DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-12-2016, 20:12
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
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. Let alone the changes made since.


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 not time limited.

Thank you for correcting my error. The change was proposed in 2013 but not implemented.

2 weeks is just a guideline target the reconsideration takes as long as the DWP takes.
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?
The advice of charities etc is not independent.
Income support/Incapacity benefit was paid for the first 12 months at the same rate as JSA. It was in my case.

Any DWP representation at a tribunal is as a "friend of the court". They are meant to represent BOTH sides and give legal advice that could be in your favour. The legal advice doesn't need to be given at the tribunal. It just need to be presented in writing to the Tribunal.

So what did you specify in post 65? Which descriptors changed without a review suggesting them?

There are rules and guidelines around what aids are "reasonable" to use. Eg Why would it be unreasonable to use a walking stick if you needed to?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-12-2016, 20:28
Johnny_Sinclair
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 66
Which descriptors changed without a review suggesting them?
The imaginary wheelchair was introduced for the "mobilising" descriptors.
Johnny_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 20:53
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
The imaginary wheelchair was introduced for the "mobilising" descriptors.
That was in the Oct 2009 review.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 20:57
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,230
The advice of charities etc is not independent.
Income support/Incapacity benefit was paid for the first 12 months at the same rate as JSA. It was in my case.

Any DWP representation at a tribunal is as a "friend of the court". They are meant to represent BOTH sides and give legal advice that could be in your favour. The legal advice doesn't need to be given at the tribunal. It just need to be presented in writing to the Tribunal.

So what did you specify in post 65? Which descriptors changed without a review suggesting them?

There are rules and guidelines around what aids are "reasonable" to use. Eg Why would it be unreasonable to use a walking stick if you needed to?
Why do you keep defending the DWP?

There's enough evidence to show they are corrupt, incompetent and lack compassion.
CELT1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 21:05
Thiswillbefun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,581
Tory treatment of the disabled is the main reason I would never vote for them.
The Tory treatment of humans as cattle is the reason I'll never vote Tory.

Meanwhile the likes of Philip Green get away with a discussion of whether his knighthood should be removed.
Thiswillbefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 21:05
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Why do you keep defending the DWP?

There's enough evidence to show they are corrupt, incompetent and lack compassion.
It is the DWP staff that are the problem. The rules are generally fine. A few criminal prosecutions for "misconduct in public office" should sort the staff out. Although the Unions will inevitably squeal about it.

The REAL problems will continue as long as people keep dodging what the REAL problems actually are.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 21:08
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,230
It is the DWP staff that are the problem. The rules are generally fine. A few criminal prosecutions for "misconduct in public office" should sort the staff out. Although the Unions will inevitably squeal about it.
Wont happen though as DWP staff are untouchable.
CELT1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 21:49
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
The advice of charities etc is not independent.
And the cross party parliamentary committee and the professional bodies?

Your point about charities also does not answer my question about evidence the 2011 changes were proposed under Labour and would have been implemented if Labour had won in 2010. I also do not get how that claim removes responsibility from the Coalition government that did implemented them.

Income support/Incapacity benefit was paid for the first 12 months at the same rate as JSA. It was in my case.
2007 benefit rates
JSA aged 25+ £59.15
IB short term lower rate £61.35
Income support personal allowance + disability premium £84.40

Your point about the first 12 months also does not answer my point about the reduction to ESA wrag being for the duration of the claim not just the first 12 months.
Any DWP representation at a tribunal is as a "friend of the court". They are meant to represent BOTH sides and give legal advice that could be in your favour. The legal advice doesn't need to be given at the tribunal. It just need to be presented in writing to the Tribunal.
So is it coincidental that when the DWP sends a legal advisor the DWP wins more often than when it does not? And when claimants bring their own legal advisor they win more often than when they do not?
So what did you specify in post 65?
The changes to ESA I mentioned that you have not respond to are

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

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 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.

I will add in 2010 the suspending of Work-focused Health-related assessments. The assessment that was done after being assessed ESA wrag to determine what type of paid employment the claimant might in time with assistance be capable of and to make available appropriate assistance including specialist assistance to help them towards that.

Which descriptors changed without a review suggesting them?
Please provide a link to the independent review that suggested the changes made in 2011.
There are rules and guidelines around what aids are "reasonable" to use. Eg Why would it be unreasonable to use a walking stick if you needed to?
When the aid or appliance is one the claimant does not use and does not own and has not been prescribed or recommended.
It is not just a walking stick the claimant can be imagined to use. Other common examples are a manual wheelchair and a guide dog.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 21:56
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
It is the DWP staff that are the problem. The rules are generally fine. A few criminal prosecutions for "misconduct in public office" should sort the staff out. Although the Unions will inevitably squeal about it.

The REAL problems will continue as long as people keep dodging what the REAL problems actually are.
I dont think its the staff as much as people higher up in charge, i think the days of DWP helping and giving out advice are gone, like dont tell people what they can claim let them find out for themselves, dont offer help or advice and only give the min information if asked. Example https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...bvhqHxmKNO_Z3g. Some 28,000 families received at least £3,000 too little from 2011-2014 after the Department for Work and Pensions failed to inform the HMRC they were eligible for the extra money. And this is what the DWP said ( It said it was up to individuals to claim the right amount and, when it is awarded, check it is correct.)
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 22:05
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
It is the DWP staff that are the problem. The rules are generally fine. A few criminal prosecutions for "misconduct in public office" should sort the staff out. Although the Unions will inevitably squeal about it.

The REAL problems will continue as long as people keep dodging what the REAL problems actually are.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think the ESA mental descriptors and points are fine.

Take the following descriptors each on their own is not enough to qualify for ESA. They would be JSA.
Two adding up to 15 points would barely qualify for ESA wrag.
And none are ESA support group descriptors.

11b Cannot learn anything beyond a simple task (for example can learn to get a cup of water from a tap, but incapable of learning how to make a cup of tea) 9 points

12c Reduced awareness of everyday hazards (sharp objects, hot objects, electricity sockets, traffic, etc) leads to a significant risk of injury to self or others; or damage to property or possessions such that the claimant occasionally requires supervision to maintain safety. 6 points

13b Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least two sequential personal actions for the majority of the time (for example incapable of getting washed and dressed). 9 points

14c Cannot cope with minor unplanned changes, to the extent that, overall, day-to-day life is made significantly more difficult (for example a planned meeting was late they would become so distressed they would need to go home for the rest of the day) 6 points

15b Is unable to get to a specified place with which the claimant is familiar, without being accompanied by another person. 9 points

16c Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is not possible for the majority of the time due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress 6 points

17c Occasionally has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive (DWP assessor guidance is it should be beyond verbal, so must physically assault or cause property damage) or disinhibited behaviour (DWP assessor guidance is it should be beyond verbal, so must take clothes off, masturbate, grope people) that would be unreasonable in any workplace 9 points
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 22:18
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
I dont think its the staff as much as people higher up in charge, i think the days of DWP helping and giving out advice are gone, like dont tell people what they can claim let them find out for themselves, dont offer help or advice and only give the min information if asked. Example https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...bvhqHxmKNO_Z3g. Some 28,000 families received at least £3,000 too little from 2011-2014 after the Department for Work and Pensions failed to inform the HMRC they were eligible for the extra money. And this is what the DWP said ( It said it was up to individuals to claim the right amount and, when it is awarded, check it is correct.)
Who introduced the Tax credits system? The question is asked when applying for Tax credits, so the claimant should already know. It wasn't a case of the DWP not telling the DWP.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 22:22
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think the ESA mental descriptors and points are fine.

Take the following descriptors each on their own is not enough to qualify for ESA. They would be JSA.
Two adding up to 15 points would barely qualify for ESA wrag.
And none are ESA support group descriptors.

11b Cannot learn anything beyond a simple task (for example can learn to get a cup of water from a tap, but incapable of learning how to make a cup of tea) 9 points

12c Reduced awareness of everyday hazards (sharp objects, hot objects, electricity sockets, traffic, etc) leads to a significant risk of injury to self or others; or damage to property or possessions such that the claimant occasionally requires supervision to maintain safety. 6 points

13b Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least two sequential personal actions for the majority of the time (for example incapable of getting washed and dressed). 9 points

14c Cannot cope with minor unplanned changes, to the extent that, overall, day-to-day life is made significantly more difficult (for example a planned meeting was late they would become so distressed they would need to go home for the rest of the day) 6 points

15b Is unable to get to a specified place with which the claimant is familiar, without being accompanied by another person. 9 points

16c Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is not possible for the majority of the time due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress 6 points


17c Occasionally has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive (DWP assessor guidance is it should be beyond verbal, so must physically assault or cause property damage) or disinhibited behaviour (DWP assessor guidance is it should be beyond verbal, so must take clothes off, masturbate, grope people) that would be unreasonable in any workplace 9 points
WCA handbook.
Section on "1.2 Background to Employment and Support Allowance"
In December 2008, a White Paper “Raising Expectations” announced a Department-led review of the WCA, which involved medical experts in the fields of physical, mental and occupational health as well as representatives of employers and stakeholder groups.
...
In this area, it was felt that the 2008 activities did not accurately reflect the level of function required for the modern workplace. As a result “walking” was changed to “mobilising” to reflect the functionality of wheelchair users. It was also felt that considering standing and sitting abilities as separate entities was not relevant in the modern workplace and thus the activity was amended to reflect the ability to remain at a workstation. In the 2008 descriptors, bending and kneeling were considered, however the ability to bend or kneel are no longer considered critical in the modern workplace, so this activity has been removed.
...
Mental Function
In understanding and focus, it was felt that the 2008 descriptors were complex and difficult to interpret. These were therefore simplified.
...
The changes to the descriptors in the 2012 amendments related only to changes in the wording of the descriptors – there was no change to the policy intent of these descriptors.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 22:30
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
Who introduced the Tax credits system? The question is asked when applying for Tax credits, so the claimant should already know. It wasn't a case of the DWP not telling the DWP.
Sorry but the DWP have admitted it was thier fault. But about one in 12 families did not receive the payment after the information was not shared between the DWP and HMRC, an audit found.
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 01:02
sangreal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,160
So when are Cameron and IDgaS going to be locked up?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7404956.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7006466.html
https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/2...or-being-poor/
sangreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 09:09
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
WCA handbook.
Section on "1.2 Background to Employment and Support Allowance"
In December 2008, a White Paper “Raising Expectations” announced a Department-led review of the WCA,
Your link to Labour is them announcing there would be a review. Not that the review was done while they were in office or that they agreed with the changes implemented by the Coalition government in 2011 after a DWP led review.

I also do not get how your attempts to link the changes to Labour removes responsibility from the Coalition government for the changes made in 2011. Changes Labour opposed.
Department-led review of the WCA, which involved medical experts in the fields of physical, mental and occupational health as well as representatives of employers and stakeholder groups.
So not a independent review a DWP department led review.
One where charities and professional medical bodies were consulted and Iheir advice and concerns ignored. Along with the advice and concerns of the cross party parliamentary committee.

The experts the DWP listen to were probably UNUM an American incapacity insurance company that advised on ESA. That had a vested interest in reducing state welfare to increase the sales of private insurance.

The changes to the descriptors in the 2012 amendments related only to changes in the wording of the descriptors – there was no change to the policy intent of these descriptors.
You are now talking about about completely different amendments.
The amendments you were talking about before came into effect in 2011 and were a massive change. The 2012 amendments are a different set of amendments.

Also you have not said if you think the ESA mental descriptors are fine. When claimants can meet descriptors that blatantly make them incapable of paid employment or even taking part in work related activities or reliably signing on for JSA, but the descriptors score so few points that claimants meeting only one would be deemed fit for work JSA and if they meet more than one ESA wrg capable of work related activities.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 11:17
Johnny_Sinclair
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 66
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

July 2016

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?

Check out Schedules 2 & 3 from the original 2008 ESA Regulations and the 2016 Schedules after the tories had got their hands on them. You may learn what the differences are then.

Also there was NO time limiting of CB ESA in the original Regs that was brought in by the tories as well as reducing the amount of ESA if you were placed in the WRAG.
Johnny_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34.