More disabled to suffer under UK budget travesty.

Post Reply New Topic

ATOS also do disability reviews for companies to help them sack their staff who develop difficulties that they (the employers) cant be bothered to adapt to. I heard about one person who lost their job because ATOS declared they were unfit for work, so they tried to claim benefits. cue another ATOS encounter, this time for the DWP, i think you can guess the outcome!

When i first read the ESA criteria, i was amazed at how similarly worded it was to ASD criteria, i even felt a little relief. You make an excellent point that anyone with an AS diagnosis of reasonable quality should be definition be scoring highly. that some of us are emerging with 0 points should in itself be enough to damn the systems integrity absolutely, even in the most bloody minded.

ATOS are given to hiding behind the dubious concept of "at the time of the interview" and the contradictory position that the diagnosis does not reflect your day to day abilities, despite the fact that if we did not manifest certain pertinent behaviours then we would not HAVE the diagnosis. IN effect, ATOS feel that they can contradict any other medical professionals opinion based apparently on the fact that they represent the secretary of state. This means that the Secretary of State, by proxy, can invalidate any medical diagnosis by anyone at all ever. You are not disabled if the Secretary of State says so.

I'm aware of the hypocritical incident of ATOS vs ATOS action, and a sorry affair it was indeed. I feel for the young woman who was treated with such cavalier disregard.

A query I have yet to have satisfied is: what of those who already HAVE tribunal decisions in their favour? A legal and legally binding statement from an independent and bona fide legal professional that states quite clearly that a claimant has limited capacity for work, which overrules both ATOS and, by proxy the Secretary of State. No doubt ATOS intend to claim that "limited capacity for work through disability" does not de facto support "requirement for DLA" and force these people through another VERY stressful court case. I fear that it is only a matter of time before a vulnerable person is driven to completed suicide by this. The stress of taking on the state machine is IMMENSE, and laying it upon people who often already have substantial stressors in their life (and would have those even in an otherwise "normal" existence) is going to be fatal for someone sooner or later. When this inevitably occurs, I can only hope that a full legal case will be taken against ATOS and the Secretary of State.

I'm probably being idealistic here, but please indulge me:

All the things you speak of happened under the New Labour government. If I were a new PM, I wouldn't be too quick to affiliate myself with such measures. Maybe the delay until 2013 is there to give the government time to revise the assessment process and make sure it collars the right people. That way, the government can say: "Forget what happened under Labour. These are our assessments, not theirs".

This can be an advantage for those who survive the assessments because they can then say: "We're the people that YOU decided are genuinely entitled to benefit. Please increase our money to keep up with inflation".

Inside sources have suggested that the testing will start with those who do not already have an indefinite award (which makes sense) and that it may not actually reach those who either already had medicals (back when they still did them for DLA) or are awarded indefinitely. With luck, the government will realise before 2013 that there really is a two tier system to DLA: those who are on it for temporary or undiagnosed issues which have every possibility of changing, and those who have life-long conditions that will not change. Hopefully they will also realise that struggling to overcome the latter, to lead a "normal" life is not the same as fraudulently claiming you cannot walk X distance when you can in fact walk Y distance, and that penalising people for trying to improve their lives is not the way to go. The former could easily end up becoming the latter as well.

News today: ESA to be cut as well. So that's DLA testing by a fraudulent company, ESA (incap) cuts, housing benefit cut, and forced relocation for the poor on top of indentured labour. Nice.

We are receiving the backlash for complaining about draining moats and painting duck houses.
Send me to the salt mines to die.

Forced relocation? Where did you get that from?

There are several layers to this. Primarily there is the hefty reduction of "local housing allowance" and "housing benefit", in a deliberate and admitted attempt to make people "downsize". They will be forced to relocate or pay substantially larger amounts for rent, which becomes increasingly more difficult if you are actually on benefits.

There is the ominous comment by IDS that there are plenty of elderly people in houses "they cannot run" and a lot of families in small flats.

There was reported a statement that Housing Benefit would be reduced if a claimant were to be on JSA for more than a year.

The reduction of local housing allowance will increase the number of people in any given area seeking council accommodation, without any increase in the amount of council accommodation, whilst at the same time people from other areas "relocating for work" will be higher up the housing list for access to this limited housing.

IDS suggests that people will not be "forced" to move to areas with more work, but instead "incentivised". So far not a single one of the "incentives" provided by this budget towards the poor have been anything but punitive. "You will do X task or you will be cut off"..."You will do Y course or you will be downsized" It stands to reason that the incentive to move to another area will be along these very lines, in much the same way that if you refuse an interview in your own area, you will be penalised. For a long time jobcentre advisors have tried to get people to interview for jobs outside their travel range, simply to boost figures. This is merely an extension of that. If you do not choose to move you are clearly not taking your jobsearch seriously and will be penalised.

On a slightly different tack, even more reporting today of how the government will "attack" fraudulent claims and "make war" on the dole scroungers and long-term unemployed or low-incomed. The media speak in more polite terms of the Taliban, and we are at war with them. In fact abusing the Taliban in such insulting terms would probably result in censure for racism or the like.

I read this today, this is happening much earlier in my locality.
Press & Journal news item<link

The government are given to rolling out "test" areas, it would appear so that they can gauge public reactions and test out new techniques. Some of the terminology has been unclear in recent days as some media sources are mixing up Incapacity Benefit and ESA. It could be assumed that they would (sensibly) be only testing those people who were due to be moved over to ESA anyway, and letting alone those already ON it, but it is not completely clear if this is the case, or whether they intend to retest those already moved.

My heart goes out to the disabled in Aberdeen, who are about to be mistreated and abused en masse, and can only hope that there will be a HUGE response in tribunals shortly afterwards. Enough of a kickback might persuade the government to reconsider if not who gets tested, then who does the testing.

I feel as though my heart has been ripped out, I have to phone within two days.

Just remember they monitor you from the moment you enter the building, and think about answers to what may appear to be innocent questions. Also, stand ready to start the tribunal as soon as you get their response. Same day even. You're the unfortunate vanguard mon ami. Good Luck.

Make sure you are accompanied by someone who can speak up for you. For me, it was my mother.

My partner was accompanied by a fully paid up Nurse and the "disability specialist" ignored her completely. Its good advice to go with someone though, as if nothing else they provide an independent witness.

Thanks for the words of support, it really means a lot to me.

I phoned and was offered two appointments. One clashed with my first check up at the hospital following removal of skin cancer - so I declined that appointment. The second was first thing in the morning and I said I would prefer an afternoon as it takes me a while to get up and dressed as I live alone. The call centre person said I will let 'them' know and you will hear back from them.
As for taking along someone, I only have my aged parents, one with Munchausen's who will think the appointment is all about them, while the other is becoming forgetful and would need my support, thus demonstrating I could take up employment in a retirement home.

I will have to go it alone.

Is there no medical professional you could ask to attend, or a social worker maybe?