Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
MOJ youtube video re ESA appeals
Looks like there are multiple copies on You Tube now. DWP have succeeded in giving it a mass appeal now and people will be watching it who who would previously had no interest in it whatsoever. Obviously not savvy about the power of the internet. As David Cameron might not have said - who’s LOL now?
It is not a factual inaccuracy to describe the assessment conducted by ATOS as a medical examination. However, it is a legal inaccuracy to describe it as anything but a medical examination. The SSWP wrote a regulation which refers to it as a medical examination. He then complains when the MOJ use the term in the regulations to describe the thing.
I notice that the SSWP intends to go on calling a medical examination “a medical examination” for the forseeable future as this is what he has called them in the draft ESA and UC Regulations which he wrote down and put out for consultation a few weeks ago.
The saga of the DWP’s efforts to supress the video has now been taken up by The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/31/minister-accused-video-disability-claimants
Someone has pointed out to me that the leaflet which accompanies the Tribunal Enquiry Form sent to appellants and which has been used for years, states:
“A “hearing” means meeting the Tribunal, so that you and your representative, if you have one, can put your case in person. The advantage of a hearing is that you have an opportunity to speak to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has an
opportunity to learn more about your case than it could gather from the appeal papers alone. Most people who appeal opt for a hearing. Statistically, more than twice as many appeals are successful with a hearing.” (see answer to question 2 on page 2 of the leaflet in the link below.
This makes the DWP’s and Grayling’s objections even more irrational and unfounded.
I have been representing at tribunal hearings since 1998. In all that time - and disregarding those unfavourable decisions which I eventually got set-aside or where we won on appeal to Commissioners/UT - only two of the appellants I have represented lost their appeals (one who turned around in the hearing and said the opposite of what he’d previously told me about his walking ability and another whose case was an absolute lemon but due to particular circumstances I didn’t have the option of withdrawing as rep).
What am I doing wrong? :(
The saga of the DWP’s efforts to supress the video has now been taken up by The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/31/minister-accused-video-disability-claimants
Pity that the Guardian’s journo appears to have forgotten to acknowledge the source of this story i.e. rightsnet.
“factual inaccuracies”
He said that in parliament without explaining himself. That means he either lied or he just doesn’t understand what is going on at the DWP. I’m furious!
We’ve sent a letter to Mr Grayling, CC’d to Mr Timms.
Mr Graylings reply attached below -
edited to attach letter
Thanks Tony, you’ve certainly help raise my previously low blood pressure with that mendacious piece of badly written nonsense…..<goes off for a lie down in a dark room>
I have made a further Freedom of Information request and the MOJ are consulting with DWP but not the advice sector about the content of the video and the changes to be made.
I have written to MOJ asking that they consult with the advice sector, and I now ask that yourselves do the same.
It is unacceptable that DWP, as one party (who rarely even bother to turn up at Tribunals) can have such influence over public information published by a supposedly impartial organisation such as the MOJ or HMCTS.
The people to write to are Pam Teare, Director of Communications and Information and Jason Latham, Deputy Director, Tribunals HMCTS, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ.