Severely disabled woman denied PIP


You hear one benefit scandal story and you feel it can not get worse, then you hear another and another and another…. and realise that it can.

It is not just in respect of PIP, but ESA, Universal Credit and any others.

It is not, just, that the PIP assessment process is ‘unfit for purpose’, but the whole benefit process no matter which benefit is involved.

I feel this Government will not rest until all benefit claimants are forced into death, so that no benefits need to be paid because all possible benefit claimants will be dead.

The Government needs to be charged with undertaking Criminal Acts in their dealings with Benefit Claimants.

Benefit Claimants have Human Rights, but these are not recognised by this Government. If these actions were being conducted by any other persons or authorities the charge could be Terrorism, so why not this Government.

‘Obscene’ 18-month delay for DWP complaints


This is disgraceful and should not be allowed to occur.

For a start the DWP, has should all Government departments, be more transparent and also honest and open. Unfortunately all this is someting outside the ‘norm’ for the Government and this also includes all Local Authorities and maybe those of Health.

For anyone to go to a complaints body takes some strength, as you are going against a large public body, which you are and will be again relying upon, will they hold the complaints against them and treat you are your relative worse than before.

Of course they will say they will not, but it has not been unknown in some authorities.

In some instances the complaints procedures themselves are ‘not fit for purpose.

That been said I do like that you can not refer until the complaint response letter has been issued, unlike going to the Ombudsman where their time period starts from when the complaint was initiated and there is a limit of 1 year. If that was so re this complaint then it would have been too late to go to the Independent Complaints body.

If certainly feel that the Ombudsman needs to change, could I say to Independent Case Examiner (ICE).

Secret panel probe links between DWP & claimant deaths


I suppose we should welcome this secret panel, but in reality the panel should have been there since the Benefit scandals started to occur and it should not be secret, for this is truly in the ‘Public Interest’.

Lets do hope the panel will reach conclusions, conclusions that we already know and exact change immediately.

Whenever the reports are formed they need to be made public without delay.

Former carer who waited months for disability benefit was turned down because he was in hospital for too long


Why do these problems keep occuring with Disability Benefit applications, irrespective which benefit is being applied for?

Could it be that the systems lack ‘common sense’, it would appear so.

The system is adhered to rigidly, when, if common sense was applied the rigidity could be overcome.

However, the benefits system is under the direction of the DWP, a Government department and that is the problem for there is no common sense in Government, in fact, in politics completely.

Capita benefits assessor who ‘laughed‘ at disabled woman is suspended


Is this a change for the better by the DWP in PIP assessment or even any assessments, well we need to wait for the final outcome. But I do welcome the speed with which Capita offered the £600 compensation.

T%hese actions have been a long time in coming, as many other assessments should also have been dealt with accordingly.

However, the best outcome would be the total withdrawal of all these assessments, which are plainly an insult to all claimants.

Only one disability charity fully supports Jodey Whiting petition


Is this a surprise, for it should not be.

For some of the national charities do receive some form of Government funding and it has been suggested that theyreceive this funding to undertaken some specific work and in doing so they are required to sign a clause stipulating that they will not criticise the Government. For if they do, they may not receive the funding.

This is a dilemma for these charities as they would like the funding as this will enhance the charity funds and enable them to do more inaccordance with their aims.

But, if the Government is appearing to not fully support persons with disabilities these charities voices will be mooted.

Disabled People Hit Four Times Harder By Welfare Changes


In general having a disability or disabilities means it costs more to live, therefore if the benefits system penalises persons with disabilities, not only do they not have the additional income, but effectively less income.

How can this be equality?

DWP figures show PIP complaints against Atos and Capita continue to rise


Yes, complaints are rising regarding Atos and Capita, but they are just an arm of the DWP, albeit a private arm, so are they not just doing the bidding of the DWP.

Why do I say that?

Well if they are not doing the bidding and complaints are coninuing to rise, why are they still doing the assessment as this implies they are not only not capable to do assessments, but are not able to follow the explicate direction of the DWP.

But are they able to follow the explicate direction of the DWP and are in fact doing so. Should this be so then, the complaints need not be addressed to Atos and Capita, but to DWP themselves.

We will never know if the DWP is explicately responsible, which technically they are, or whether Atos and Capita are not abiding by DWP directives, in which case the contracts to undertake assessments should be withdrawn.

However, again will we ever know, are there any penalty clauses in the contracts from the DWP to Atos and Capita to provide penalties for early cancelations of the contracts.

Could be as many of the contracts re privitisation are not in the interests of the population of the UK or the UK fullstop, but solely in the interests of the private companies, which is what I believe.

You only have to look at the PFI contracts to see these were not in the public interest, for yeas it was, so called, cheap money at the outset, but the real profits for the PFI companies is in the long-term.

In reality the DWP should be doing the whole process with all Welfare Benefits, not saying it would be any better and perhaps worse, if that can be believed, but at least it would be easy to see where the blame lies.

Really these whole processes should be held liable in the criminl system and effective criminal actions be taken against all concerned.

The Government is not litening to the UN, but would have to listen and then act accordingly to the law of the land.

Single mum denied DWP disability benefits despite having cancer


A stock Statement from a DWP spokesman “We’re committed to ensuring that disabled people get the support they’re entitled to, and PIP is available for those who need help with the costs of additional support for their daily living and mobility needs.

“Universal Credit is available for those who need help with day-to-day living costs, and Ms Lyth is receiving her full entitlement.
“PIP decisions are made following careful consideration of the evidence provided by the individual as well as their GP or medical specialist, and anyone who is unhappy with their decision can appeal.”

However, what does it really mean, not much in effect. It is something to say, but is it meant?
More thought and effort should be given to all applications and ‘lessons learnt’ from the many mistakes that are made. Another stock saying and again is it meant, for the lessons never seem to be learnt.

For it is not appeals that should be pushed, but correct Assessments and decisions made, with appeals being there as a backstock.

Where is the caring, common sense and many other aspects in the process.

For myself it appears that the assessors first action is to refuse a benefit claim and in many instances not correctly doing assessments, for in some there are blantant lies emanating from Assessors for which there are being paid to do.

If an assessment is proved to be wrong is the assessor penalised, I doubt it, but the claimant was.