Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

The Scottish Case

 < 1 2

 

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior Welfare Rights Officer (Take-Up), Salford WRS.

Send message

Total Posts: 1913

Joined: 17 June 2010

ClairemHodgson - 12 March 2019 02:22 PM

and of course “the stairs are not for clients” falls foul of the need to make reasonable adjustments (for those who couldn’t climb them) and narrow stairs OR lift wouldn’t help the claustrophobic

Indeed, local office has a reputation for running this “stairs not for you” line and I’m dying for a case where it really mattered.

     
ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1047

Joined: 13 April 2016

Mike Hughes - 12 March 2019 02:24 PM
ClairemHodgson - 12 March 2019 02:22 PM

and of course “the stairs are not for clients” falls foul of the need to make reasonable adjustments (for those who couldn’t climb them) and narrow stairs OR lift wouldn’t help the claustrophobic

Indeed, local office has a reputation for running this “stairs not for you” line and I’m dying for a case where it really mattered.

doh!. neither of us noticed i should have typed “lift not for you”

     
MM1235
forum member

Advisory Team, Money Matters, Glasgow

Send message

Total Posts: 1

Joined: 20 September 2018

The CASA - 12 March 2019 12:07 PM

Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been on holiday.A claimant in Lanarkshire lost his PIP after an assessment. He requested the AR. However, two reports were included, both in respect of the assessment. However, one report scored him 0 points, the other 8 points.
Marion Fellows, his MP has raised this in Parliament. To date the DWP has prevaricated. The DWP blame IAS with IAS blaming the DWP.
Obviously, nefarious activity by one of the parties has taken place. I believe this is not a one off. but which one?
Also, I have flimsy evidence that parts of AR are being amended. However, I cannot narrow this down to the guilty party IAS or the DWP. If you can anonymise the section in the AR of your clients, which refers to the MSE/MSO, please scan them in and pm them to me. I intend to publsih the results of this research on Rightsnet.

Please note: I am only interested in the page in the AR, which refers to the MSE, especially for clients who allege no MSE took place for whatever reason.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-
This is interesting. I too have a Scottish case where there are/were 2 PIP assessments. Only the second appeared in the papers and was used to justify refusal. There had been an assessment a month previously, as evidenced by an appointment letter and expenses payment, and the claimant attended with a family member for support. Claimant says the first assessment took longer than he second and the HCP was pleasant etc. whereas the second was not (and on his report made a couple of questionable comments). He asked at the second why he was being called back and was told that it was because they needed “more information”.

The tribunal judge reluctantly agreed to adjourn with a direction that the DWP prodi=uce a copy of the earlier report, or information, but nit before he said that the reason for failing to produce it would be that the report had been “invalidated” by the assessment provider and that in such a case the DWP would not have access to the report, nor to information as to why it had been “invalidated”. I telepgoned the DWP contact centre annd asked about the earlier report. They had no record.