Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
MOJ youtube video re ESA appeals
If that is not a joke then the capacity for self delusion has just gone through the stratosphere.
Chris Grayling is talking nonsense:
I’ve been a disability benefits adviser since the start of ESA. The week before last an amazing event occurred: the DWP changed an ESA decision under appeal before it reached a Tribunal! I know, it’s amazing! This is only the second time in three and a half years that they’ve done this.
My tactic with ESA appeals is usually to get a letter from the GP getting them to quote the wording of the descriptors they think apply to the claimant, and write a complaint to Atos about the medical. I’ve twice talked to decision makers on the phone where Atos have had to admit (on the 3rd stage of their complaints process, someone from outside Atos looks at it) that their medical was rubbish and where there’s a letter from the GP indicating they think the claimant should score well over 15 points - and the decision maker says there isn’t any real evidence to change the decision!
GP letters fall into 3 categories for decision makers: they “show a lack of understanding of disability benefits”; they’re “just quoting the descriptors and don’t give any more information” (ie. the exact opposite argument to the last one); or “GPs aren’t impartial like Atos doctors” (because Atos doctors and other assorted semi-qualified people are 100% impartial, obviously).
I now work with mental health, and the unnecessary stress caused by the DWP not changing decisions in terms of claimants waiting 6 months and having to go in front of Tribunals is scandalous. Not to mention the amount of money it all wastes when benefits are being horribly cut anyway.
Steve
Chris Grayling talking nonsense? What I suggest he is doing is making the policy intention clear which, as we all know, is that claimants are better off in work and that the majority (in govts view) are either fit for work or capable of moving into work in the near future.
His response might indicate a reluctance to actually address the shortcomings of the WCA process central to which is the failure to gather appropriate evidence by Atos/DWP or the ability of decision makers to understand or weigh (medical) evidence appropriately. The ESA50, ESA113, ‘scrutiny’ & face to face WCA assessements and now ‘reconsideration’ phone calls etc to claimants clearly don’t achieve this.
No doubt the cost implications of implementing a WCA process that will actually gather appropriate evidence and to train and support decision makers to apply it to the WCA is a barrier to making the WCA ‘fit for purpose’. It must be an open question as to whether there is any real commitment by govt/DWP to improve the quality of WCA decision making or if Harrington etc is just ‘window dressing’.
It could be interpreted as implying that having the WCA set out in regulations, a right of appeal, representatives, judges, suggesting the process is not fit for pupose etc etc gets in the way of govt’s view of ESA claimants capabilities and the policy objective. The Govt view is correct and all evidence / comment to the contrary are ‘ingrained views’ not worthy of consideration.
The Youtube video
[....]
“From: Minister for Employment [mailto:MINISTER.EMPLOYMENT@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 19 March 2012 14:32
To:
Cc: Minister for Employment
Subject: Youtube video about appealsAfternoon, our attention has been drawn to a video on your official youtube channel that talks about making an appeal on Employment and Support Allowance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L8EPHDjeqU
Specific concerns are:
[.....]
• It says the claimant will have received a medical examination - the Work Capability Assessment is not a medical examination, if the word medical must be used we’d be OK with medical assessment, but would prefer something like “an assessment of your capability for work”;
[.....]Can we discuss what we might be able to do? “
Ummm…. Regulation 23 of the ESA Regulations does state “Claimant may be called for a medical examination….”.
As the Minister has now emphatically put on record that the ATOS examination is not such an examination, can a claimant now argue that they have not failed to attend such an examination if they do not go to the ATOS WCA thing?
Piffle…..
Martin - have you just volunteered to provide a model submission on this point? It could be attached to the ‘not properly notified’ argument!
Take this for example. “…and we now see very little new information emerging at the appeal stage.” In whose universe? He should look at my caseload sometime.
And this. “We are now actively working with both Professor Harrington and the tribunal service to address this issue. In particular we will now be asking the tribunal judges to provide a written judgement to us so that we can understand more clearly why they are reaching the decisions that thy are.” What, in every case? Tribunal judges are just going to love that.
Not a medical? Why are Atos using doctors and nurses then? Someone should tell them to save the money.
Take this for example. “…and we now see very little new information emerging at the appeal stage.” In whose universe? He should look at my caseload sometime.
Perhaps this is because advisers know that submitting additional evidence to a decision maker is a waste of time because “the claimant has provided no new evidence to enable me to change the decision. I can find no error in law.”
‘The majority of the government’s fit for work decisions are upheld by the Tribunals’
So our 80% success rate is a statistical anomoly then?
And ours. Incidently, I met your older brother recently. 1963.
And the vote by the BMA to scrap the system must be because they’ve got ‘ingrained’ attitudes like us advisers.
great resource for clients .. Thanks Shawn ;)
Grayling is strictly correct as TS stats for 2010 & 2011 show 38% of ESA appeals were allowed. However in 2010 where the claimant was recorded as having a rep (which could include a family member etc as well as a welf / CAB worker etc) the figure was 67%. (we have requested the figs for 2011).
Our success rate at WCA’s is 93% (compared to an average of 86% under the PCA a supposedly less stringent test!).
So the DWP still maintain the WCA is fit for purpose?
Is that 38% of oral hearings or do the stats include paper hearings?
38% of all hearings. The stats do not breakdown outcomes by paper & oral hearing although in 2010 there were 75,700 oral & 37,800 paper. The Appeals Service used to publish a more detailed breakdown by outcome in the quarterly published returns. TS do not do this but can provide further stats on request - they obviously still record that data. Such ra equest is now treated as a FOI request (in an attempt to cut beauracracy!). They can also provide the stats broken down by venue. We are still waiting for them to respond to our request for 2011 stats - it was so much easier when they published the lot!