DS Forums

 
 

Government hid reports on the deaths of benefit claimants from independent expert


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-12-2016, 16:52
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Stop, just stop trying to defend this system. You don't know anything about it. Please don't say "but I work...." It's a crap argument, unless you have been on the end of it you should just stop defending it!
I have an ESA appeal tribunal hearing next month. Does that give a clue as to whether I know what I'm talking about? I seem to include more quotes from official sources than everybody else put together. At least one of us tries to get at the truth of matters.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-12-2016, 16:54
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
What changes were made that "made them worse", that weren't suggested under Labour(ie Oct 2009) or by one of the independent reviews?
How have the Tories made them better, have you been through the system, do you know how bad it is, have you not been keeping up with what has been happening in the last six years, did you not pay attention to the OP's post? In short another Tory "they must all be scroungers" type buries head in sand and tries to convince everyone black is white.
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:02
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
The thread is about ESA.
Well here is a good one on ESA . http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com...er-its-tracks/. DWP issued guidance that made suicides more likely, then ‘lied’ to cover its tracks

The government has secretly made major changes to guidance given to “fitness for work” benefits assessors that has put the lives of thousands of disabled claimants at risk… and then “lied” about what it had done. ( And this is how you do it though the back door ) Because the changes were carried out through updated guidance – rather than changes to legislation or regulations – DWP did not seek the approval of parliament for the alterations.
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:02
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
How have the Tories made them better, have you been through the system, do you know how bad it is, have you not been keeping up with what has been happening in the last six years, did you not pay attention to the OP's post? In short another Tory "they must all be scroungers" type buries head in sand and tries to convince everyone black is white.
They've followed and implemented the suggestions of independent reviews where possible. What is wrong with that?

Why are people so reluctant to give specific examples of adverse changes?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:10
Johnny_Sinclair
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 66
What changes were made that "made them worse", that weren't suggested under Labour(ie Oct 2009) or by one of the independent reviews?
Here's just one example of many Here

and all because as far as the tory government was concerned too many people were getting into the SG.
Johnny_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:11
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
They've followed and implemented the suggestions of independent reviews where possible. What is wrong with that?

Why are people so reluctant to give specific examples of adverse changes?
Exactly! An independent review where evidence was withheld, lets all go and cheer!. You go and look it up instead of having me do it, there is evidence all over the internet most of it from official sources. However I will give you one to get you started, the changes made to the WCA and the WRAG.
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:12
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Well here is a good one on ESA . http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com...er-its-tracks/. DWP issued guidance that made suicides more likely, then ‘lied’ to cover its tracks

The government has secretly made major changes to guidance given to “fitness for work” benefits assessors that has put the lives of thousands of disabled claimants at risk… and then “lied” about what it had done. ( And this is how you do it though the back door ) Because the changes were carried out through updated guidance – rather than changes to legislation or regulations – DWP did not seek the approval of parliament for the alterations.
So what? ESA is only concerned with the work environment. If you are suicidal or self-harm and it's not connected to a general work environment, it's not relevant to ESA or this thread.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:12
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
As I have pointed out you have to wait 6 months before submitting a fresh ESA claim. That restriction was also there for Incapacity benefit, so NOTHING NEW. All he had to do was submit an appeal and sick notes would be accepted;
How can sick notes be accepted when the DWP has instructed a doctor not to issue any?

Also, as of 30th March 2015, the six month rule no longer exists. A repeat ESA claim cannot be made unless an existing condition has significantly worsened or a new condition arises.
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:15
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Exactly! An independent review where evidence was withheld, lets all go and cheer!. You go and look it up instead of having me do it, there is evidence all over the internet most of it from official sources. However I will give you one to get you started, the changes made to the WCA and the WRAG.
I HAVE looked it up. That is how I can QUOTE things.

What specific changes that weren't suggested before 2010 or by independent reviews? Why is that so difficult? You must have specific examples in mind, so what are they?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:17
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
So what? ESA is only concerned with the work environment. If you are suicidal or self-harm and it's not connected to a general work environment, it's not relevant to ESA or this thread.
Sorry you are incorrect as its part of the ESA WCA handbook. The guidance in the WCA handbook explains to assessors how they should translate ESA regulations 29 and 35, which concern whether decisions to find someone fit for work or able to carry out work-related activity would cause a substantial risk of harm.
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:28
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
How can sick notes be accepted when the DWP has instructed a doctor not to issue any?
Because LONG-STANDING rules say that they would be ignored.

The process after an adverse original decision is a mandatory reconsideration. If that fails, you can appeal. At that stage you have to get a sick note to continue. You can get the GP to date it from the day after the original decision. You get backdated ESA and housing benefit, council tax reduction etc.

From 2009, ie UNDER LABOUR.
Edward Graham explains the rules allowing ESA to be paid on repeat claims and pending appeals.
Introduction
The first set of official statistics produced by the DWP on the operation of the work capability assessment (WCA) for employment and support allowance (ESA) shows a significantly higher than anticipated failure rate (see article on p. 11 for details). This article examines some of the common issues that arise when entitlement to ESA ends because of a failure to satisfy the WCA, and the options open to claimants to reestablish entitlement. The key legal provision is regulation 30 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 20081which sets out the rules allowing claimants to be paid ESA pending assessment under the WCA.
...
Example 2
Betty claimed ESA in January 2009, but failed the WCA on 6th May. She did not appeal as she scored no points and assumed she had no grounds for appeal. She was unable to cope with claiming JSA and in October 2009 she made another claim for ESA. The DWP should accept her claim, but tell her that as it is within 6 moths of a decision that she did not have limited capability for work, she cannot be treated as having limited capability for work pending reassessment under the WCA. She will not be paid benefit until it has been determined whether she actually has limited capability for work. The DWP should arrange a new WCA immediately. If this has not happened by the 6th November (6 months from previous decision), the DWP should begin paying Betty ESA as Regulation 30(1) now applies.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:43
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Sorry you are incorrect as its part of the ESA WCA handbook. The guidance in the WCA handbook explains to assessors how they should translate ESA regulations 29 and 35, which concern whether decisions to find someone fit for work or able to carry out work-related activity would cause a substantial risk of harm.
So I'm right in that simply feeling suicidal, because you've been dumped, doesn't count.
The guidance makes clear that this provision should only be applied in exceptional circumstances, and that in applying the guidance a two stage process should be followed:
 Stage one – assess the evidence of risk of suicide or self-harm
 Stage two – assess whether substantial risk would be triggered by a finding that the claimant is able to seek employment or is able to undertake activity to prepare them to move towards work (bearing in mind that there is good evidence that the right sort of employment is in general good for mental health).
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:45
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
So I'm right in that simply feeling suicidal, because you've been dumped, doesn't count.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...YklEYNYEg5fLxw. A SUICIDAL lorry driver who was declared 'fit for work' by the multinational firm Atos despite his own doctor saying it would be unsafe for him to be on the roads has won his appeal against a decision to strip him of his sickness benefits.
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 17:45
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
Because LONG-STANDING rules say that they would be ignored.

The process after an adverse original decision is a mandatory reconsideration. If that fails, you can appeal. At that stage you have to get a sick note to continue. You can get the GP to date it from the day after the original decision. You get backdated ESA and housing benefit, council tax reduction etc.

From 2009, ie UNDER LABOUR.
I doubt that there is much you can tell me that I do not already know about ESA claims. His doctor was instructed by the DWP not to issue a fit note, which in itself is deplorable.

Again, you state that all he had to do was make a mandatory reconsideration and then appeal, at which point a fit note is required. How can a person continue with an appeal when the doctor has been instructed by the DWP not to issue a fit note?

A fit note is medical evidence of not being fit enough to work, that also applies if a claimant is forced to claim JSA after failing a WCA.

Please don't suggest yet another scenario in which he could have got a fit note from his doctor and everything would have been fine, he could NOT get a fit note from his doctor as the DWP instructed his doctor not to issue one.
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:03
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
Why are people so reluctant to give specific examples of adverse changes?
Removing and merging descriptors. So people score less points.
Changing descriptors wording. So people score less points
Reducing the points for descriptors. So people score less points.
Having the assessment on what they could be imagined able to do with aids and equipment they do not have and with medical treatments or medicines they are not receiving. So people score less points.
Ceasing adding physical and mental descriptors together. So people score less points.

Ending passporting of people severely disabled from childhood to contributions based ESA support group.

Time limiting contributions based ESA wrag to 12 months.

Changing the appeals system. Requiring mandatory reconsideration with no time limit on how long the DWP take and during which ESA is not paid. Removing eligibility for legal aid in the appeal process.

For ESA wrag changing the conditionality regime to include indefinite unpaid work placements and changing the sanctions regime increasing sanctions to £73.10

For new claimants of ESA wrag reducing the wrag component to nothing.

For new claimants of ESA support group (who live alone and have no one claiming carer's allowance for them) removing eligibility for severe disability premium. Being implemented with Universal credit.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:05
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...YklEYNYEg5fLxw. A SUICIDAL lorry driver who was declared 'fit for work' by the multinational firm Atos despite his own doctor saying it would be unsafe for him to be on the roads has won his appeal against a decision to strip him of his sickness benefits.
So what? For regulations 29 and 35 to apply the risk has to come being refused ESA. There is still no evidence there in this case that regs 29 and 35 applied. Tribunals can get it wrong. Eg A Tribunal ruled that using a bucket was suitable for dealing with incontinence in a work environment.
From ORIGINAL law, ie UNDER LABOUR.
Certain claimants to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity
35.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—
(a) the claimant is terminally ill;
(b) the claimant is—
(i) receiving treatment by way of intravenous, intraperitoneal or intrathecal
chemotherapy; or
(ii) recovering from that treatment and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant should be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity; or
(c) in the case of a woman, she is pregnant and there is a serious risk of damage to her health or to the health of her unborn child if she does not refrain from work-related activity.
(2) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work-related activity as determined in accordance with regulation 34(1) is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—
(a) the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement; and
(b) by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:14
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
I doubt that there is much you can tell me that I do not already know about ESA claims. His doctor was instructed by the DWP not to issue a fit note, which in itself is deplorable.

Again, you state that all he had to do was make a mandatory reconsideration and then appeal, at which point a fit note is required. How can a person continue with an appeal when the doctor has been instructed by the DWP not to issue a fit note?

A fit note is medical evidence of not being fit enough to work, that also applies if a claimant is forced to claim JSA after failing a WCA.

Please don't suggest yet another scenario in which he could have got a fit note from his doctor and everything would have been fine, he could NOT get a fit note from his doctor as the DWP instructed his doctor not to issue one.
He hadn't appealed, so a sick note wouldn't be accepted at that point. If he had appealed, it would have been accepted. I doubt the GP had been told under no circumstances whatsoever to issue a sick note. By the looks of it, there was no open claim of JSA or ESA, so a sick note was redundant. There was nothing to apply it against. The mandatory reconsideration and appeal phases keep the ESA claim open. If the ESA claim becomes closed, there has to be a fresh claim for JSA or ESA.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:39
tiacat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,229
So what? ESA is only concerned with the work environment. If you are suicidal or self-harm and it's not connected to a general work environment, it's not relevant to ESA or this thread.
Where did you get that from. You do know that someone with a mental health problem may not be able to work.
tiacat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:42
tiacat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,229
He hadn't appealed, so a sick note wouldn't be accepted at that point. If he had appealed, it would have been accepted. I doubt the GP had been told under no circumstances whatsoever to issue a sick note. By the looks of it, there was no open claim of JSA or ESA, so a sick note was redundant. There was nothing to apply it against. The mandatory reconsideration and appeal phases keep the ESA claim open. If the ESA claim becomes closed, there has to be a fresh claim for JSA or ESA.
How would a GP know whether the patient had appealed or not? If I go to my GP because I need to be signed off work, I dont tell them or need to tell them if Im making a claim for benefits or whether its for work purposes.

The problem appears to be in that example, that either the GP believed they shouldnt be giving sick notes or they didnt feel the patient was sick enough to be signed off. We dont know. However your very back to front thinking in this doesnt make any sense. A person can hardly appeal against a decision if they dont have the sick note to appeal with.
tiacat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:42
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Removing and merging descriptors. So people score less points.
Changing descriptors wording. So people score less points
Reducing the points for descriptors. So people score less points.
Having the assessment on what they could be imagined able to do with aids and equipment they do not have and with medical treatments or medicines they are not receiving. So people score less points.
Ceasing adding physical and mental descriptors together. So people score less points.

Ending passporting of people severely disabled from childhood to contributions based ESA support group.

Time limiting contributions based ESA wrag to 12 months.

Changing the appeals system. Requiring mandatory reconsideration with no time limit on how long the DWP take and during which ESA is not paid. Removing eligibility for legal aid in the appeal process.

For ESA wrag changing the conditionality regime to include indefinite unpaid work placements and changing the sanctions regime increasing sanctions to £73.10

For new claimants of ESA wrag reducing the wrag component to nothing.

For new claimants of ESA support group (who live alone and have no one claiming carer's allowance for them) removing eligibility for severe disability premium. Being implemented with Universal credit.
Which descriptors? I'll think you'll find most(if not all) of the changes and reductions were suggested in 2009, ie under LABOUR.

Changing the ESA WRAG component to nothing is simply RESTORING the previous incapacity benefit situation. Under the old system you got no increase until after 12 months. The implied intention of ESA WRAG is that the medical situation is expected to improve in the next 12 months.

Contributions based IB was also time-limited, along with JSA.

August 2008
The criteria for determination of limited capability for work are set out in the
Welfare Reform Act 2007:
The claimant will be considered as having limited capability for work if he:
ı scores 15 points in respect of the physical descriptors, or
ı 15 points in respect of the Mental Function descriptors or
ı 15 points in respect of the descriptors in a combination of mental function
and physical descriptors
).
July 2016
The criteria for determination of limited capability for work are set out in the Regulations:
“The claimant will be considered as having limited capability for work if he/she scores at least: 15 points in respect of the physical descriptors; or 15 points in respect of the Mental Function descriptors; or 15 points in respect of the descriptors in a combination of mental function and physical descriptors
What is the real difference between the two?

The mandatory reconsideration is expected to take 2 weeks. The gap between benefit payments is also 2 weeks, so that alone shouldn't be a problem. It is possible to get a rapid payment of any arrears. Eg My bank account was credited within one hour of the phone call.

There are free welfare advice organisations, so why is legal aid needed?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:44
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Where did you get that from. You do know that someone with a mental health problem may not be able to work.
The talk was of regulations 29 and 35, that apply if you don't score enough points.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:54
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
How would a GP know whether the patient had appealed or not? If I go to my GP because I need to be signed off work, I dont tell them or need to tell them if Im making a claim for benefits or whether its for work purposes.

The problem appears to be in that example, that either the GP believed they shouldnt be giving sick notes or they didnt feel the patient was sick enough to be signed off. We dont know. However your very back to front thinking in this doesnt make any sense. A person can hardly appeal against a decision if they dont have the sick note to appeal with.
We have no idea what the DWP letter actually said. It certainly wouldn't say "under no circumstances whatsoever", so it was likely to have said why, if indeed it said anything at all of that sort.

You don't need a sick note to appeal. It's needed to continue getting ESA at the assessment rate and to keep the claim open. You could appeal to the Tribunals service and then get a sick note.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 18:56
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
I have an ESA appeal tribunal hearing next month. Does that give a clue as to whether I know what I'm talking about? I seem to include more quotes from official sources than everybody else put together. At least one of us tries to get at the truth of matters.
Good luck with your appeal, are you going to the appeal ? is someone supporting you with your appeal. I had a fresh assessment on the 8 dec, got letter on the 19th support group which has never changed and never likely too
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 19:23
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Good luck with your appeal, are you going to the appeal ? is someone supporting you with your appeal. I had a fresh assessment on the 8 dec, got letter on the 19th support group which has never changed and never likely too
I am going to the appeal. Luckily the Tribunal location is in the same town and near the bus station. The local advice organisation have said they will do a pre-hearing appointment with me, but not attend the hearing itself in order to save costs. I had a PIP hearing just before Christmas and the result of that although only nearly successful, the points should be enough to make the ESA hearing a foregone conclusion.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 19:28
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
Which descriptors? I'll think you'll find most(if not all) of the changes and reductions were suggested in 2009, ie under LABOUR.
Please provide evidence that the descriptor changes made in 2011 and implemented against the advice of committee, charities, and professional bodies were both suggested under Labour and would have been implemented by Labour.

I agree that the changes to the ESA descriptors and points all appear to have been made in 2011 and none since, However guidance on some of the descriptors has been changed, this may however be down to case law.

Changing the ESA WRAG component to nothing is simply RESTORING the previous incapacity benefit situation. Under the old system you got no increase until after 12 months. The implied intention of ESA WRAG is that the medical situation is expected to improve in the next 12 months.
ESA wrag is being reduced for new claimants for the duration of their claim not just the first 12 months. Also short-term Incapacity benefit was higher than unemployment benefit. ESA wrag is being reduced to the same as JSA. Also ESA replaced income support on grounds of disability the reduction in ESA wrag in effect removes what was the income support disability premium
Contributions based IB was also time-limited, along with JSA.
Contributions based IB was not time limited.
August 2008

July 2016

What is the real difference between the two?
Thank you for correcting my error. The change was proposed in 2013 but not implemented.
The mandatory reconsideration is expected to take 2 weeks. The gap between benefit payments is also 2 weeks, so that alone shouldn't be a problem. It is possible to get a rapid payment of any arrears. Eg My bank account was credited within one hour of the phone call.
2 weeks is just a guideline target the reconsideration takes as long as the DWP takes.
There are free welfare advice organisations, so why is legal aid needed?
Because legal representation assists claimants, those with it on average win more often than those without. The DWP has increased its legal representation at tribunals so more tribunals benefit from the legal opinion of the DWP. So now at a tribunals the claimants are less likely to have had expert legal advice and have a legal advisor present while the DWP are more likely to.

What of the other points I raised in post 65 do you agree they made ESA worse?
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24.