Mental Health Resistance Network: victory on case against WCA!

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Benefits, legal challenges, local groups, News, Welfare reforms  9 Responses »
May 222013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Three judges today confirmed what DPAC and other campaigners have been saying since 2010– the benefits test used to decide whether people are fit for work, actively discriminates against disabled people and those with mental health issues

 Mental health Resistance network (MHRN) have won the judicial review case against the DWP on the clear inadequacy of the Work Capability Assessments. They supported two users who took a case against the DWP for the harm these tests do to those with mental health issues. The WCA has been severely criticised since the Condems took over the reins from the New Labour WCA inception, making the tests more and more difficult and more and more humiliating for all concerned.

 Last week Dr Greg Wood resigned claiming the tests were biased, there have been a number of high profile resignations from nurses resigning and claiming that not only were the tests unfair they were degrading. This is a subject disabled people know all too well, from the millions lavished on Atos for tests and the millions for appeals.

 The  judicial review focussed on specific issues for those with mental health issues – that of gathering supporting evidence. Under the current system, individuals are responsible for gathering their own medical evidence and sending it to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). If anyone fails to do this, it simply won’t be looked at, and in many cases if you do do this your papers will be brushed aside (see DPACs survey responses on the WCA HERE).

Reporting the victory DPAC’s sister group,  Black Triangle Campaign wrote:

“The judgment that the DWP is in breach of the Equality Act is a huge victory for everyone affected by severe mental illness, but it’s sad that it took a court case to force the DWP to take action”.

DPAC wants to congratulate the two people that took the case, MHRN and all others that supported this. We hope this is another step towards outlawing these tests and stopping them for the damage they are causing all disabled people as called for by the BMA and the RCN.

We note that the big Disability charities have , as usual, chosen to take the credit for this success and we say again that this success is due to MHRN a small group that chose to do something. It is due to the two people that took the case and the solicitors involved. This case was not initiated by any of the big disability charities-despite them joining in later to save face.

 The charities sat back and did nothing, but they are fast to take the credit for something that they didn’t even contribute too. We hope that the success of the MHRN actions leads to an end to this inhuman process for all and we congratulate them for their tenacity and their actions in getting someone done- to the charities we say: we know the difference between the real heroes and those that try to bask in reflected glory-if you had made the move that MHRN had or acted more vigorously we might applaud you, as it is we are, once more unimpressed by your actions.

 see also:

https://dpac.uk.net/2013/05/esa-regulations-25-and-31-campaign-black-triangle-to-meet-with-scottish-parliament-welfare-reform-committee-chief-this-thursday/

https://dpac.uk.net/2013/05/where-are-the-mental-function-champions-at-atos-and-other-atos-type-things/

https://dpac.uk.net/2013/01/dpac-press-release-wca-descriptors-fail-dwp-fails-atos-fails/

https://dpac.uk.net/2012/10/joint-statement-on-work-capability-assessment-wca-by-dpac-and-black-triangle/

https://dpac.uk.net/2012/11/dpac-survey-responses-on-wca-what-harrington-didnt-ask/

 

 

 

 

ESA Regulations 25 and 31 Campaign: Black Triangle to meet with Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee chief this Thursday

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 192013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

By John McArdle Black Triangle Campaign
Sunday 19th May 2013

As our members and supporters know, Black Triangle has been at the forefront of lobbying members of the medical profession to help us bring an end to the DWP-Atos Work Capability Assessment régime at the earliest possible time.
We began locally when our campaign member and Medical Adviser Dr Stephen Carty submitted a motion through the Lothian Local Medical Committee (LMC) to the Scottish Conference of LMCs (Scottish GPs associations) at Clydebank last year.
The motion calling for the WCA to end “with immediate effect” was carried almost unanimously. We quickly submitted it to the UK LMCs conference in Liverpool, where it gained the overwhelming support of UK GPs before making its way to the British Medical Association’s Annual Representative Meeting where doctors from every discipline carried it almost unanimously on 24th June.
Sadly, as John Pring of Disability News Service has reported, the BMA’s leadership have so far failed to give any meaningful effect to the motion.
In November we launched our ESA ‘Substantial Risk’ Regulations 25 and 31 Campaign asking GPs to apply the law to discharge their ethical duty of care to act where policies and systems are causing avoidable harm to patients.
Where GPs have done this the campaign has been a great success.
We have distributed the information throughout the NHS locally in Scotland and 26 magnificent doctors from Scotland and the rest of the UK at the coalface of have joined with us in lobbying the BMA leadership to disseminate knowledge of the Regulations to GP practices everywhere.
The Scottish media has done its bit with coverage in The Scotsman, The Herald and the Edinburgh Evening News. We are deeply grateful to them for this act of socially aware and responsible journalism. However, we have been completely stonewalled by the UK London-based national media such as the BBC and sadly, even by ‘friendly’ publications such as The Guardian who, shocklngly (and not for the first time) do not seem to have found our campaign work meritorious enough to warrant a mention in their esteemed title.
As the environmental movement say: ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’.
This has been our tactic from the outset and in that spirit we have arranged to meet with the Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee, Michael MacMahon MSP, this coming Thursday to present our case to him advocating that the Scottish Parliament now intervene on our behalf in support of our ESA Regulations Campaign.
As Sir Nicky Winton whose 104th birthday it is today has said:
“I think there is nothing that can’t be done if it is fundamentally reasonable.”
We are confident that our ESA Regulations campaign is fundamentally reasonable in every respect.
Further still, we are confident that once it receives the close attention it truly merits, it will prove to be the single most effective weapon we have as a civil and civilised society in fighting back to protect all our sick and/or disabled citizens from the most wicked, unconscionable and ruthless attack on the civil rights of disabled people in living memory.
If we in Scotland are successful in enjoining the support and backing of the Scottish Parliament in ensuring that all Scottish GPs know how to apply the regulations, we are confident that GPs in England and Wales will also rapidly follow suit.
Wish us luck and when we go there, we go there for you.
All of you.
It’s all we can do.
Solidarity!

reposted with thanks from

https://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/05/19/esa-regulations-25-and-31-campaign-black-triangle-to-meet-with-scottish-parliament-welfare-reform-committee-chief-this-thursday/

 

Hardship Payments,Budgeting Loans and Short-term advances

 All Posts, Benefits, Welfare reforms  116 Responses »
May 182013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net
“Crisis loansCrisis loans came to an end in March 2013. But if you’ve run out of money and can’t afford to eat or pay your rent, there are still financial hardship payments available from job centres and local councils.Local councils are now responsible for helping you if you’ve been hit by a disaster like a fire or flood and you’re suddenly homeless or can’t afford food or necessities.

The type of help varies council to council.

If you are on benefits there’s other money available, depending on your situation. The job centre won’t necessarily tell you about this, so arm yourself with knowledge.

1) Hardship payments

If your money from Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit has been stopped for some reason – for example you’ve been sanctioned because you haven’t applied for enough jobs – you might be able to get a hardship payment.

Apply by talking to your JSA advisor. We strongly advise speaking to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau first – getting hardship payments can be tricky and they’ll help you.

2) Short-term Advances

If you’re waiting for a benefit claim to be processed and you need money right now you might be able to get a Short-term Advance from the Job Centre.

How do I apply?

Talk to the job centre.

Who gets a Short-term Advance?

They’re available in all parts of the UK. You’ll have to prove that you’ll be in dire need if you don’t get any money – for example you don’t have any savings.

Do I have to pay back a Short-term Advance?

You’ll have to pay the advance back in three months (six months in exceptional circumstances).

3) Budgeting Loans (soon changing to Budgeting Advances)

Budgeting Advances help you with big one-off payments like rent, clothes and furniture. You must have been claiming benefit for six months to get one. If you haven’t been on benefit long, you can still claim a Budgeting Advance if the money would help you get a job i.e. with transport costs.

Who can get a budgeting advance?

People from all over the UK including Northern Ireland can get Budgeting Advances.

How do I apply?

Download the SF500 budgeting loan form from the GOV.UK website.

When do I have to pay back a budgeting advance?

They normally have to be paid back within 18 months.

How much can I borrow?

The minimum you can borrow is £100. The maximum number of loans you have at one time can’t be more than £1500.

Help – my claim has been refused

If you get refused for financial hardship help, you can ask the job centre to review the decision. You have to do this in writing, stating the reasons why you want the decision to be looked at again. You then send this to your local job centre who will forward it to the reviewing team. Once they’ve considered your case a reviewing officer will contact you.

Find out more about appealing a decision about benefits.

If that review is unsuccessful, you can send a complaint to the Independent Case Examiner who deals with all complaints against job centres.

If you don’t comply with your Jobseeker’s agreement, you may have your JSA sanctioned for a number of weeks. Your local Job Centre should ideally tell you if you’re losing your benefit and explain why, but you may find the money just doesn’t come into your account. 

If you find your JSA money has not come into your bank account, do the following:
Contact the Job Centre straight away to find our why it has not been paid.
If a sanction has been applied, ask why, and ask for information in writing.
Visit a local advice centre such as Citizens Advice Bureau as soon as possible.
If a sanction has been applied incorrectly, challenge it (your advice centre will help you).
If a sanction has been applied correctly, you local advice centre may still be able to help you access funds, food, and stop any further sanctions being applied to other benefits like Housing or Council Tax. They may be able to get the length of the sanction reduced.
You can also apply for a hardship payment if you can demonstrate you’re suffering from hardship as a result of the sanctions.”
Reply to this email to comment on this p
 Posted by at 20:59

Radical London: Organising in our communities June 8th

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Events, News, Politics, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 162013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Organising in our communities, struggling for change
A practical day working towards mass grass roots resistance and beyond

Loads of us are involved in a wide range of struggles and campaigns, but we tend to do our own thing and generally don’t link up with others who live or work near us. Many others hate the present system but don’t know where to start to change things. So what do we do?

In order to create an alternative and to build the kind of society we want to see we need to start from the grassroots. One of many things we need to do is to organise in our streets, estates, workplaces and communities.

We need to link existing campaigns that are geographically and issue wise near to each other. We need to try to develop local groups throughout the country – although for this event we are only looking at London.

So, on June 8th we want to get anybody who is or wants to organise locally in London together to discuss how we can move things forward. Everyone has something to contribute and skills to share, whether you’re actively involved with struggles in your community or workplace or you’re just looking for somewhere to start.

Sat June 8th 10 am – 5 pm Resource for London, 356 Holloway Road, London N7 6PA (Map and directions at www.resourceforlondon.org )

For more information about the event or to get involved in organising it contact us at: event@radicallondon.net

Benefit Justice meeting: 30th May 7pm Croydon

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Benefits, Disability Rights, Events, local groups, Welfare reforms  3 Responses »
May 152013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Bromley and Croydon DPAC are holding a benefit Justice  meeting Monday 30th May at 7pm at Acts Ministries, Acts House, 30 Union Road, Croydon, CR0 2XU.

Its another opportunity for people to come together against the cuts affecting us all.

“The Bedroom Tax and the benefits cap, alongside other sweeping changes to the benefits system and the reduction in vital services supporting disabled people and parents, is hitting the poor hard – both those in and out of work,” DPAC’s spokeswoman said.

“The benefits cap on top of the Bedroom Tax will impoverish and stigmatise people who can’t move home, while driving out others to unfamiliar parts of the country, uprooting their lives and their support networks, and leaving London to the better off.”


For more information visit www.benefitjustice.wordpress.com.

Email: benefitjustice@gmail.com or mail@dpac.uk.net

Civil Service Rank and File protest at PCS Conference

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, News, Politics, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 142013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

DPAC, Black Triangle campaign, Boycott Workfare and Brighton Benefits campaign will all be supporting CSRF members when they protest against the refusal to allow motions to discuss an ending to the benefit sanctions regime at the PCS conference on May 21st.

While we appreciate the legal complexities behind anti-trade union legislation several branches wanted to move motions to at least discuss how the sanctions regime might be legally hampered or ended.

DPAC is not supporting or are in any way involved with a die-in being planned to take place at the same time. Further as those involved with this die-in have said they do not want to be involved with non-disabled people we feel this is a divisive and unproductive attitude.

Demand action on benefit sanctions – PCS conference rally

The Brighton Centre, 12.30-14.30, Tuesday 21 May

Bring flags and banners

 Posted by at 21:33

Bedroom Tax Challenge at the High Court 15th May: Press Release

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, legal challenges, News, Welfare reforms  8 Responses »
May 142013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

The High Court will consider, over 3 days starting tomorrow (Wednesday 15th May), 10 claims being brought against the Government’s ‘Bedroom Tax’, the new housing benefit regulations that came into force on 1st April this year.

These new regulations will reduce housing benefit for tenants in the social sector who have been assessed as under-occupying their accommodation.
The claims are made by a range of people who seek to challenge the new housing benefit regulations on the grounds that they discriminate against persons who require larger accommodation for reasons relating to their disability.
Since 1 April, persons deemed to have 1 spare bedroom have had their housing benefit reduced by 14% and persons deemed to have 2 or more spare bedrooms have had their housing benefit reduced by 25%.
The government claims that they have made financial resources available in recognition of the serious effects on the claimants of these new regulations, through the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme. However, those represented in this action argue that the DHP fund is simply not large enough to come close to meeting the needs of those affected.
3 law firms are representing the Claimants: Hopkin Murray Beskine, Leigh Day and Public Law Solicitors.
Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine said:
“My clients are disabled children and their families who don’t have a ‘spare’ room. Two of the families I represent have fled serious domestic violence and have only recently been able to settle down in their new, safe homes. One family who were able to move to a suitable home after many years in appalling housing conditions have been told that their son would need to go into residential care if they moved to a smaller home. This would cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds and would separate a disabled child from his family.
“My clients can’t simply increase their hours of work, because of their children’s needs. They can’t take in lodgers because they don’t have a spare room. There are also obvious safety concerns about taking in a lodger in a family where there are vulnerable children. Many families up and down the country are, like my clients, desperately worried about losing their homes”

Ugo Hayter from the Human Rights team at Leigh Day said:
“We hope that the Court will rule that these Regulations are discriminatory in that they completely fail to make any provision for those who need larger accommodation as a result of their or their family members’ disability.
“We hope that the government will be made to amend these Regulations and reverse the devastating consequences currently being experienced by thousands of people with disabilities around the country.”
Anne McMurdie from Public Law Solicitors said:
“The Government has failed to recognise that many people with disabilities will not be able to make up the shortfall in rent by working or taking in a lodger; and many will not be able to move due to the nature of their disabilities.
“Left unchanged these measures will see disabled people facing eviction and homelessness.”

Background

Law Firm Hopkin Murray Beskine are representing 5 families (names have been changed for anonymity)
The first family consists of a husband and wife and their two children Jack who is 6 and Roza who is 2 who currently live in a two-bedroom property in South London on the third floor of a block of flats, which is unsuitable for Jack’s needs as he is disabled. The husband, Ramzi, has had to adapt his working patterns to help care for Jack, therefore the family need help from housing benefit to pay their rent.The family needs to move for a number of reasons related to Jack’s condition however if they are allocated and accept a home which meets their children’s needs their housing benefit will be cut on the basis that they are ‘under-occupying’ despite the fact that they will only be allocated accommodation appropriate to their needs.
The second family represented by Hopkin Murray Beskine became homeless in 2011 when the then partner of the mother, Holly, assaulted her 6-year-old son Isaac, leaving him traumatised. After her ex-partner was jailed Holly made a homelessness application. The family were assessed as requiring 3-bedroom accommodation because of Isaac’s behavioural and mental health issues. Holly received a letter from her local authority informing her that she was under-occupying and that her housing benefit will be cut by £15.52 a week from 1st April 2013.
Jane and Adam and their two sons have lived in their current home since July 2012. Their home is a three-bedroom bungalow, which they rent from the local authority in North London.Under the local authority’s allocation scheme a family of this size would usually be assessed as requiring a two-bedroom property. Brothers aged 10 and 12 would be expected to share a bedroom. However the family was assessed as requiring an additional bedroom as 10-year-old Thomas is severely autistic with a learning disability associated with significant challenging behaviour. He is described by his psychiatrist a having, “profound emotional, behavioural and learning disabilities” .
Ms T and her husband live in a one bedroom flat with their sons. One son has autism and one son has Downs Syndrome. Their flat is damp and infested with mice. The child with autism sleeps in the bedroom, as he needs his own space. The parents and the child with Downs syndrome sleep on the floor in the living room. Because of the boys conflicting needs they have been assessed as needing three bedrooms by the council, but like Jack and Roza’s family, if they move to suitable accommodation they wont be able to pay for it because of the bedroom tax.
Ms N lives with her son and daughter in London. About three years ago she and the children left the home of her very violent partner. With help from social services they have managed to settle in a new home away from the children’s violent father, who does not know where they live. One of the children is autistic and is violent including towards his sister. He has his own room. He finds change difficult and would be unsettled by having to move. Comfort works as a dinner lady: this fits well with the children’s school hours. Since learning about the bedroom tax she has become anxious with awful memories of the time when she was homeless because of violence. The children are well settled in their local school. She cant work more hours. She can’t take in a lodger: she does not have a spare room and her son’s behaviour would make it very difficult to have a lodger anyway.
Hopkin Murray Beskine website:

https://www.hmbsolicitors.co.uk

Law Firm Leigh Day are representing
Jacqueline Carmichael and Richard Rourke
Jacqueline Carmichael lives with her husband in a two-bedroom housing association flat. She has spina bifida and is severely disabled. Mrs Carmichael’s condition means that she has to sleep in a hospital bed with an electronic pressure mattress and has to sleep in a fixed position. Mr Carmichael cannot sleep in this bed with her as it is not large enough for two people and his movements at night could cause her harm. There is not enough space in her bedroom for a second bed so Mr Carmichael sleeps in a second bedroom.
Since 1 April, the Carmichaels have had their housing benefit reduced by 14%. They have now been granted a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover the shortfall in their rent for six months, but they do not know how they will meet their rent when the period ends. Mr Carmichael considered the option of seeking employment to cover the shortfall in the rent, however if he did this, as full time carer to his wife, Mrs Carmichael would need to go into residential care. This is therefore not a viable option.

Richard Rourke is a widower. He is disabled and uses a wheelchair. He is a council tenant and lives in a three-bedroom bungalow. His stepdaughter is currently a university student and is also disabled with a rare form of muscular dystrophy. She lives in halls of residence during term time but returns home for the full summer vacation, at holiday periods and at weekends when she can.
 Mr Rourke uses the third bedroom, which is a box room measuring 8 x 9 feet, to store his equipment including a hoist for lifting him, his power chair and his shower seat.
Mr Rourke has enquired in the social rented sector about the availability of two bedroom properties, which are suitable for wheelchair use, and there are none. There are also no suitably adapted properties in the private sector.
Since April 2013, Mr Rourke has had his housing benefit reduced by 25%, on the basis that he is under-occupying by two bedrooms. Mr Rourke’s only income is from benefits; he cannot work; and his day-to-day living costs are increased due to his disabilities, he has not been able to pay the shortfall in his rent of £25.38 per week. Mr Rourke made an application for Discretionary Housing Payment in March 2013, however it has not yet been decided. He is currently accruing rent arrears.
Leigh Day website:

www.leighday.co.uk

Law Firm Public Law Solicitors are representing James Daly, Mervyn Drage and JD (whose details have been anonymised)
James Daly has a severely disabled son. He and his ex-partner when his son was approximately eighteen months. Since that time Mr Daly and his ex-partner have shared his son’s care. Mr Daly’s son stays with him every weekend and at least one day during the week. He also lives with Mr Daly for part of the school holidays and whenever his mother is away. Following the separation from his ex-partner Mr Daly moved into housing association rented property. In 2008, following an application for allocation of a two bedroom accessible ground floor property, he was awarded a priority level within the local housing authority’s allocation scheme which recognised that his then accommodation was unsuitable due to his son’s disability, and that Mr Daly had a high priority need to move. Mr Daly was offered his present accommodation three years ago. He occupies a two bedroom flat on the ground floor which has level access throughout and also has access to a garden front and back. Mr Daly’s son can mobilise throughout the property. Under the Housing Benefit rules Mr Daly is deemed to be over-occupying his property by one bedroom (his son’s room).
Mervyn Drage is a single man who lives alone. Mr Drage occupies a three bedroom flat in a high-rise tower block, on the site of a former colliery. The property was initially built to house miners and their families, but the flat was let to him because the local housing authority considered it unsuitable for families. He has lived there for 19 years. He has a number of significant mental health problems (depression, anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, OCD) and various physical problems. These conditions are exacerbated by stress, anxiety and changes to routine. Mr Drage does not sleep in any of his three bedrooms, all of which contain papers, which he has accumulated (as does his bath). He is settled in the flat and the area, feels safe there, and is very anxious about the prospect of having to move and disruption to his routines.
JD
JD lives with her 26-year-old daughter, AD. JD and AD occupy a specially adapted three-bedroom property. They have lived there for about twenty years. AD has a twin brother who previously lived in the house but has now moved out (leaving 1 spare room). AD has severe physical disabilities, learning disabilities and blindness. JD provides full-time care for AD. The property was specially constructed to meet AD’s needs, with input from the family, an occupational therapist and a property development team. AD’s home is extremely important to her in maintaining her psychological security in her surroundings. As a result of her learning disabilities and blindness it would be difficult for her to manage the transition to a new home and there are concerns requiring her to move would have a significant impact on her psychological emotional and behavioural well being.
Public Law Solicitors website:

https://www.publiclawsolicitors.co.uk

-ENDS-
The hearing is due to start at 10:30amon Wednesday 15th May
Court Number: 3

Lawyers for the claimants will be at the Royal Courts of Justice in London from 9:30am and will be available for interview. None of the claimants will be attending.

A number of groups will be organising a vigil tomorrow morning from 9:30am outside the Royal courts of Justice in solidarity with the claimants taking challenges against the bedroom tax – these include Disabled People Against Cuts, Taxpayers Against Poverty, Camden United for Benefit Justice, Single Mothers’ Self-Defence, and WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities).

Contact:
David Standard
Head of Media Relations
Leigh Day

dstandard@leighday.co.uk

0844 800 4981
07540 332717

Council Tax Reduction Scheme – important update from Taxpayers Against Poverty

 All Posts, Benefits, Welfare reforms  2 Responses »
May 132013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

What councils don’t tell you about the enforcement of council tax. 

Millions of people who do not pay the council tax now will be charged 8.5% to 30% from the 1st April. Millions will not be able to afford it; councils knew that when they made those irrational decisions.

Councils will not tell you;

1. That they have the discretion to write off the tax for vulnerable and impoverished people  under clause 10 (1) 13A (1) of the Local Government Finance Act 2012. It is necessary for the council tax benefit claimant to write a letter to the council setting out their financial circumstances, all debts, and all relevant information such  as health/disability. Payment of the bedroom tax, rent due to the overall benefit tax and the rent due to the housing benefit tax would be relevant.

2. That the bottom line is the income left after rent and council tax needed for food,  fuel, clothes, transport and other necessities; that has to be a reasonable amount if councils (and jobcentres) abide by the Wednesbury Principles as required by law and endorsed by coalition ministers.

3.That page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, published by the Ministry of Justice in 2012,  sets out a procedure for bailiffs to return vulnerable cases from the door step to all creditors, including councils for council tax and courts for fines. A change of circumstances since the debt, fine or council tax arrears were incurred is another reason for applying page 9 procedure.

4. That Ministers from the DWP, the DCLG and the MOJ all stated during the passage of the Acts of Parliament, which are creating such misery, how concerned they were for vulnerable people; see their statements as recorded in Hansard in the attached file. Councils and Jobcentres should be reminded that is the coalitions policy; even though crocodile’s tears come to mind.

The details are on the TAP website on this PDF

ENFORCEMENT OF ARREARS, OVERPAYMENTS AND FINES IN THE WAKE OF WELFARE REFORM AND IN THE CONTEXT OF AUSTERITY. (1)

  Rev Paul Nicolson

Taxpayers Against Poverty

93 Campbell Road,
Tottenham,
London N17 0BF
0208 3765455
07961 177889
also at www.z2k.org

 

 Posted by at 19:48

Benefit Justice Summit2 video: A time to Unite

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Events, Welfare reforms  5 Responses »
May 122013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Grandmother Stephanie Bottrill was forced by this Government to find £20 a week that she didn’t have for the bedroom tax. She had lived in her terrace house for 18 years. Last Saturday she left her home for the last time to walk to Junction 4 of the M6 where she walked out in front of lorry- she was killed instantly. She is the first known suicide to result from the heinous bedroom tax imposed by the Tories. She left notes for her family in which she said: don’t blame yourselves, blame this government. Days before her death she told neighbours ‘I can’t afford to live anymore’. Read more of this harrowing story at https://www.cantpaywontpay.org/publish/?p=2655

A deputy head of a London school wrote to the DWP asking if they knew about the effects that sanctions were having. She described children who hadn’t eaten, children fainting from hunger, children unable to attend school because they did not have shoes.

https://dpac.uk.net/2013/05/dear-department-for-work-and-pensions/

This is 21st century Britain; a place where the suicides and premature deaths from the DWP and Governments regimes are increasing with alarming speed; a place where people are unable to feed their children or their selves.

On the day Stephanie’s tragic story was exposed by the Mirror, the Benefits Justice Summit2 was happening in London. The second of two successful summits and a model that has been replicated in local areas for a ‘fight back’ to this attack on disabled people and people on low incomes by the multi-millionaires and corporate companies running this country. A country that is the sixth richest in the world, but one which sees no end to the demonization and increasing desperation and destitution of ordinary people like Stephanie and many others. We cannot allow this any longer, we must all join together to fight these horrendous attacks on ordinary people!

The Daily Fail ‘workshy’ Map with the NOT Fit for Work Map

 All Posts, Benefits, disability hate crime, Welfare reforms  1 Response »
May 052013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

The Dail Fail published the above 4th May as the ‘workshy’ map

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319355/Workshy-map-Britain-revealed-Thousands-incapacity-benefit-claimants-capable-working.html


The NOT fit for work Map above by Nick @Mylegalforum publised 5th May

The difference between propaganda and truth in the Atos/DWP war

See the full story on the Fail map at https://dpac.uk.net/2013/05/daily-fail-incites-more-disability-hate-crime-with-its-latest-act/

See more from the brilliant Nick at https://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7616/page/1/cut-slack-quit-media-lies

Daily Fail incites more disability hate crime with its latest act

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Benefits, disability hate crime, News, Welfare reforms  1 Response »
May 042013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Yet another Daily Mail FAIL!!



What is it with these journalists from the Daily Mail?

Why can’t they ever get anything right when it comes to reporting something factual over the government’s callous welfare reforms.  Here’s a really ‘slack’ piece of journalism from one of the Daily Mail’s finest, strangely enough he goes by the name of James Slack; slack by name slack by nature I’d say.

Read Slack’s factually inaccurate article here



The REAL facts with all the DWP links are here

Slack makes a pathetic attempt to try and get his deluded readers to believe that it’s the ‘lefties’ who are creating the myths over the dangerously hazardous welfare reforms which government is inflicting upon thousands.  Slack headlines his article ‘ What the Left doesn’t want you to know about Britain’s £200 billion welfare bill’.  He goes on to write the usual rubbish we’ve grown accustomed to reading in the gutter press, the particular piece which got my goat was Slack’s incredibly lazy attempt to rubbish what he absurdly pitches as a left – sided myth over those on incapacity benefits. Here’s an excerpt from Slack’s article:

‘Slack fact 1’

 

“THE TRULY SICK ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO WORK”

“CLAIM: New tests to check Incapacity Benefit claimants’ inability to work are having a devastating effect on the sick and mentally ill.”

“REALITY: Incapacity Benefit, which was renamed Employment and Support Allowance, is paid to people considered unfit for work. Only 232,000 — one in eight of those tested by doctors — have been deemed too unwell to do any work.”


Actually in reality incapacity benefit was never renamed Employment & Support Allowance at all

If Slack had checked his facts he would see that the Employment & Support Allowance here is entirely separate to the incapacity benefits found here.  If one had been renamed as the other the two would not continue to exist.    

‘Slack fact 2’

“Another 837,000 who took the test were found to be fit to work immediately, and a further 367,300 were judged able to do some level of work.”


In reality Slack is miles off the mark with this little gem.  In actual fact only 700,200 incapacity benefit claimants have been tested under the much stricter Employment & Support Allowance rules of which 496,800 (71%) were found to be perfectly entitled to the allowance.  the percentage figure varies each month – figures of 78% being recorded in October 2010, 77% in March 2011 and 75% in July 2012.   

290,200 were deemed chronically incapacitated and incapable of any work related activity whatsoever and 206,600 were deemed to have a severe limitation such that they qualified for ‘support’ from the government in helping them work towards a return to work – sadly very few end up getting the Support because the DWP is seemingly too busy feeding the press with the kind of garbage which incompetent journalists like Slack writes for the Daily Fail. 

‘Slack fact 3’

“Some 878,300 people — around a third of the 2.6 million who were claiming the benefit — have chosen to drop their claims rather than face a medical.”


In actual fact the figure relating to incapacity claimants, who for any number or reasons dropped their claim, is nowhere near 878,300 – it is 24,700 as per the DWP’s most up to date figures of August 2012.

‘Slack fact 4’

“One in eight of those tested by doctors”
In actual fact the DWP under it’s private and ‘commercially sensitive’contracting arrangements with Atos Healthcare recruits an abundance of nurses as well as doctors and the chances of everyone being tested by a fully qualified doctor is zero.



‘Slack fact 5’

“Some 30 people were claiming they were unfit to work because of blisters, while 60 cited acne and 2,110 said ‘sprains and strains’ rendered them unfit for employment.”


How on earth can Slack have had access to what should be highly confidential medical records relating to 30 individual assessments to know precisely what conditions they were citing as their one and only ground for claiming they were unfit for employment?

It bemuses me how the Daily Mail can make so much fuss about footballer Wayne Rooney’s £130,000 a week sprained sprained ankle with no reference or inference to the possibility of him ‘skiving’.

I also note the gutter press draws attention in previous articles to the tragedy of a 31 year old woman who committed suicide over what they describe as a ‘minor skin condition. The article describes how the woman’s mental health deteriorated to the point where, after two failed attempts, she sadly took her own life by jumping off the Humber Bridge.

I presume James Slack would not retrospectively imply the poor woman was ‘fit for work?’

Why not email Slack and tell him what a truly useless
journalist he is is?



j.slack@dailymail.co.uk



And then complain



To the Press Complaints Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unreal!  The Daily Mail prints the 

 

‘Workshy map’ 

 



 

“This map of Britain reveals the ‘workshy’ spots around the country where people claiming incapacity benefit claimants are actually fit enough to work.

The Government introduced tough new health tests for those who claimed to be too unwell to get back into employment two years ago.

Since then some 203,000, 30 per cent, out of 700,000 receiving the old Incapacity Benefit were declared fit to find work.”

“The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said Birmingham had the biggest number of claimants capable of work. Of 14,640 claimants, 5,180 were fit.”

Once again we are indebted to Nick at My Legal Forum-who seems to be taking over the DPAC web site but in the best possible way

For more from Nick see

https://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7616/page/1/cut-slack-quit-media-lies

twitter: @Mylegalforum

and we promise more brilliance fromNick very soon

The real ESA figures: Quarterly comparison

 All Posts, Atos, Benefits, Resources, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 012013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

The latest Work Capability Assessment figures released by the DWP yesterday (30th May 2013) attracted little of the usual fanfare which usually sounds as they trumpet the results. Perhaps they’re getting nervous with an increasing number of rebuttals over their use of statistics appearing in the press of late?

Or perhaps on this occasion they simply didn’t have too much which they wanted to shout about?

I think it’s a mixture of both.

Amongst other things the DWP’s latest Quarterly figure release’ for June – August 2012 reveals:

52% of new Employment & Support Allowance were entitled to the allowance after assessment

73% of claimants having undergone conversion from their incapacity benefit claims had qualified for Employment & Support Allowance with 38% ending up in the Work Related Activity group and 35% in the Support Group.

It’s all a far cry from the days when not so longer ago the media fuelled almost certainly by the DWP were saying 75% of claimants were skivers.

Closed claims

After being heavily criticised in a number of media articles over drawing unsubstantiated conclusions as to why 878,300 (A figure which in itself was wrong) claimants had closed their claims before being assessed, the DWP appears to mitigate its incorrect assumptions by drawing a reference to a further report ‘Unsuccessful Employment and Support Allowance claims – qualitative research. I’d encourage those following the reassessment programme to give it a close read, not least because it was prepared some time ago back in 2011 and relates to findings drawn from a survey across only 952 individuals and a further sample of just 60 claimants. It’s a meagre number of claimants upon which to draw any conclusions when looking at the many thousands who have, for a variety of unknown reasons, closed their claims prior to being assessed.

The report concludes

“An important reason why ESA claims in this sample were withdrawn or closed before they were fully assessed
was because the person recovered and either returned to work, or claimed a benefit more appropriate to their
situation”

Before accepting the conclusion, I’d look at the report and the sample size of those surveyed.

What’s missing?


A complete reference to any of the results of the claimants who have been assessed following their initial assessment is missing from the report although the information is to be found in the tables.  These are often omitted but should be included.  If you look at the accompanying tables which the report if linked to you you will see that there is a total case load of no less than 958,300 from which 340,300 claimants were placed in the Work Related Activity Group since October 2008, far fewer are found fit for work in the group with 215,100 from October 2008 to August 2012.  Both of these groups will have a propensity to appeal, some claimants may for instance at the initial assessment have been placed in the Support Group but after being assessed again may be put in the Work Related Activity Group – creating a number who will appeal.

Of these assessed in the ‘reassessed following initial assessment’ group, 78% were entitled to ESA in June, 79% in July and 79% in August 2012 – a sizeable increase when compared with the 73% cumulative total relating to the entire period from October 2008 to August 2012.  I fail to understand why so little attention is drawn to a cohort of close to a million claimants who have been ‘repeat’ assessed in this group since the programme started .

The quarterly comparison 

When comparing the overall figures for all three cohorts (new claims, claims reassessed following initial claim and ib/ESA conversions) between May 2012 and August 2012

To date total


Increase/decrease on figure to May 2012 

Per month average over quarter

Numbers assessed WCA

3,053,200

367,300

122,433

Work Related
Activity Group placements

1,028,800

134,200

44,733

Support Group
placements

715,500

139,200

46,400

Fit for work findings

1,308,700

93,500

31,167

Closed claims before assessment

1,074,200

91,800

30,600

Cases still in progress

193,200

26,000

8,667

Overall case load

4,320,600

485,100

161,700

Case load

What these figures, taken across ALL claimants involved in the assessment programme, show is that the DWP ‘case load’ increased by 485,100 over the period from June 2012 to August 2012.  The case load isn’t the number of claimants, it is the number of claim interventions made by DWP officials as part of their case load, it can be divided in to cases where an outcome has been recorded in which case the claimant will be placed in the Support Group, Work Related Activity Group or found ‘Fit for Work’.

Of the cases which have not been assessed, the claimant’s case can ‘still be in progress’ (this is not the same as the assessment phase data) or could be closed without assessment.

With usual thanks to the brilliant Nick of My Legal twitter @Mylegalforum

For a detailed breakdown up to August 2012 see Nick’s detailed work at

https://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7140/page/5/dwps-esa-reassessment-programme-chaos



Kensington and Chelsea Disability Benefits Seminar – keynote speaker Debbie Jolly

 Benefits, Welfare reforms  1 Response »
May 012013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

A question of independence: What is the future for

disabled people?

11.00am to 2.30pm, Wednesday 8th May 2013

London Lighthouse, Lancaster Road , W11 1QT

Changes to disability benefits which came into effect this month have affected hundreds of thousands of claimants. In this seminar we will be asking ‘What is the future for disabled people?’ We will consider if the the current welfare changes are fair and look at ways we can support people locally who have been affected by the changes.

The keynote speaker will be Debbie Jolly a disabled activist, writer and co-founder of DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts). The seminar is open to both the statutory and voluntary and community sector, and is hosted by the Social Council and Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea.

Please register here.

Man arrested and tried in a Secret Court after ATOS assessment – support needed in Nottingham

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Benefits, News, Welfare reforms  4 Responses »
Apr 252013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Man Jailed After Comments Made In Atos Assessment

atos-killsA Nottingham man has now been held in custody for two weeks after he was accused of “threatening behaviour” due to comments he allegedly made during his Atos benefits assessment.

Steve Topley is a 49 year old father with multiple serious health problemswho was required to attend a Work Capability Assessment with the notorious IT firm Atos – the company responsible for stripping benefits from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people.  During the process Mr Topley made some comments about someone not present at the assessment.  His family say these comments were misunderstood and were in response to questions from the assessor about his personal life.

These comments led to Atos staff calling the police and Mr Topley was asked to attend Queens Medical Centre (QMC) in Nottingham.  When he refused to do so he was arrested.  At QMC he was de-arrested and received a mental health assessment but no reason was found to detain him under the mental health act.  He was then re-arrested and taken in handcuffs to Nottingham police station where he was later charged.

He has now been refused bail twice in closed courts which his family were not permitted to attend.  His sister Gina Topley, who says the family are being kept in the dark about the legal process, has said:

“My brother has not been given any opportunity to speak and give his side of the story to a judge and he was not offered an appropriate adult to accompany him when he was arrested.”

His family have not been allowed to visit him in prison and have raised concerns that his medication may not be being administered properly.  Mr Topley will face another appearance in a closed court tomorrow (Friday 26th April) and there are major fears that he will be remanded once again pending psychiatric reports.

His family and supporters have called a demonstration outside the court tomorrow calling for his immediate release.

Meet outside Nottingham Crown Court on Friday 26th April from 9.30-11.00am – please help spread the word.  For more details and the  latest news visit:https://freestevetopley.wordpress.com/

reposeted from Johnnyvoidwordpress –  twitter @johnnyvoid

 Posted by at 16:35

What people need to know about ATOS assessments

 All Posts, Atos, Benefits, News, Resources, Welfare reforms  57 Responses »
Apr 212013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

this is taken from kittyjoneswordpress.com and we hope it will be useful for people to know about.

Courageous Scottish nurse Joyce Drummond, who made a heartfelt apology to Atos assessment victims, has submitted evidence to the Scottish Parliament Select Committee on Welfare Reform.
I have a correspondence with Joyce, who was the subject of this article: www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nurse-makes-heartfelt-apology-after-1340838

Joyce has submitted evidence to the Scottish Parliament Select Committee on Welfare reform, which she forwarded to me this morning. I have edited where needed, and added to the text to make it easier to read. I’ve included the contents from Joyce’s notes in full.

I knew nothing about Atos when I joined, and left as soon as I realised that there was no way to fight from the inside.
I carried out Incapacity Benefit assessments, these were the forerunner to ESA assessments. I stated at my interview for the job that I believed in social inclusion and social justice.

I went for 4 weeks training in England. The training did not prepare me for what I was expected to do in real life.

The forms that are completed prior to assessment, I have recently found out, are opened by Royal Mail Staff. They are then sent for “scrutiny” where nurses decide whether or not a face to face assessment is required. I was not involved in this and do not know what criteria are used.

It is made clear throughout training and working that we are not nurses- we are disability analysts. Also, we do not carry out ‘medical assessments’ – we carry out ‘functional assessments’. We did not even need a diagnosis to carry out assessments. I had reservations around consent, as we were expected to assess patients – sorry, we didn’t have patients, we had ‘claimants’- who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or other substances.

We were also consistently told that we did not make benefit decisions. The final decision was made by a DWP decision maker with no medical qualification. If our assessment was overturned at appeal we never knew about it. There was no accountability for assessments overruled.
Assessment starts on the day of your appointment with the HCP reading the form you complete when you applied for benefit. Remember that every single question you are asked is designed to justify ending your claim for ESA and passing you as “fit for work”. That is what Atos are contracted to do by the Government. This is not a genuine assessment, but rather, an opportunity for the DWP to take away your financial support, which you are entitled to.Things that are noted are :-

Did you complete the form yourself
Is the handwriting legible
Are the contents coherent.

These observations are already used in assessing your hand function, your cognitive state and concentration. Next under observation:-
Do the things you have written add up.
Does your medication support your diagnosis.
What tests you have had to confirm diagnosis. For example a diagnosis of sciatica is not accepted unless diagnosed by MRI scan.
Do you have supporting medical evidence from GP or consultants. If you do, it shows that you are able to organise getting this information.

This is also a hidden cost to the NHS. I believe that if ATOS request information there is a charge levied by GP’s. However claimants are expected to source medical evidence themselves. It uses valuable NHS time for medical staff to write supporting statements.
There were no hidden cameras, at least in Glasgow, to watch people arriving for assessment or sitting in waiting room. This may not be true in other areas.

When the HCP has read your form they input some data into the computer system. The assessment properly begins when they call your name in the waiting room. At this point they assess:-
Did you hear your name being called
Did you rise from your chair unaided, did the chair have arms or not
Were you accompanied – this addresses you’re ability to go out alone.
Were you reading a paper while waiting- looks at your concentration.
Did you walk to the assessment room unaided, did you use aids correctly. Did you navigate any obstacles safely- assessing sight.
The HCP will shake your hand when inroducing herself- are you trembling, sweating- signs of anxiety. Again note the constant scrutiny. The HCP will often ask on way to waiting room:-

How long you’ve been waiting- assessing ability to sit- both physically, and looking at your mental state.
How did you get here today- ability to drive, use public transport.
Assessment begins by listing medical conditions/complaints. For each complaint you will be asked:-

How long have you had it, have you seen a specialist
Have you had any tests, what treatments have you had
What’s your current treatment. Have you had any other specialist input eg. physiotherapy, CPN.

The HCP will use lack of specialist input/ hospital admissions to justify assessing your condition as less severe. Medications will be listed and it will be noted if they prescribed or bought. Dates will be checked on boxes to assess compliance with dosage and treatment regime. Any allergies or side-effects should be noted.
A brief note is made of how you feel each condition affects your life
A brief social history will be taken – who you live with, if have you stairs in your house or outside to your house.
Employment history taken – asking when you last worked, what you worked as, reason for leaving employment.
Typical Day – this is the part of the assessment where how you function on a day to day basis is used to justify the HCP decisions. Anything you say here is where you are most likely to fail your assessment. Along side this, the HCP records their observations.
Starting with your sleep pattern, questions are asked around your ability to function.

Lower limb problems- ability to mobilise to shops, around the house, drive, use public transport, dress, shower.
Upper limb- ability to wash, dress, cook, shop, complete ESA form
Vision- did you manage to navigate safely to assessment room.
Hearing- did you hear your name being called in waiting room.
Speech- could the HCP understand you at assessment.
Continence- do you describe incontinence NOT CONTROLLED by pads, medication. Do you mention it’s effects on your life when describing your typical day.
Consciousness- Do you suffer seizures- with loss of continence, possible injury, witnessed, or uncontrolled diabetes.
HCP observations include- how far did you walk to examination room, did you remove your coat independently, did you handle medications without difficulty, did you bend to pick up handbag.
Formal examination consists of simple movements to assess limited function.Things HCP also looks out for:-

Are you well presented, hair done, make-up, eyebrows waxed.
Do you have any pets – this can be linked with ability to bend to feed and walk.
Do you look after someone else – parent or carer- if you do this will be taken as evidence of functioning
Any training, voluntary work, socialising will be used as evidence of functioning.

This is not a comprehensive list, but gives you an idea of how seemingly innocent questions are used to justify HCP decisions.
Mental Health
Learning tasks- Can you use phone, computer, washing machine.
Hazards- Can you safely make tea, if claiming accidents- must have had emergency services eg fire service. Near miss accidents do not count.

Personal Actions
Can you wash, dress, gather evidence for assessment
Manage bills.

Observations made by HCP – appearance and presentation
Coping with assessment interview, abnormal thoughts, hallucinations, confusion.
Coping with change – ability to attend assessment, attend GP or hospital appointments, shopping and socialising.

More HCP observations:-
Appearance, eye contact, rapport, any signs/symptoms that are abnormal mood/thoughts/perceptions. Suicidal thoughts.
Coping with social engagement/appropriateness of behaviour – any inappropriate behaviour must have involved police
Ability to attend assessment, engage with assessor, behave appropriately.
Again this is not an exhaustive list, merely examples.
There are some “special cases”. Off the top of my head, exemptions from assessment include – terminal illness, intravenous chemotherapy treatment and danger to self or others if found fit to work (Regulation 29.)

At present to qualify for ESA you need to score 15 points. This can be a combination of scores from physical and mental health descriptors.
To qualify for the support group you must score 15 points in one section.
As long as you are claiming income – based ESA then your award can be renewed at each assessment, if you gain 15 points.

Contribution ESA lasts for 1 year only, unless you are in the support group. After 1 year in the support group, you may only get income based ESA if your household income is below a certain threshold. It makes no difference how long you have previously paid National Insurance.

For clarity, as far as I know in the real world, doctors carry out medical assessments, nurses carry out nursing assessments and physios carry out physiotherapy assessments. In the world of Atos, each of these separate professions are employed as disability analysts, carrying out functional assessments.
Nurses are employable for these posts if they have been qualified for at least 3 years, are registered to practice with the NMC, and have basic computer skills.
My interview consisted of-
Face to face interview with medical director and nurse team leader.
A written paper assessing a scenario, in my case someone with back pain
A 10 minute basic computer test.
In order to be approved as disability analyst I had to complete 4 weeks Atos disability training, reach a certain standard of assessment reports- as decided by audit of all cases seen (don’t know what criteria was) and finally approval to carry out WCA assessments from the Secretary for Work and Pensions.
In my opinion the money given to Atos and spent on tribunals should be given to NHS GPs. They are best placed to make assessments regarding patients work capability. They have access to all medical reports, past history, specialist input and know their patients. My concern would be what criteria the DWP would impose on GPs risking the doctor/patient relationship. GPs already assess patients for “fit notes”, which have to be submitted to DWP during assessment phase of ESA.

While I worked at Atos, sessional medical staff were being paid £40 per assessment, as far as I am aware. I have no idea of wages of permanent medical staff. Nurses were on a salary, which based on 10 assessments a day (Atos target) equalled around £10 per assessment. These are approximate figures but may give a clue as to why Atos are employing nurses rather than doctors.

Further information:-

Special exemptions from the 15 points criteria: Regulations 29 and 35.

Questions you may be asked at assessment: dwpexamination forum

How to deal with Benefits medical examinations: A Useful Guide to Benefit Claimants when up against ATOS Doctors

More support and helpful advice here: How to deal with Benefits medical examinations

Previous related article: After Atos

List of conditions judged suitable for assessment by neuro trained nurses/any health care profession: –
Prolapsed intervertebral disc
Lumbar nerve root compression
Sciatica
Slipped disc
Lumbar spondylosis
Lumbar spondylolisthesis
Lumbar spondylolysis
Cauda equina syndrome
Spinal stenosis
Peripheral neuropathy
Neuropathy
Drop foot
Meralgia paraesthetica
Cervical spondylosis
Cervical nerve root compression
Cervicalgia
Nerve entrapment syndrome
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Trapped nerve
Paraesthesia
Tingling
Numbness
Brachial plexus injury
Polyneuropathy
Dizziness
Vertigo
Essential Tremor
VWF
Alzheimer’s

List of conditions judged by the DWP and Atos Healthcare as suitable only for assessment by doctors:-
Stroke
Head injury with neuro sequelae
Brain haemorrhage
Sub Arachnoid Haemorrhage
Brain tumour
Acoustic Neuroma
Multiple Sclerosis
Motor Neurone Disease
Parkinson’s disease
TIAs
Bulbar Palsy
Myasthenia Gravis
Muscular Dystrophy
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Syringomyelia
Neurofibromatosis
Spina bifida
Polio
Fits (secondary to brain tumour)
Learning difficulties (with physical problems)
Nystagmus
Myelitis
Bells Palsy
Trigeminal Neuralgia
Paraplegia
Quadriplegia
Huntington’s Chorea
Huntington’s Disease

 

 Posted by at 17:24

More Chaos: ESA appeals up by 70%

 All Posts, Atos, Benefits, Disability Rights, Politics, Welfare reforms  14 Responses »
Mar 262013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Benefit appeals are on the rise….

Sickness benefit appeals up by 70%….

‘Chaos is looming’

Latest statistics from Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) reveal that the DWP’s increasingly controversial Employment & Support Allowance is leading to a massive surge in the numbers of appeals lodged with independent Tribunals.  The Ministry of Justice figures can be read here and confirm that for the period July to September 2012 the number of appeals was up by 69% on the same quarter on the previous year.  Benefit appeals are now accounting for 58% of all cases received for appeals across all Tribunals – an alarming increase.

The Ministry of Justice figures exhibits all the signs of impending chaos with a staggering 813,500 tribunal cases in total; an increase on the previous year when the number had already exceeded three quarters of a million appeal cases.

The number of Employment & Support Allowance appeal receipts is of particular concern, in the year 2011/2012 a total of 181,000 appeals were received by the Tribunals. In the first six months of 2012/2013 the figure has shot up to 133,700 indicating that these appeals alone are well on track to exceed a quarter of a million by year end.

42% of DWP decisions in ESA cases are wrong!

By comparison with the second quarter of 2009/2010 when Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) appeal receipts stood at 29,000 – the same quarter in 2012/2013 has zoomed up to 73,700 – an increase of 44,700.  Of the 53,200 ESA cases cleared at an appeal hearing 22,500 (42%) were found in favour of the claimant.  These figures highlight ongoing problems with the standards of decision – making following Atos ‘Work Capability Assessments’ – the DWP is still making an unacceptably large number of incorrect decisions.  

Total number of benefit appeals now on track to exceed 600,000 by the end of the year!

The total number of benefit appeal cases for 2012/2013 has already reached a wholly unacceptable figure of 308,200 meaning that if the trend continues, and there is every sign it will, the total number of benefit appeals alone will have reached well over 600,000 by the end of the year.

Cases outstanding (all) – 813,800  – chaos!

The total number of benefit appeal case ‘outstanding’ in 2008/2009 was 53,200 in the second quarter and has now more than trebled to 158,700 in the second quarter of 2012/2013.  A comparison with the figures for 2007/2008 when the figure stood at 347,100 shows the numbers have increased to a colossal 813,800 in 2012/2013. the number of employment tribunal cases outstanding as of the second quarter stands at 570,200, benefit cases stand at 158,700 in 2012/2013 and immigration & asylum cases at 41,000 – this is absolute chaos!

Exceeding the warnings given by the judiciary….

In a report issued in February 2012 provided by the Tribunal president  the judiciary gave the following breakdown of benefit appeal cases in the first – tier Tribunal and made the following predictions for increases in the appeal load:

Annual Intake of SSCS Appeals

2008-09 – 242,800

2009-10 – 339,200

2010-11 – 418,500

(forecast)

2011-12 – 421,609

2012-13 – 483,400

2013-14 – 576,700

2014-15 – 644,000

These latest figures show we are well on track to break past the 483,400 forecast for 2012/2013 and exceed the figure given for 2013/2014.  

The full effect of welfare reform changes has yet to hit the fan, the bedroom tax, more ESA cases, JSA sanctions (standing at 700,000), Disability Living Allowance giving way to Personal Independence Payments are all in the line up and will undoubtedly lead to the Tribunal president’s forecast being considerably exceeded.

Government and the DWP has to stop pretending that there is not a perfect storm brewing here, mandatory revision before appeal is only keeping the dispute out of the public’s attention in a pretence that the people who create the problems will somehow fix it.  The DWP is assessing twice as many ESA claimants as it needs to just to claim double its dubious ‘results’.  In reality the vast majority of those who flow off ESA and incapacity benefits are flowing straight back on to them shortly afterwards – government has no other credible explanation as to why after assessing over 2.8 million claimants between 2008 and 2012 the claimant count has barely reduced by little more than 70,000 – it’s derisory and half that achieved by way of reductions under the older incapacity benefits regime.  

The fact is that we were seeing much better reductions under the older incapacity benefits.  Government is using severely disabled claimants to manipulate its figures by its recycling of what can only be the same claimants.  It stands to reason that if vast numbers were really being ‘found fit for work’ the Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant count would have rocketed up to an embarrassingly high level which this government simply cannot afford to show.  

After coming off ESA claimants are being re-directed back on to it by Jobcentres who can clearly see these claimants are no where near ready for the labour markets.

Government’s mismanagement of the ESA reassessment programme:

There’s any number of statistical charts on here which you can muse over all day long.  

In doing so just apply the logic:

(1) We start with 2.6 million on the sick in 2008

(2) Various claims are made by the DWP/media of 75%, 50% and more recently 33% being found ‘fit for work’ 

(3) In 2012 we have 488,000 claimants waiting to be assessed

(4) In 2012 we have a Jobseeker’s Allowance queue that’s hardly grown

(5) By 2012 – 2.7 million have been subjected to Work Capability Assessments

(6) By 2012 – 3.8 million is the total number ‘case loaded’ through ESA

(7) By 2012 we are on track to break all previous appeal records with more hidden from view at the DWP

(8) In 2012 there are twice as many claiming on the sick as there were in 2006 

(9) By 2012 the claimant count for those on the sick has trickled down by a mere 70K, still leaving us with…. 

                              Around 2.6 million ‘on the sick’? 

(10) This wretched scheme is rapidly emerging as an absolute farce which is being used as a vehicle to keep the long term sick numbers down; thus keeping them from the long term ‘economically inactive’ count used by the ONS to work out the numbers said to unemployed. 

They have engineered themselves a clever way of marshalling the unemployment figure to one which is more ‘commensurate’ with the chancellor’s increasingly doubtful claims that we are ‘on the way’ to economic growth.  

With everlasting thanks to the brilliant Nick-

Twitter: @Mylegalforum

See more from Nick at https://ilegal.org.uk/ and below
See ESA Customer’s journey to nowhere

See the ‘journey in to work’

See a discrepancy uncovered

See unemployment is ‘falling’

See turning back the long term incapacity clock to zero

Summary of Secret Correspondence from the DWP to McVey on the ILF Closure

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, DisabilityCharityWatch, Europe, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, Politics, Social Model, Welfare reforms  3 Responses »
Mar 232013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

In the court case taken by five disabled people against the proposed closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) , and supported by a campaign led by DPAC and Inclusion London certain documents were used. These documents are mainly correspondence between civil servants at the Government’s Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) and the minister for disabled people: Esther McVey.

These documents were released and declassified after the court case because they had been mentioned in the case. This is a summary of those documents.

Early analysis of responses to the consultation on ILF Closure (undated)

This document gives a breakdown of responses and several points for McVey to take into account. First, the consultation asked:

Question 1Do you agree with the Government’s proposal that the care and support needs of current ILF users should be met within the mainstream care and support system, with funding devolved to local government in England and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales?[1] This would mean the closure of the ILF in 2015.

 

Question 2What are the key challenges that ILF users would face in moving from joint ILF/Local Authority to sole Local Authority funding of their care and support needs? How can any impacts be mitigated?

 

Question 3What impact would the closure of the ILF have on Local Authorities and the provision of care and support services more widely? How could any impacts be mitigated?

 As we see never were questions asked on extending the ILF or keeping it open. In fact question 1 is what is called a ‘leading question’

In the documents DWP tell McVey:

       ‘As we expected with the current challenges facing the care and support system, the majority of ILF users are opposed to closure of the fund, with many doing so on the basis that there could be no guarantee that their current level of funding would be protected in the future’

and….

           ‘A range of smaller national and local disability groups expressed similar concerns with our proposal. Some have been able to support the closures in principle but usually conditional on current user awards being protected as part of ring-fenced funding. The most vocal group has been the relatively new Disabled People against Cuts, DPAC. This group has taken a very strong critical position on a range of DWP policies’.

Yes we have and both Miller (our old mister for disabled people) and McVey refused to meet us and ILF users several times-in fact they didn’t even bother to respond to these requests!

We were very surprised to see this section advising McVey:

           ‘The consultation exercise has been immensely useful and we have been satisfied that we have listened to a collection of views that is representative of all those individuals or organisations that have an interest in or may be impacted by closure and devolution and have considered whether to modify the preferred position set out in the consultation in light of those views’ (emphasis added)

Amazing! Because if most said : keep it open, and if most said people would lose support or enter institutions, including responses from local authorities: what exactly did they listen to?

The documents recognize that ILF users will see a drop in support with some not being eligible for support at all

             ‘We do recognise that upon reassessment by LA’s most users are likely to see some reduction in the current funding levels, and there are a group of users with low care needs that may not be eligible for local authority support under current needs thresholds in most LA’s.’

The cost of closure will be £39 million! One document states that some of this has been achieved by the savings from closing ILF to new users in 2010. But closure cannot be publically defined as value for money-indeed!

        ‘The transfer costs mean that this proposal will cost rather than save money and therefore it cannot be defined as value for money. However the transfer costs are fully affordable’.

Not to ILF users they aren’t!

And wouldn’t £39 million, plus transfer cost be better put into ILF? Of course that’s not what they want to do, in spite of a consultation exercise where the majority appeared to say a resounding NO to closure.

Why did the DWP think it would Easy to Close the ILF?

One of the reasons given that the DWP found it so easy to close the ILF to new users in 2010 was the lack of any objections from the ‘big disability organisations’ which DWP call ‘Major Departmental Stakeholder Responses’ whatever that is.

In terms of the announcement of proposed closure in 2015 it was noted that none of these ‘stakeholders’ had requested a meeting with ministers from Westminster. Basically most had kept quiet, and hadn’t seen the closure of ILF as any big deal. Great support guys!

On this basis the DWP tell McVey in another document around the potential announcement of the closure in 2015

         ‘on the basis of attention shown so far, we do not think this will   receive  significant attention on its own…’

Guess they forgot about that vocal group DPAC and Deaf and Disabled Peoples’ Organisation: Inclusion London, because the closure of the ILF has now received significant attention in the UK and in Europe, at European Parliamentary level through MEPs and at UN level and we’ll make sure this continues.

Neither DPAC nor Inclusion London has the millions for campaigning that the big disability charities have, nor dedicated media, press and campaign teams. But we do have passion, and we do care about what happens to us all as disabled people, and we care what happens to independent living. ILF users taking the case and supporting the case have appeared on TV, on radio and in newspapers to get the message across that ILF is important and this will continue too.

Any journalists that want to know more or run stories can contact: mail@dpac.uk.net

So what did these so called ‘stakeholders’ say in response to the consultation? According to the DWP, there was not enough resistance at all.

In the early analysis document those who the DWP define as key stakeholders are broken down and their responses analysed. Below is what DWP said of their ‘Major Departmental Stakeholder Responses’ in the exact words of the DWP to McVey

 Carers UK-Weakly Disagree

-User packages would be reduced placing extra demand on unpaid care

Disability Rights UK-Concerned

-Lack of choice and flexibility under Local Authorities (Las)

-User packages will be reduced

-Poor perception and past support of Las

-Difficult for ILF users to transition easily

 Disability Wales- Strongly Disagree

-users packages would be reduced which could make it impossible to support ILF users in a family environment

-since the 2010 closure of the fund to applicants disabled people have had to start entering residential care.

-believes the government is targeting the disabled for cuts

-LAs could not cope with the additional workload

-Lack of choice, flexibility and dignity for ILF users under LAs

-Do not believe transitional protection will be offered

 Inclusion Scotland-Strongly Disagree

-The proposal would create a postcode lottery of support

-User packages would be reduced

-LA support is budget led rather than needs led

-ILF expertise would be lost

-Lack of choice and flexibility under LAs

 MENCAP-Pragmatic Agreement

-If reforms go ahead they should be about finding a better system, not cutting costs

-Funding should be allocated to LAs as a separate ring fenced funding stream based on current ILF regional spending patterns in which current users enjoy time-limited protection

-need for Government to provide advice and information to all parties

 MS Society- Concerned Agreement

-Consolidation of funding streams would simplify the care system

-The proposal should not be enacted until the impact of current welfare reform is understood

-Lack of choice, flexibility and dignity for ILF users under LAs needs to be addressed

-LAs need as far as possible, to replicate the personalised expertise of ILF

-Representative groups need to be closely involved in the transition design

 RNIB-Weak Concern

-Concerned that closure might lead to a breach of article 19 on UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

-Representative groups must be closely involved in transition design

-Current levels of support must be maintained

 SCOPE-Concerned Weak Agreement

 -Consolidation of funding streams would simplify the care system

-The proposal should not be enacted during current funding constraints

-The mainstream care and support system needs more experience and commitment to independent living to be able to undertake the responsibilities of the ILF

 Spinal Injuries Association-Disagree

 -Funding is likely to disappear into wider LA budgets on transfer

-ILF is more efficient than LAs

 

‘Rights not Charity’ seems very apt as the major charities for disabled people appeared to agree with the closure, after all more institutionalisation of disabled people might benefit them mightn’t it?  Disability Rights UK (DRUK) a so called user-led organisation incorporating, but clearly forgetting the principles of National Centre for Independent Living, did not offer more than ‘concern’.  The Spinal Injuries Association ‘disagreed’ but what this needed was for all to come out and say ‘Strongly Disagree’ as Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland did.

 Remember that when the charities ask you for money, remember that when those groups that didn’t come out fully against the closure of the ILF say they are on the side of disabled people or are working for disabled people: we believe they can no longer justify either of those statements.

 The DWP told McVey that ‘stakeholders’ (SCOPE, DRUK etc)

‘..have traditionally found it hard to defend the ILF model of funding care..’

‘none of the largest national disability organisations requested ministerial meetings and many did not submit responses to the consultation. While we have had an increasing number of letters from MPs on users’ behalf, the proposal to close the fund has received almost no attention in the mainstream media’ (correspondence to McVey 7th November 2012)

We will work through more of the documents looking at issues on transition, and the DWP’s media strategy which is unsurprisingly at odds with any issues raised by disabled people-you know the stuff Closure of ILF will give ‘choice and control’ , ‘committed to supporting disabled people’ blah, blah, blah.

The big difference here is that it is clear from the documents  that the DWP are perfectly aware that ILF users will lose funding and that their needs won’t be adequately met through the local authority system.

Cuts versus Reform

Finally, the DWP were keen to try and put the message out that the closure of the ILF was not about ‘cuts’ but about ‘reform’ –what’s the difference? They do appear to believe that if they say reform we all think this is a good thing, rather than identifying that everything that comes under the heading of reform is actually another cut.

The documents cannot be clearer: this is a cut

A cut to the dignity, life chances and lives of disabled people-not just those who are currently supported to lead independent lives through ILF , but also those who would have qualified before closure to new applicants in 2010 and all who could benefit from the ILF system in the future

Support ILF users now; support a better future-say no to the closure of the ILF!

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Funding for ILF users in Northern Ireland is currently the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development, not the Department for Work and Pensions.

DWP’s ESA Process in Chaos?

 All Posts, Atos, Benefits, Disability Rights, Welfare reforms  5 Responses »
Mar 102013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net
  Time for your ESA assessment?

Not for 78,000 claimants
– waiting over a year!

Only the other week we had the DWP recklessly fuelling the tabloids over its absurd claims that 15,000 Disability claimants (most of whom were pensioners and children) were seemingly breaking a leg to get their claims in before the dreaded new Personal Capability Assessment comes in to being this April for new claiments; the DWP neglected to make sure the media told everyone how the figures they were quoting were months out of date!

When challenged over the figures the DWP advocate that you should ‘dig deep’ and look beyond their damaging headlines.  When you do so it’s interesting to see what you turf up – the utterly chaotic Employment & Support Allowance ‘reassessment of the sick’ programme goes from bad to worse as it is revealed (upon digging deeper in to their figures) that thousands upon thousands of claimants remain ‘stuck’ in what the DWP term the ‘assessment phase’ of an allowance which seems to be getting its claimants no support at all in to employment.  

Read more about the DWP’s ‘customer journey to nowhere’  The DWP’s most up to date figures for May 2012 (the figures for August 2012 are apparently ‘delayed’) show that an astonishing 455,860 claimants are either waiting for their Work Capability Assessment to be completed or waiting for an appeal against a decision they believe to be wrong.  What is totally unacceptable is how a programme which is meant to be helping people back to work is seeing no less than 77,820 claimants waiting a year or more for their assessment or appeal to lead to any kind of proper decision! – in nearly 30,000 cases it’s over 2 years!

This is nothing short of a National outrage which the mainstream media have a duty to publish.

Here’s the official DWP figures…. 

Assessment Phase  

Total 

Up to 3 months 

3 to 6 months 

6 months to 1 year  

1 to 2 years

2 to 5 years
May 2012

455,860

157,940

122,180

97,910

49,040

28,780
February 2012

424,170

166,230

107,930

81,460

44,740

23,810
Change (+/-) +31,390 

– 8,290

+ 14,250

+ 16,450

+ 4,300

+ 4,970
 
 

DWPs ESA Process in Chaos?

You can check them against the official DWP tables here….

DWP figures for May 2012

DWP figures for February 2012

With thanks to the brilliant Nick at Mylegal for more from Nick see https://ilegal.org.uk/

Twitter: @Mylegalforum

Letter from Ed Miliband on Atos/WCA but is it enough?

 All Posts, Atos, Benefits, Disability Rights, DisabilityCharityWatch, Letters, News, Welfare reforms  4 Responses »
Feb 252013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

DPAC has been passed a letter from Ed on WCA/Atos which we’ve been asked to share. While reading please remember that it was New Labour that first contracted Atos and Ed has done some visits to them too- no, not  joining DPAC, or disabled  people in  protests outside Atos offices in direct actions against the 72 deaths a week of those being put through this inhuman regime. But as a kind of badly advised PR exercise. He seems to have stopped that now.

The letter says:

              ‘We appreciate and share the concerns that have been expressed by many charities, disability groups and health care professionals regarding the WCA …’

Would these be the same multi-million big disability charities that sat at the table with Atos in the working groups on the construction of the WCA we wonder? And is Ed really talking about HCPs here? Ed’s  letter continues:

             ‘….and we agree that the government need to move quickly to remedy the problems. A large number of charities and disabled people have reported serious shortcomings with the assessment process and there is clear evidence that the WCA is not working….’

A slight understatement? Then there’s a bit of a disclaimer about previous New Labour government and what they intended for the WCA which was for it to work with applicants ‘fairly, quickly and compassionately’ with ‘appropriate support’.  Ah so no plans to scrap this inhumane disaster and start looking at it all again then? Back to Ed:

           ‘…It is clear, however, that the current Government have been too slow to adapt the Work Capability Assessment in the light of experience, and in view of the much bigger job it is now being asked to do…’

Actually they have been adapting it, mobilising distance for example has been reduced several times to make even more difficult to score those elusive Atos points removing more people from any support. Then we have a paragraph on Professor Malcolm Harrison’s independent reports and lack of progress. Let’s also remember Prof Harrison was sacked/resigned/came to the end of his appointment, apparently after appearing on Panorama citing the disaster of the WCA and Atos. But moving on:

       ‘…We would like to see the Government move much faster-for example in acting on the recommendations made by charities on dealing with mental health problems and fluctuating conditions-and to reduce the current bureaucracy of the current system. Atos healthcare also have questions to answer about the effectiveness of the current assessment process…’

        ‘..We are also very concerned that the scale of the cuts to disability benefits and social care introduced by this Government-which will total 8.6 billion over the parliament-will have a very serious impact on many disabled people..’

Isn’t it over 9 billion?

     ‘…Mr Miliband and the Shadow Frontbench will continue to press the Government on the need to put right the serious problems with the WCA…’

Cheers Ed and let us add that the work of Labour’s John McDonnell, Michael Meacher and others in bringing this Atos horror and the links between Atos and Unum in running ‘Government’ from the inside are much appreciated.

You can download the full letter from link below

 https://www.dpac.uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Letter-From-Ed-Milliband-Mp2.jpg

Benefit Justice Summit – 9th March

 Benefits, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
Feb 162013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

11am at ULU, Malet Street,
London WC1E 7HY

With workshops on • welfare reforms causing poverty, debt and
homelessness • how we can oppose them • building mass resistance
• Link up and build the campaign locally and nationally

The Campaign for Benefit Justice is uniting all those opposed to
devastating benefit cuts / By linking up we can challenge the
Government’s divide and rule tactics and unite the 99% of people
hit by these cuts / Bringing together disabled people, tenants,
unemployed , trade unions, students, pensioners, single parents
and others to oppose benefit cuts.

Download summit flyer and details for how to book your place here: benefit-justice-summit_A5_4pp (2)

ATOS and DWP’s Land of Make Believe

 All Posts, Benefits, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
Feb 102013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

New ‘Use Common Sense’ training module for ATOS HP and DWP Decision Makers

“Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen”

(Albert Einstein)

ATOS HPs are well known for having assimilated all what needs to be learnt about any physical or mental impairments, illnesses and disabilities in a grand total of 22 days training.

They are now required to call upon one of their other greatest strengths, namely ‘common sense’ to decide whether a claimant undertaking a Work Capability Assessment would benefit from a mobility aid or appliance, and therefore is fit to work.

In the words of DWP [1]:

 

‘It must be recognised that specific skills, knowledge, experience and training are required to fully assess individuals for aids and appliances which may ultimately help their function. Additionally, clinicians who assess and prescribe aids and appliances for an individual will normally have access to significantly more information about the individual’s situation than HCPs offering advice as part of the WCA process.

 

Therefore, in situations where an aid or appliance has not been recommended or prescribed, HCPs are being asked to use their skills and experience as a disability analyst to offer ‘common-sense’ advice to the DM in situations where they feel an aid or appliance could improve a claimant’s function in terms of an individual WCA Activity’.

In other words, HPs can without specific skills, knowledge, experience, training and medical information, and simply using their ‘common sense’ decide if person is fit for work IF they were to use a mobility aid or other appliance

If a person in the street, chosen at random were asked “whether a person with mobility problems would benefit from a wheelchair”, the answer would be “yes”

This answer would have as much value as the HP’s advice and be about as accurate.

Using specialist information to make such a decision requires the wisdom of education and experience, not common sense.

But it gets worse:

The ATOS HP’s ‘common sense’ advice is then presented to the DWP Decision-maker, who, let us not forget, has no medical training whatsoever.

According to the new guidelines, the DM will have to:

‘Consider all the circumstances in order to determine whether it would be reasonable to assess the claimant as using an aid or appliance that has not been prescribed or that they have not been advised to use.’

Here are some of the factors in the DWP guidance, which include:

  • whether the claimant would be advised to use an aid or appliance if they raised it with the appropriate authority such as a GP or occupational therapist 
  • it is medically reasonable for them to use an aid or appliance

At this point, we are entering the world of La La Land:

The Fit for Work decision, which will have huge implications for a claimant, is purely resting on a series of assumptions:

  • The HP’s assumption based on ‘common sense’ that an aid/appliance would improve mobility, without appropriate medical training, skills, experience and without considering :
  •      Its suitability for the claimants condition,
  •      The medical reasons why it might not be appropriate for that person,
  •      The practicality of use in real life and in a real workplace
  • The DM’s assumption that the claimant could be advised to use an aid or appliance if he asked the question, and that it is medically reasonable for them to use an aid and an appliance, without any medical knowledge to back the decision.

In both cases, the new guidelines require HP’s and DM’s to use what is called ‘common sense assumptions’, which are very far away from the informed decisions expected in these kind of cases

In the reality that most of the human race inhabit, a decision whether to use a sophisticated aid such as a prosthetic limb to give a patient mobility would only be undertaken by trained medical professionals in consultation with the patient over the course of several sessions.

However on the planet inhabited by the masterminds at the DWP, it is possible for an untrained, inexperienced ATOS “Health Practitioner” to make this decision using only “common sense” within a matter of minutes (since ATOS allows a very short time for each HP to make a recommendation) and without any consultation with the benefit claimant as to the suitability of such a device.

Notes to Editors:

What the DWP has done, is to use an appeal judgement [1] that it said it has won (when actually the appeal was upheld for the claimant, and the tribunal recommended an oral hearing).

Here is an extract from the DWP Guidance document [2] which explains the judgement:

Here is the background to this change, which was based on the outcome of a single ESA claim, which passed through the Appeals process. It contains the essence of what Decision Makers – and therefore HCPs – will be required to consider as a result of the change.

The facts of the Upper Tribunal decision were as follows. The case was assessed under the ESA 2008 regulations.

The claimant suffered from problems with his knee. He had not been advised to use a walking stick, and did not do so. Following application of the WCA, the DM determined that the claimant did not score any points, and ESA was terminated.

On appeal, the First Tier Tribunal awarded 9 points for descriptor 3(b) (bending or kneeling). They considered that the claimant’s difficulties with walking, standing and sitting could be helped by the use of a walking stick. As the score was still less than 15 points, the DM’s decision was upheld.

On a further appeal, the Upper Tribunal Judge held that

A – Where a claimant normally uses an aid or appliance, they         must be assessed as if they were using it

B – If an aid or appliance has been prescribed or recommended by a person with appropriate expertise, the claimant must be assessed as using it, unless it would be unreasonable for them to use it

C – if a claimant does not use an aid or appliance, and it has not been prescribed or recommended, the claimant must be assessed as if using it if

a. it is normally used by people in the same circumstances acting reasonably and

b. It would be reasonable for the claimant to use it.

The Judge also held that where paragraph C applies, the DM must explain how an aid or appliance would help the claimant.

The Judge’s application of the test of ‘normal use of an aid or appliance’ applies to the assessment of all of the physical activities in the WCA. It is not restricted to those activities that make specific reference to aids or appliances.

Four of the physical activities within the WCA refer specifically to the use of aids. Activity 8 (navigation) and Activity 9 (continence), refer to aids that are normally used.

Activity 1 (mobilising) and Activity 7 (understanding communication) refer to the reasonableness of the use of an aid.

The DWP has extended the judgement from the use of a simple aid (a stick in the present case), to more sophisticated aids or appliances, such as wheelchairs and prosthetics.

Further reading:

[1]https://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j3364/CE%201217%202011-00.doc

[2] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/139330/response/358405/attach/3/Mobility%20Aids%20and%20Appliances%20doc.pdf

[3] Guidance for DWP Decision-makers: https://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-24-12.pdf

 by Annie and Bob.

 

 Posted by at 21:44

Job Centre Plus staff’s behaviour a disgrace

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, disability hate crime  42 Responses »
Feb 092013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net
   
  Today I was having a blood transfusion after losing six pints of blood owing to Kidney failure. I am already a kidney transplant patient and an agency worker hence while my body is missing six pints of blood and I am on the brink of kidney failure I am unable walk let alone work. I claimed ESA and ATOS based on what my GP and Renal Consultants said passed me on my medical. However the DWP have harassed me constantly and today during treatment Shireen from North Kensington Job Centre phoned and demanded I go on a back to work assessment. I told her as I told her manager yesterday I was in hospital having treatment and I had a job when I get well again but I was too ill. She continued to harass me demanding I find the Consultant and ask him what time I would be finished having the six pints of blood put inside me. Eventually I became upset and drew the attention from the nurse and eventually the consultant. I offered to put the Consultant on to speak to Shireen at the job centre but she refused but told me to talk to him and find out what time I finished. I told her I wasn’t fit to work and if I was I HAVE A JOB but she ignored me and continued to get me upset. Is there any advice you can give me because I was in the middle of treatment when she did this and I am entitled to treatment.I have kidney failure but to ill for dialysis or a transplant and they need to work with me, I had to have six pints of blood and she refused to listen to me she even laughed.Should you find this disgusting like we do you may want to write to the manager at this job centre and complain. 

North Kensington Jobcentre Plus
Office
Unit 308-312
Quayside House

Kensal Road

London

W10 5BE

We’d also like anyone who has experienced anything similar to let us know please at mail@dpac.uk.net

 

 Posted by at 21:40

SAY NO TO THE ENDING OF COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT -February 5th Royal Courts of Justice

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  7 Responses »
Feb 022013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

WINVISIBLE [mailto:win@winvisible.org]
Sent: 02 February 2013 10:57
Subject: Tues 5 Feb: demo to support legal challenge to Haringey cutting
Council Tax Benefit

Dear Friends,

Demonstrate with us to support a  legal challenge to Haringey Council cutting
Council Tax Benefit
Royal Courts of Justice (High Court), Strand London WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 5 February 9.45am – 11am
10.30am: some people will go into court

Please come and support this important legal challenge to stop the Council
charging Council Tax to people on benefit – see email below from Rev Paul
Nicolson, Taxpayers Against Poverty.

Alex Rook, specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, who is
representing local residents in Haringey, said: “Our client is a single
mother and she is simply not going to be able to make these payments.”

Residents in other boroughs are also hoping to join the legal challenges.

Did you know:
– Nationally,  those who will be most disadvantaged by this change
are in waged work, including single parents (92% mothers)
who work part-time and those of us on minimum wage who depend on childcare.
We will face a hike of up to £577 a year in Council Tax.
– Some Councils, such as Tory-led Kensington and Chelsea, have
decided to keep the 100% Council Tax Benefit, and instead charge 2nd-home
owners to make up the gap in government funding, see
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21276091
– Families with young children, sick and disabled people, young
unemployed people, other vulnerable groups should rightly be protected —
but some Councils, such as Camden, have decided to charge Council Tax
contributions from everyone of working age regardless of their circumstances.
– More national info
https://www.channel4.com/news/council-tax-benefit-cuts-the-key-questions
– More about the Haringey challenge
https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/21/council-tax-blow-people-benefits

Winning this challenge will set a precedent against all Councils planning to
cut Council Tax Benefit

See you there!

WINVISIBLE

PS: We have been working with the mother of Daniel Roque Hall – a severely
disabled man who was nearly killed by Wormwood Scrubs prison’s neglect. The
High Court is hearing his appeal on Tuesday so there will be a second
demonstration outside the court. A number of us will be involved in both.
See separate email.

_____

 Posted by at 19:52

bedroom Tax and Discretionary Housing Payments

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, News, Welfare reforms  6 Responses »
Jan 292013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net

Discretionary Housing Payments are to offset extra costs of so called Bedroom Tax but many local authorities are NOT advertising that this DHP is actually available. Yet the government is giving an extra 30 million pounds to LA’s specifically for this purpose. So for any disabled person facing a reduction in housing benefit due to having spare rooms please do pass on this link to the DWP guide for this year; https://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/discretionary-housing-payments-guide-draft.pdf
at
www.dwp.gov

There should be information and claim forms on your local council’s website.

DHPs pose some problems however

1. You normally have to reapply for them every 13 weeks

2. There is no guarantee how much you’ll get each time you apply.

3. There is no right of appeal if you are refused one BUT you can seek a Judicial Review against that decision if you qualify for legal aid or you can threaten it if you don’t.

 Posted by at 22:06

One Show, reaching 5m, looking for people affected by bedroom tax

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, News  3 Responses »
Jan 292013
 
DPAC Logo with text underneath "Disabled People Against Cuts" and then web address dpac.uk.net
Hi there,
My name is Lauren Layfield, I work on The One Show at the BBC.
I wonder if you can help me? We’re desperately after families, single mums or single people who are going to be affected by the bedroom tax.
I wondered if you knew of anyone who’d be willing to speak to us about their situation?
We’re tried a few options now, but we’ve had a lot of bad luck…namely case studies falling poorly! We’re worried, unless we find someone soon, we won’t be able to do the story. Which would be a terrible shame as we get around 5m viewers every night and we want to bring it to people’s attention – one massive concern from housing associations is that many people don’t know it’s happening, or even BELIEVE it’s going to take effect, which is worrying.
I very much hope you might be able to help!
Best wishes,
Lauren Layfield
Researcher
Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CC98AF.693F0BE0
4th Floor | Quay House | BBC MediaCityUK
Salford Quays | M50 2BH
0161 335 7558
* lauren.layfield@bbc.co.uk
 Posted by at 19:47
 Older Entries  Newer Entries