HomeDamien GreenMinisterial duo face questions after misleading MPs over PIP
Comments
  • Terminator October 21, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    People must push for assessments recording just like they did with ESA but if you look at the HANSARD statement by Chris Grayling on 1/2/12 he refers to people who want their assessments recording could have them recorded, he does not state what assessment only that “their assessment could be recorded” I believe this is a loophole black triangle could exploit this issue to overcome the issue of recording assessments for PIP. I did a similar thing in 2013 on them sending me an ESA50 2 months before the date on the ESA72 which clearly stated “WE WILL CONTACT YOU AGAIN ON OR AFTER (DATE).” After that they removed the contact on or after date from the ESA72 from the following year. I got another form and was asked to return it before the date but them asked for extra time which they gave and that took me over the contact on or after date on the ESA72.
    I believe there is still a loophole in their system that can be exploited because of the wording they use; Things like the phrase “A return to work in the longer term is not advisable.” They have stated on the what do they know freedom of information site that that phrase means a minimum period of 2 years so any attempts by the DWP to start any attempts to get the claimant back into seeking work, before a two year period has passed could be detrimental to their health.

  • Alex October 21, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    As we all know, the PIP assessment process is a total farce. I have supported many disabled people through the DLA to PIP application and the most recent (last week) was possibly the most illuminating.

    I helped the claimant to provide the Appeal Tribunal with 38 pages of further evidence to support his claim but the Appeal Tribunal did not change, by a single letter, the DWP decision-maker’s decision and that of the MR.

    The rejection stated “In reaching its decision, the Tribunal placed particular reliance upon the evidence of the Health Care Professional.”

    The very reason that the claimant submitted a further 38 pages of evidence was because the Assessor from ATOS provided the DWP with a totally flawed, inaccurate and incompetent report.

    So, the Tribunal completely ignored any of the evidence presented by the claimant and trusted an incompetent assessor.

    Complaints to ATOS and DWP will be sent soon (for whatever good that will do) and the claimant is now looking towards to Upper Tribunal to consider whether he has grounds to continue with his claim.

    I would like to think that this was an isolated case but experience has shown that several others fall into the same boat.

  • You must be logged in to comment. Log in
%d bloggers like this: