712,000 ESA claimants awaiting ATOS assessment

Breakdown in Hansard column WA 198 -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140626w0002.htm#14062679001708

Feels like most of them are my clients at the moment.

It’s a particular problem where a supersession has been requested due to a substantial deterioration in condition (or a new condition has developed). I have a rake of clients who clearly now meet the SG criteria in one way or another but where the DWP insists on referring case back to ATOS for further WCA before they will make a decision.

I noticed that. Its as if decision makers have simply lost the ability, or are not allowed, to make SG determinations

I had a “discussion” with a DM who bottled it. The evidence was right there, and even though neither of us are medically trained it was textbook SG criteria.
DM insisted WCA necessary, even though it was a mental health issue.
A WCA will make no difference here.

Clients ESA stopped 2 months ago due to 365 day thing and still no sign of medical, and the impact on her mental health is deteriorating.

Not to mention that a percentage of people waiting for WCA will not score 15 points and would therefore be on JSA. The coalition are trumpeting a fall in JSA, while really parking peolle on assessment rate of ESA

Hi I have a case exactly the same, however, ESA stopped 3 months ago due to 365 days expiration. 

My client received a letter confirming WCA needed and waiting time 26 weeks.

I lodged a complaint on following grounds; (i) the time taken to respond, (ii) the time it will take to determine and (iii) the financial hardship caused on claimant and partner as they didnt qualify for IR ESA. 

The DWP Dispute Resolutions Manager recently responded and agreed the length of time taken was too long and the prospect of waiting 6 months for a medical was too long also and referred it for determination without need for Medical Assessment to a DM.

I don’t know if any others have found other routes to solve these issues.

can you provide contact details for dispute resolution management?

Looked in CPAGs useful address thing and no sign

Thanks

The dispute manager is dedicated to specific regions/offices. So the Manager I spoke to (Birmingham) won’t be the one for your region. I think you would have to lodge a complaint first to your local Benefit Office.  You could address your complaint ‘FAO : Dispute Resolution Manager’ and maybe it will reach the desired location.

I’ve been through the local complaints resolution team with a few of mine (with varying degrees of success). I also have a bunch of cases where I’ve had to involve the local MPs (at least three of which are ongoing). It’s getting to the point where I’m practially drafting the complaint email/MP referral letter during the first interview with the client in order to save me time when we’re 10 or 11 months down the line. Ridiculous state of affairs.

Just been advised by JC+ that ‘SG deterioration’ cases are the lowest priority and get pushed to the back of the queue. I sent off ESA50 with CMHT support letters in April- client sectioned for 3 months immediately prior to orginal decision. As above, I think there was enough for common sense DM decision without referral to ATOS, but it’s not JC+ fault if the delay is with ATOS is it? No idea of the provenance of the information given, but suggestion was that something may be done before expiry of ATOS contract. I was given ATOS complaint line - 0113 230 9175 - to ring, or advised to contact local MP. I’ll see how that goes.

Of course it is the DWP’s fault - ATOS is an off-shoot of DWP to facilitate the DWP contract.

Surely MR’s were meant to expedite these cases with an immediate review and responses within a short time?

In these cases MR’s have added three additional hurdles;
(i) a request sits in a MR pile,
(ii) then it seems to go for referral to ATOS for medical and sits in another pile without seeing a DM,
(iii) then it sits in a waiting list for the medical,
finally the DM gets involved and makes the decision.

If its a negative decision a whole new cycle of MR’s commence.

As Rob noted, in the past a sensible qualified DM could just revise at first instance with credible evidence - efficient and cost effective!!!!!

It does seem the SG supercessions are given lowest priority. 

In the past I have known some very good DWP Liaison Officers that have used their powers of persuasion to get things before DM’s. 

For anyone else going round in circles a cold call to the DWP will help you find out if their is a Liaison Officer in your region - then you can pester them.

Rob Price - 03 July 2014 11:23 AM

Just been advised by JC+ that ‘SG deterioration’ cases are the lowest priority and get pushed to the back of the queue. I sent off ESA50 with CMHT support letters in April- client sectioned for 3 months immediately prior to orginal decision. As above, I think there was enough for common sense DM decision without referral to ATOS, but it’s not JC+ fault if the delay is with ATOS is it? No idea of the provenance of the information given, but suggestion was that something may be done before expiry of ATOS contract. I was given ATOS complaint line - 0113 230 9175 - to ring, or advised to contact local MP. I’ll see how that goes.

Your client is at a substantial disadvatage by this process and although I hate to bang the same drum over and over this is a situation where a claim under the Equality Act might be in order…

I’m lucky to have access to medical evidence; I find that submmitting impartial medical evidence; risk and needs assessments rather than letters of support, and a barrage of phone calls tends to result in a decision. Pleading with the DMs to read the medical evidence helps.

I do know that certainly our local Decision Makers have recalled a load of files from ATOS to see whether they can make their own decision without the need for an assessment. Whether that’s purely local and due to my litigiousness I don’t know.