PIP atrocity again and when it is not PIP it is ESA and in many instances it is PIP and ESA. The only good thing about UC is that it will be one appeal for all combined benefits.
But , what the DWP fail to or unwilling to understand that if the assessments were done correctly in the first place then, appeals would be unnecessary.
We all know that these assessments are primary to remove people from benefits and in doing so save on the welfare budget, another aspect of austerity. But what they are in fact bring forth, is appeals which have a cost and effectively there is not a saving but an increased cost. Get it right first time and then there may be a cost saving as the costs of appeals would not be incurred.
Everywhere you go there is austerity bring severe reductions in life quality for the disabled, sick and elderly.
Why is austerity placed upon those who can least afford it, because they are the most vulnerable and the power Gods in Government feel they are the easiest to make suffer.
Powerful Multi-nationals, who the Government are afraid to upset, are not vulnerable and have an assumed level of power. Should the Government make these pay what they should then the returns would far outstrip the meager returns the Government receive from attacking the most vulnerable in Society.
The UK is so unequal the the gap is forever increasing.
This is a continuing trend and is anyone at the DWP listening as all they do is quote the statistics re claims submitted, those approved, those declined and those successful at appeal.
Unfortunately you can use statistics to prove virtually anything that you wish to and Government departments at Ace in this, if nothing else.
What they should be looking at is the standard of those claims that are declined to be then approved on appeal, to ensure whatever needs to be learned to achieve an even greater success rate of correctly dealing with claims instead of just juggling figures.
This would not only save money, as every case going to appeal costs more then a correctly assessed original claim. Is it that they are so focused on declining claims that accuracy takes a backseat and in doing so more money is required to the assessing process than should be if the claim had originally been assessed correctly.
This, if looked at logically, is a nonsensical approach and is purely down to shortsightedness and a refusal to learn from mistakes.
Not only is it costing more money within the finality of the process, but even more importantly is the distress and harm it is causing for the respected claimants, who in the longer term are causing more resources to be required within, not only with Social Care, but also the the health services to manage the health conditions that theses assessment processes are causing the respected claimants to suffer from.
For all concerned why can they not ensure that they get it right the first time.
Maybe, as many feel, the DWP just do not care how much suffering they are responsible for.
Complaints about the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment process rose by nearly 900 per cent last year – from 142 to 1,391 – apparently corroborating the results of a year-long Disability News Service investigation. The Department for Work and Pensions figures also show that the number of complaints about PIP assessments that were upheld rose by more than 700 per cent in the same year (from 67 in 2015-16 to 545 in 2016-17). The figures provide probably the strongest evidence yet to support the findings of the investigation carried out by Disability News Service (DNS) into claims of widespread dishonesty at the heart of the PIP assessment process. Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary, Debbie Abrahams, said the “huge increase” showed that the healthcare professionals who carry out the assessments must be held to account. She said the figures were also “an absolute indictment of the Tories’ punitive assessments and the miserable effect they are having on people trying to
To myself this is not just misconduct, but gross misconduct and the panel only gave a caution order for 5 years and he lost his job a CAPITA.
It was also said he stated ‘lauded by Capita for the high percentage of excellent reports he produced and was well paid. He had allowed all this to “go to his head”.’ But his ‘high percentage of excellent reports he produced’ was down to lies, so his reports were not excellent.
To me the least he should have been given would a life-time sanction or even complete dismissal from any form of health related employment.
panel said that ‘although Barham’s behaviour was not sufficient to warrant being struck off the professional register, and this was an isolated incident for which he had shown remorse,’
As I have said above I completely disagree with the panels first part of the statement and in fact the next part of their statement ‘this was an isolated incident’, by their own admission ‘several members of the public filed complaints about his conduct following the broadcast of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme in April 2016.’. So it was not an isolated incident, as the incidents were not isolated but did from the one court prosecution and if there were this number how many were they from persons who have not come forward.
In fact, it surely does not need aggrieved claimants to come forward, for should this not also be part of the Appeals process. The process includes the evidence produced by the claimants and the report from the assessor. The appeal process should be 2 fold. checking that the PIP assessment looked at all the evidence and the also the conduct of the assessor. Unfortunately it appears the process is only concentrating on the former and not the latter, or is intentional by the DWP.
Where a decision has been concluded incorrectly then should the assessor receive payment for producing the report, for surely, payment is not only for producing a report but it should be for producing an accurate report. If it is not, then surely fraud is being committed by the assessor and therefore a refund of the appropriate payment should be the case from the assessor.
This is accountability, something that is sadly lacking in all aspects of Government, whether it be local or central and should also apply to health when relevant.
A benefits assessor who was caught on film mocking disabled claimants of personal independence payments and suggesting they were liars has been found guilty of misconduct by a professional standards tribunal.
Alan Barham, a paramedic who carried out PIP assessments for Capita in Northampton, brought his profession into disrepute and undermined public confidence in the integrity of the PIP assessment process, a health and care professions disciplinary panel found.
It issued a five-year caution order, meaning any prospective employer will have access to details of the case on an online professional register for that period.
Barham was covertly filmed by a Channel 4 undercover journalist. Footage showed him boasting that he would largely complete assessment forms before meeting the claimant, and afterwards would often disregard the evidence they gave during their assessment.
He told the reporter he would “completely dismiss” claimants’ explanations for why they needed disability benefit, and rely…
The PIP assessment certainly needs reforming and be flexible to related to the numerous conditions and the levels of severity which means the disabled people encounter extra costs. This requires a level of understanding from each and every assessor, instead of the judgmental decisions people are encountering at present..
This all assumes that the DWP under direction from the Government care enough about the persons who are subjected to these assessments to ensure the system is fair to all.
Disabled people across the country have marched, stopped traffic and blocked the office entrances of government contractors as part of a national day of action that drew attention to a disability benefit they say is “rotten to the core”. Campaigners believe the personal independence payment (PIP) system was only introduced as a replacement for working-age disability living allowance (DLA) as a way of removing disabled people’s entitlement to support, as part of the government’s austerity programme. They also point to the growing evidence of the “shoddy nature” of the PIP assessments, carried out by the government’s contractors, Capita and Atos, which they say are “making a killing” from the contracts. The national day of action featured protests at nearly 20 locations across the country, mostly at Atos and Capita assessment centres, including Edinburgh, Glasgow, Sheffield, Norwich, and Brighton (where protesters included retired Paralympian Kristina Veasey). There was also support from