Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Professor Harrington’s review of the WCA
attached link to -
Professor Harrington’s independent review of the WCA
rightsnet news story summarising key points to follow.
cheers ros
One of the most worrying things I’ve experiended in the WCA id not just its draconian points system but some of the reports in what has been said to clients in these medical. These were subjects of complaint and were denied by the assessor but in this reprt it seems such reports are consistant from a variety of sources;
‘Evidence presented at a user seminar came from a woman who had expressed
suicidal tendencies. At her Atos assessment, she was kept waiting for two hours
before being seen. Then during the assessment she was rudely treated by the
Atos HCP who at one point told her to “stop crying and hurry up because I need
to go and pick up my kids from school.”
Other cases have included:
“The interview was very intimidating, and I was reduced to tears of frustration
by the end. When I was asked the questions, I was stopped by the assessor
from being able to explain and add essential supplementary information. The
assessor frequently just held his hand up to stop me from talking and then he
moved directly on to the next question.”, Mrs S
24 Adapted from DWP ESA/WCA statistics publication, October 2010
25 “Not Working”, Citizens Advice, March 2010
44 Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment
“At the end of my assessment the doctor felt the need to inform me “ME/CFS
doesn’t exist in any physical form as there’s no definitive test for it”. When the
doctor saw my surprise he soon followed this comment with “there’s a big
world out there you know, you should go out and see some of it””, Mr B, found
fit for work
Trullu appaling and I’m not sure if the reforms suggested will make any difference.
here’s a link to rightsnet news story -
Independent review of WCA finds that it is ‘not working as well as it should’
WCA a joke. My brother scored 0 points 2 days before an operation on his spine.
Atos “professional” refused to discuss his current medical condition and was not interested in his upcoming surgery.
Thank god for reg 29 and reasonable tribunal judges!
I found the report rather lackluster although some of the President of the First-Tier Tribunal’s comments were interesting. One bit that did concern me was:
The review recommends that training offered by the Chamber President to
Tribunal Judges and medical members should include modules on the
evidence of the beneficial effects of work to an individual’s well-being.
26. The Chamber President and Senior President already provide substantial training
to Judges and medical members. However, the review believes that some
training should focus on the evidence of the importance of work and to ensure
that there is a clear understanding of the negative impacts of worklessness.
27. These recommendations, taken together with the improvements to the Decision
Maker role should reduce the number of appeals, and reduce the appeals
success rate. In other words the decision should be got right first time, leading to
fewer people appealing and more confidence in the initial decision.
Surely tribunals are not there to consider the beneficial effects of work on an individual’s well-being. Their job is to ensure that the law is followed correctly regardless of their personal views on the perils of worklessness. It is the job of politicians to deal with the moral issues, not the tribunal service.
I saw that in the report as well and I can only echo the comments made above. I find it slightly worrying that the learned professor might have misunderstood the basis of the appeal process to a large enough degree to make this comment/suggestion at all.
I hope that recommendations to increase the ‘confidence’ of decision makers can include an injection of common sense relating to frequency of WCAs. The idea that everyone is ‘fit for work after 3 months’ is ridiculous or is that the only choice in the drop-down menu? Roll on Prof. Harrington’s review of the software - can’t wait. The comments in Chapter 5, (40) are a gem of understatement.
I found the report rather lackluster although some of the President of the First-Tier Tribunal’s comments were interesting. One bit that did concern me was:
The review recommends that training offered by the Chamber President to
Tribunal Judges and medical members should include modules on the
evidence of the beneficial effects of work to an individual’s well-being.26. The Chamber President and Senior President already provide substantial training
to Judges and medical members. However, the review believes that some
training should focus on the evidence of the importance of work and to ensure
that there is a clear understanding of the negative impacts of worklessness.27. These recommendations, taken together with the improvements to the Decision
Maker role should reduce the number of appeals, and reduce the appeals
success rate. In other words the decision should be got right first time, leading to
fewer people appealing and more confidence in the initial decision.Surely tribunals are not there to consider the beneficial effects of work on an individual’s well-being. Their job is to ensure that the law is followed correctly regardless of their personal views on the perils of worklessness. It is the job of politicians to deal with the moral issues, not the tribunal service.
also interesting is the talk of feedback re decisions from tribunals to the dwp. I cant see judges being happy about having to send sor’s to the dwp which in most cases probably will never be read.
And today the government grants a £300 million contract extension to Atos!! Heaven is, but I wish I was so incompetent as to be so rewarded!
And today the government grants a £300 million contract extension to Atos!! Heaven is, but I wish I was so incompetent as to be so rewarded!
My thoughts exactly
[ Edited: 24 Nov 2010 at 01:39 pm by Nan ]To be positive about ATOS, maybe they should be recommended for beatification by the RC church. After all they must have been responsible for an all time record number of miracle cures!
LOL!
Prof Harrington makes good sense in relation to the role DM’s should play in the process, though, especially in relation to DM’s propensity to follow the ATOS practitioner’s assessment and not consider other available evidence. I’ve just been working on a sub for a client with a severe learning difficulty who failed the WCA- the decision, based on the evidence provided, is (in my view) perverse and I’ve taken the unusual step for me of sending a copy of my sub direct to the local delivery centre with a request (in which I have referred to the professor’s report) to consider revising the decision. Will see what (if anything) happens but in my view, having to get this poor client to attend an appeal hearing is a waste of everyone’s time and money.
“£300 million contract extension to Atos” ...isn’t that a bit mechanistic of the government?
Once upon a time there existed people known as adjudication officers, and there was a Chief Adjudication Officer who was responsible for feeding back reports from tribunals, with a view to improving decision-making. That mechanism was abolished by the Social Security Act 1998, although the role has been taken over in part by the President of the Social Security and Child Support Tribunals. Without some sort of oversight there is no process by which decision-makers can learn from the outcome of an appeal which overturns their decision.
I, also, am somewhat disappointed in the outcome of Prof Harrington’s review. He appears to have concentrated on administrative procedures and treating claimants more humanely, which is all fine, but doesn’t tackle the real issue which is that the LCWA is a poor test of work capability. That problem can only be solved by a return to ‘informal’ assessment or wholesale re-writing of the activities and descriptors. Prof Harrington has allowed an opportunity to bring about real change, to slip away.
Keith Wilman, CEO for Atos Origin said -
‘We have a successful and longstanding relationship with the Department for Work and Pensions and are committed to supporting the government’s welfare reform agenda to help those who are able get back to work and regain their independence.’
Surely that statement blasts apart any pretence of independence and impartiality from medical services that every DWP submission would have folk think ;)
Get a new career spouting vacuous nonsense I suppose. I just wonder if there is some clever psychology being used. If you ignore plain facts and the law in such an unashamed way people will just give up trying to put forward logical evidence based arguments: politically you ahve them won the day…