× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Court orders Atos to pay disabled woman £5,000 over dishonest PIP assessment

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Via disabilitynewsservice.com:

A court has ruled that a disabled woman should be awarded £5,000 compensation by the government contractor Atos, after a dishonest report by one of its assessors led to her being awarded the wrong level of benefits.

Vanessa Haley, from Huddersfield, told the county court in her written evidence that the assessor had tried to “impede her entitlement” to the enhanced rate of the daily living component of personal independence payment (PIP) by “falsifying” her assessment report.

The assessment report also led to her being denied any PIP mobility support.

She was awarded the compensation after the court upheld her claim of maladministration against Atos and her allegation that it was responsible for causing her health conditions to worsen.

More: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/court-orders-atos-to-pay-disabled-woman-5000-over-dishonest-pip-assessment/

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Equality Act?

More people should pursue this route.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

By the sounds of it, it was a judgment in default:

“The county court awarded Haley £5,000 when Atos failed to offer a defence to her claim for damages.”

“An Atos spokesman said: “We were made aware this week of this judgement and our initial internal investigation indicates that we did not receive the claim form at our registered office which is why no defence was filed to the claim.

“Until this investigation is complete we must reserve our position”

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Elliot Kent - 22 December 2017 11:55 AM

By the sounds of it, it was a judgment in default:

“The county court awarded Haley £5,000 when Atos failed to offer a defence to her claim for damages.”

indeed.  the court hasn’t done more than give an award after a quantum hearing following default judgement.  no evidence given for ATOS at all.  so it’s a victory, but may be pyrrhic as no doubt ATOS will apply for set aside….(but they’ll have to be prompt, and are already in trouble on that score.

usually, a quantum hearing takes place months after default judgement is entered, and the judgement will have been sent to ATOS when made .....

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

John Birks - 22 December 2017 11:47 AM

Equality Act?

More people should pursue this route.

It is very very difficult to get Legal Aid. I for one am unsurprised that the firms with contracts are loathe to take low level claims against DWP; it’s largely injury to feelings that gives rise to the damages claim.

Not to say it isn’t doable but we had to threaten LAA with Judicial Review a few years back you might remember.

Now if it were a serious issue; more than a one off occurence, then that might attract enough compensation to satisfy the cost benefit test on a strong case.

I’m surprised ATOS have been so tardy; they jumped pretty quick when some clients of mine organised a claim against them regarding the WCA contract and their failure to obtain medical evidence.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

in any event, costs wouldn’t be recoverable from losing defendant as this is small claims track value.  so you wouldn’t get legal aid on that basis.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

ClairemHodgson - 22 December 2017 03:30 PM

in any event, costs wouldn’t be recoverable from losing defendant as this is small claims track value.  so you wouldn’t get legal aid on that basis.

I’m not referring to the claim in the article; just a hypothetical claim against DWP under the EQA.

If it were Equality Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well -so they don’t do it again- as well as compo, then it might end up sniffing at the multi track. That’s how we managed it anyhoo.

Of course if it were JCP contractors under, say, the Work Programme, then an EQA claim against them before the Employment Tribunal can be managed under Legal Help and it’s much more straightforward.

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Dan Manville - 22 December 2017 03:27 PM
John Birks - 22 December 2017 11:47 AM

Equality Act?

More people should pursue this route.

It is very very difficult to get Legal Aid. I for one am unsurprised that the firms with contracts are loathe to take low level claims against DWP; it’s largely injury to feelings that gives rise to the damages claim.

Not to say it isn’t doable but we had to threaten LAA with Judicial Review a few years back you might remember.

Now if it were a serious issue; more than a one off occurence, then that might attract enough compensation to satisfy the cost benefit test on a strong case.

I’m surprised ATOS have been so tardy; they jumped pretty quick when some clients of mine organised a claim against them regarding the WCA contract and their failure to obtain medical evidence.

I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that the only solution is for LA and and a LA funded legal team.

Yes people may believe that would be nice. But of course that’s just not happening.

It would be better if people were enabled to pursue action themselves, for themselves, to bring change.

Guidance on compensation comes from VENTO - and - THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE

65. Employment Tribunals and those who practise in them might find it helpful if this Court were to identify three broad bands of compensation for injury to feelings, as distinct from compensation for psychiatric or similar personal injury.
i) The top band should normally be between £15,000 and £25,000. Sums in this range should be awarded in the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment on the ground of sex or race. This case falls within that band. Only in the most exceptional case should an award of compensation for injury to feelings exceed £25,000.

ii) The middle band of between £5,000 and £15,000 should be used for serious cases, which do not merit an award in the highest band.

iii) Awards of between £500 and £5,000 are appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence. In general, awards of less than £500 are to be avoided altogether, as they risk being regarded as so low as not to be a proper recognition of injury to feelings.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1871.html

lingchi.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

John Birks - 28 December 2017 03:27 PM


It would be better if people were enabled to pursue action themselves, for themselves, to bring change.

That’s what the Government said, and look what’s happened.

Guidance on compensation comes from VENTO - and - THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1871.html

Vento is of course an employment law case and NOTHING TO DO with any other area of law ....

Granted, the figures quoted re injury to feelings are useful guidance in other areas (particularly as it’s CofA), have looked at them myself in relevant cases (not many) but, frankly, expecting a LiP to argue all this without legal advice/assistance/representation is unreal.  Some LiPs will be more than capable of doing so - but others will not.  Especially not when the other side are represented by people who know the ins and outs of all the relevant laws/regs/etc

And frankly, why should they have to? ipso facto people arguing wtih the DWP/ATOS have no money and are ill, for whatever reason…..

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

I quoted Vento for guidance on costs asI believe that to be relevant law. If you know different it would be helpful.

As to appealing to the County Court, what’s the difference with appealing to tribunal? It’s the same parties.

The fee’s start off fairly affordable at the lower end.

Claim amount Paper form fee Online claim fee
Up to £300                 £35 £25
£300.01 to £500             £50 £35
£500.01 to £1,000       £70 £60
£1,000.01 to £1,500       £80 £70
£1,500.01 to £3,000     £115 £105
£3,000.01 to £5,000     £205 £185
£5,000.01 to £10,000     £455 £410

and——- if only there existed advice and guidance available FOC - to enable people to take appropriate action?

https://disability-discrimination.herokuapp.com/cases

At present the public purse pays for the costs of the FTT - if they were still part of the DWP budget (see HRA 1998?) then you can guarantee the current standard of decisions would be much higher.

As it is the MOJ budget covers the cost so there is no financial penalty to the DWP.

Should there be successful cases even at the lower end then the costs to the parties could and would be financially prohibitive to continue those practices.