a loss to understand this assertion. Any Daily Fail reader will jump up from under their bridge and tell you it's the fault of those on benefits period. Yet those of us who choose to live in the real world, know that benefit fraud is miniscule.
(ps sorry Jason - obviously I agree)
..It now remains at less than 1%. But guess where all the true fraud lies..? Oh yup right at the doorstep of all those atypically associated with rags like the Fail. You do have to laugh at the inate stupidity of these unbelieveably hypocritical people. Most fraud in the UK is some kind of tax fraud, which is more prevalent the richer one becomes. BUT because numbers wise, there are fewer of these cheats - it seems the DF readers are incapable of getting their brainwashed noodles around the fact, that this is because there are also far fewer people with this kind of money in the first place.
It's not the poor who rip off the country. It's the rich..simple fact, always has been, still is and likely always will be.
Kryptonite Reading For Daily Fail Automatons
0.7%..? Shirley Knott !!
Evidence overload alert
..unless you read a certain type of periodical that most the rest of us would not use to clean our arses with.
The fact that half of his skull is missing should have given them a small clue.
It is blindingly obvious this decision was going to be questioned and reversed, so why make it?
I am left to wonder how many claims have been rejected or left to go to appeal off the back of the original decision involving this man.
( If we can do it to this man, what chance do you think you have with a claim or appeal),
Nothing to do with fairness or need, all about being seen to be hard, government savings and targets.
I suspect there may be a little more to the job of being the world's leading theoretical physicist than you realise.
Looks as though this has been revised in house by a DWP decision maker, and never got to the independent tribunal stage.
I wonder how much influence the media publicity had in that?
none probably, his treatment by the dwp is very common, refuse it first and then allow if a reconsideration is asked for, you have to do that first before you can go to a tribunal.
edit:
this is what sick people are having to go through:
http://www.welfareweekly.com/disabled-woman-who-cant-get-through-the-night-without-oxygen-told-shell-lose-vital-benefits/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36371498
and still you get cretinous individuals who think it`s too easy.
This reminds me when a Labour MP asked David Cameron a brilliant rhetorical question that "Could the PM confirm the reports that ATOS have declared Richard The Third fit for work"!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21354087
Reconsiderations are mandatory when a decision is disputed, but the majority of PCA cases are rubber stamped in favour of the original decision, not withstanding additional evidence, as the staff are not medically trained. Only then will it proceed to appeal, if the claimant has made it clear that it is an "appeal", as opposed to simply a dispute.
At the PCA appeal tribunal, there is always a Doctor present to weigh up all the original and additional evidence.
you`re just adding to what i said so i`m not sure what you`re saying.
This system is flawed and they know it. It was set up to get people off benefits, not try and work out who is and isn't fit for work.
my upstairs neighbour just got pip from indefinite middle rate dla, full rate, no in person assessment, mental health, it all seems rather random.
The current and predicted populations are only going to make it worse - we already have not enough schools, hospital and care beds. Population growth with or without immigration is growing exponentially.
It is VERY wrong that those in genuine need do not get what they ought to - but I work in the NHS and I see malingerers every working day. The only thing is - those shirkers know how to lie, cheat and fill in the forms!
These assesments could easily be designed so the genuine will be supported, but they are not. They are designed to take people off benefits, genuine or not. There is also a lack of common sense applied where it's pretty darnm obvious that they are genuine.
So, if the benefits budget is out of control, why penalise those who need it the most?
I said that it would be no different with ANY government and stand by that - never said I was happy with the assessments or that genuine claimants should be penalised.
Please enlighten me as to how to reduce the number of people on benefits?
You think endless appeals is saving taxpayers money?
There's also no point of constantly assessing people for whom there's no cure or treatment for their conditions.