Pathetic government causes laughter and pity, it’s time to go

Sitting here alongside Lisa, in our home in southern Spain, I watch the political shenanigans in the UK over Brexit with both amusement and pity.

Amusement, because of the knots into which politicians contrive to tie themselves, and pity for residents of the UK who deserve a government that is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, events show that it isn’t.

And that goes much deeper than issues surrounding Europe. Those of us who have disabilities are well aware of this government’s shortcomings.

The latest wheeze of its Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is to introduce what are referred to as ‘text box tribunals’.

The idea behind it, supposedly, is to make life easier for claimants. Documents available online and use of video-conferencing for benefit appeals would, in theory at least, save claimants from the need to make long trips.

In reality, however, it is about cutting costs, and providing another obstacle for claimants to navigate before reaching an oral hearing.

Steve Donnison, director of Benefits and Work Ltd, explains: “Under the new Continuous Online Resolution (COR) system, soon to be piloted, most PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and ESA (Employment and Support Allowance) claimants who appeal a decision will have their case looked at by an online tribunal panel.

How online panels will operate

“The panel will review all the documents relating to the appeal and will then ask the claimant any further questions they think may be relevant. The claimant is given a deadline to respond to these questions. They do this by typing directly into text boxes in their Tribunals Service account dashboard.

“Once the text box tribunal has all the information it thinks it needs, it gives the claimant its decision.”

Claimants who do not agree with that decision, will still have the right to have their case heard at an oral hearing.

Donnison continues: “The new system will not allow the (online) panel to ask nearly as many questions as they would at an oral hearing.

“It will also not give the panel the chance to meet the claimant and form an opinion about their reliability as a witness. In the vast majority of oral hearings, panels have a high opinion of the claimant’s credibility.

“The success rate for paper hearings is dramatically lower than for oral hearings. Text box tribunal results will almost certainly fall somewhere in the middle.”

That would mean many thousands of claimants will have to endure a claim, a mandatory reconsideration and a text box tribunal before they can get to an oral appeal.

The appeal process was long enough already – now this “easier” online tribunal is just an extra step in the disgustingly long-drawn-out ordeal process.

I fear that not many claimants will manage to cope with it. At least that will be good news for the DWP and the Tribunals Service – just not so good for the rest of us.

This government is incapable of managing anything. Whether it is Brexit, disability benefits, or Universal Credit (don’t get me started), just to name a few,. There is chaos and pandemonium. The government is unable to govern. It is time for Theresa May and her pathetic cohorts to go.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. More recently, he was a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. Ian is not a doctor, so cannot and does not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely his own unless otherwise stated.

Disability benefits: Questions remain over timing and complexity

Why, oh why, oh why? This was the title of a hit song (well in the UK anyway) performed by Gilbert O’Sullivan in 1973, but now represents three questions to which we need answers. And by that, I am talking about meaningful answers from a government department responsible for benefits for the sick and disabled.

The UK government´s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has much to explain.

benefits

Photo: The Independent

In January, the DWP admitted defeat in its attempts to change the law to make it harder for claimants who experience psychological distress.

But, that was so long ago, so…

Why?

Why has the DWP taken five months to publish its updated guidance for benefits assessors in relation to PersonaI Independence Payment (PIP) and the Planning and following journeys activity.

And, what changes has this updated guidance brought forward? Well, in truth, not a lot.

Benefits and Work’s newsletter explains: “A new paragraph has been added to the guidance for descriptors c), d) and f). 

“These were the descriptors which had the words ‘For reasons other than psychological distress’ unlawfully added to them in March 2017 and which have had to be changed back to their original wording. There have been several other small changes.”

Such minimal changes should not have taken five months to produce the revised guidance. It is ridiculous.

Oh, why?

At the same time, changes have been made to the guidance given to PIP decision makers. Thes address the issue of safety and supervision when planning and carrying out a journey.

But, why have decision makers have been told that claimants who need time to recover after a seizure may not score any points for this in relation to daily living?

This time, the new guidance was prompted by the DWP losing a separate court case. The court ruled that the DWP was wrong to insist that a claimant could only score points for being unsafe if harm was likely to occur on more than 50% of the occasions on which they attempted an activity.

Benefits and Work said: “Instead, the court decided that the decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be. The greater the potential harm, the less likely it needs to be that it would happen on any specific occasion.”

Although decision makers have been told that claimants may not score any points for the need for recovery time in relation to daily living, they may score points because they may not be safe outdoors whilst recovering. 

Oh why?

Just why can a claimant, who now qualifies for PIP, not have the original decision to decline the benefit reversed?

This is an example of just such a case, that was given in a lengthy DWP memo for decision makers. This covers changes to guidance on the mobility component, and gives some details of the exercise which has begun looking again at over 1.6 million PIP claims.

The memo explains that, depending on when they were made, some claims will need three different decisions making on them:

  • The first decision will be for the period before the DWP lost a case known as MH, which dealt with the mobility component and psychological distress.
  • The second decision will be from the date when MH applied, 28.11.16.
  • The third decision will be from the date when a decision known as RJ, which deals with safety and supervision, also applied, 09.03.17

Confused? It is complex and may result in more mistakes.

But, what of the example I mentioned? It reads:

“A claim to PIP was made on 4.1.17 (January 4). The DM decided on 1.3.17 (March 1) that the claimant is not entitled to PIP. The claimant applies for MR (mandatory reconsideration) in the light of RJ. The DM looks at the case again and decides that RJ applies. However, the original decision to disallow the claim cannot be superseded on the grounds of error of law because it predates the decision in RJ. Therefore, the DM should give a decision refusing to revise for official error and the claimant should be advised to make a new claim.”

The DWP message is that some claimants who did not get an award but are now eligible will have to make a fresh claim.

Of course, we know that not everyone affected will bother to make a new claim – and others may not realise that they have to claim again to get the PIP to which they are entitled.

When the DWP said it would review 1.6m PIP applications, it didn’t say that it would make life even more difficult for claimants.

Why, oh why, oh why cannot life be made easier?

* * * * *

Affiliate disclaimer: This affiliate disclosure details the affiliate relationships of MS, Health & Disability at 50shadesofsun.com with other companies and products. Read more.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks, a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. I am not a doctor, so cannot and do not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise stated.

Government minister’s welfare benefits statements prove economical with the truth

Sarah Newton, one of two ministers of state at the department for work and pensions (DWP), was in the centre of a heated debate in the House of Commons, this week.

The Canary, a website dedicated to independent campaigning journalism, reported that she made some staggering claims. It went on to question how many of them were true. Those of us with disabilities, resulting from MS and other causes, know that the answer will be ‘very few´.

The debate was about a report by the UN committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The report said successive UK governments had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights. The chair of the committee said the government had created a “human catastrophe” for disabled people.

newton

Sarah Newton MP.

In the debate, Labour accused Newton and the government of making disabled people a “forgotten class”; of allowing the DWP to ‘endlessly mistreat’ them, and of creating a “national scandal”.

Newton dismissed Labour’s assertions. She said: “Let’s actually deal with the facts of the situation, and stop this really quite irresponsible talk that we hear in the chamber today…”

But, it seems that Newton and “the facts” don’t go hand in hand. No surprise that DWP politicians are always ready to brush unpleasant, but genuine, facts under the carpet. They are past masters of spouting their own version of the “truth”.

The Canary went through her comments and fact-checked them. Of course, it found that Newton statements were, to put it politely, economical with the truth.

Time to check the genuine facts

So, let’s look at the real truth!

CLAIM: Newton: “I utterly refute the allegations that have been made today: that we are discriminating against disabled people; that we are systematically undermining and violating their human rights, or worst of all that we are targeting their… welfare support…”

FACT: The High Court ruled in December 2017 that aspects of the Personal Independence Payment rules were “blatantly discriminatory”. It then ruled again on June 14 that aspects of Universal Credit’s implementation had been ‘discriminatory’.

Additionally, a tribunal found the DWP had discriminated against one of its own workers, who was disabled, awarding him £26,000 in damages.

The Canary also pointed out that besides the UNCRPD, the UK government has been accused of breaking international treaties and violating disabled people’s rights by the UN Human Rigth Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Affairs and the European Committee of Social Rights (part of the Council of Europe).

Meanwhile, the UNCRPD report said government policies had become “life-threatening to many disabled people”.

CLAIM: Newton said that the government was “very disappointed” that the UNCRPD did not take on board… the evidence that the government gave them. They did not acknowledge the full range of support.

FACT: The UNCRPD report was overarching in the evidence it took on board. However, it condemned the UK government’s attempts to misrepresent the impact of policies through “unanswered questions”, “misused statistics”, and a “smoke screen of statements”.

Equality Act fails disabled people

CLAIM: Newton said:I want to reassure everyone that we have very strong legislation… on our statute book to protect disabled people – that’s through the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010…”

FACT: Just one example of the implementation of the Equality Act 2010 failing disabled people is the UK rail network. Disabled people’s organisations, trade unions, and commuter groups have argued that the train operator’s policies breach the act. Their claims have been largely ignored.

Newton then had to answer a question from Labour’s shadow secretary for work and pensions, Debbie Abrahams. Abrahams asked why the government had not done a cumulative impact assessment of all welfare reforms.

CLAIM: Newton said: “We do undertake a cumulative assessment of reforms, each fiscal event. This is because we want to be as transparent as possible regarding the cumulative distributional impacts of government policies, including welfare reforms, tax changes – direct and indirect – and public spending changes.”

FACT: This is not the same as doing an impact assessment of the combined effect of every cut, reform, and change on disabled people. The government is merely giving itself individual snapshots.

Poverty level  figures not all they seem

CLAIM: Newton said that the proportion of people in a family where someone is disabled… in relative poverty has not risen since 2010.

And that the proportion of people in a family where someone is disabled, who are in absolute poverty, is at a record low…

FACT: The government admits that changes it made around 2011, to how disabled people are identified, could affect poverty measures. Also, the government does not include in its poverty figures the average additional £570 a month costs disabled people face because of their impairments. Moreover, the government’s measure for absolute poverty is different to that of the UN, and different again to a measure the House of Commons Library used in a briefing paper.

Newton’s claim of no rise in poverty is even different to the DWP’s own figures, which show the number of disabled people in relative poverty has risen since 2010 [source: the Joseph Rowntree Foundation].

CLAIM: Newton said: “These allegations, that we are driving people to the food banks and forcing people into destitution, is simply an irresponsible statement.

FACT: The government’s National Audit Office says Universal Credit is driving people to food banks and throwing them into rent arrears.

CLAIM: Newton said: “We’re spending over £50bn a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions.”

FACT: The amount the government spends on disability benefits is actually £39bn. Full Fact says the £50bn figure is from 2012, and includes adult social care, free travel, and home adaptations

UK actually fifth in G7, not second

CLAIM: Newton said that the £50bn was: “up by £7bn since 2010, and it’s around 2.5% of GDP – over 6% of the government’s spending. Now as a share of our GDP, our public spending on disability and incapacity is the second highest in the G7…”

FACT: This is a selective use of statistics, as it also includes some NHS spending. The Office for National Statistics reported on EU “social protection” figures. The UK actually spends less than Norway, Germany, Spain and France on disability benefits.

CLAIM: Newton said: “There is no freeze on the benefits that people with disabilities have received…”

FACT: Tax-free disability benefits like the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) have been rising. But the “work-related activity” part of Employment and Support Allowance has been frozen since 2015. 391,000 people, many of them sick and disabled, are in this group.

CLAIM: In closing Newton summed up by accusing Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) of fearmongering and not dealing in facts.

She said: Who’s going to suffer? Who’s going to suffer from what… we’ve been hearing from the opposition today?

FACT: It is going to be disabled people and their families, who are going to be frightened – frightened to come forward and get the benefits that are there for them; frightened to come forward and get the support that’s available to them.

The Canary said: “Newton either displayed staggering delusional behaviour or wilful ignorance.” I agree but would describe both as shameful. Worse, the same descriptions can be applied equally to the government as a whole.

Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, The Canary says it contacted the DWP for comment but received no response by the time of publication.

* * * * *

Affiliate disclaimer: This affiliate disclosure details the affiliate relationships of MS, Health & Disability at 50shadesofsun.com with other companies and products. Read more.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks, a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. I am not a doctor, so cannot and do not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise stated.

Government withdraws disability benefit legal appeals, at last

A government disability benefits boss has withdrawn another two legal appeals which now opens the door for more claimants to receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

withdrawn

Esther McVey, work and pensions secretary.

The appeals, by the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), were withdrawn by the department’s secretary of state Esther McVey MP. Previously, she cancelled plans to challenge a legal judgment, prompting a major review of thousands of decisions about disability benefits cases.

Now, the DWP is once again on the back foot – and claimants are set to reap the benefit.

The department had appealed to the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal after the First-Tier Tribunal ruled that two claimants with chronic conditions were entitled to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Ms McVey has now withdrawn both appeals.

Barrister Tom Royston, of Garden Chambers North, represented both the claimants. Since Ms McVey withdrew the appeals, Mr Royston has issued a damning analysis of the cases.

He criticises successive Work and Pensions secretaries for trying to enact and enforce a major change in the law without parliamentary approval.

Appeals cause unacceptable wait for justice

Further, from the dates the now-withdrawn appeals were lodged, the DWP has forced disabled people to wait for a final decision. That’s a wait of two years in one case, and three years in the other.

I can understand that nothing could be done while legal action, the appeals, were pending. But why has it taken so long to withdraw them? One was due to be heard this month. It’s crazy. It’s an unacceptable wait for justice.

Online campaigning journalist Mike Sivier, writing on Vox Political website, said: “Ms McVey, and successive Work and Pensions secretaries before her, has been gambling that her victims – yes, victims; and I think even that is too mild a word – would run out of stamina and let her have her way. It is a classic bullying tactic.”

I agree. The DWP should be ashamed of its actions. Esther McVey should be ashamed she took so long to withdraw the appeals. Prime minister Theresa May and her government should be ashamed of presiding over such a farce.

* * * * *

Affiliate disclaimer: This affiliate disclosure details the affiliate relationships of MS, Health & Disability at 50shadesofsun.com with other companies and products. Read more.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks, a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. I am not a doctor, so cannot and do not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise stated.

Benefits department accused of deliberately misleading select committee and GPs

Shock? Horror? No, not really. A government department is misleading people, including an official committee and doctors.

No surprise there, as far as I am concerned, the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions has a hit and miss attitude to honesty. It may not ‘lie’ but is certainly happy to ‘mislead’.

Again and again, the DWP has defended criticism of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) assessment systems. That’s fine, it is entitled to do that, as long as it does so truthfully and honestly. But it is misleading to claim that more than 90% of claimants are happy with their experience.

misleading

Photo: The Independent

This claim even deceived the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee. While the committee criticised PIP assessments, its members were taken in by the DWP’s figures. The committee said it accepted that ‘The PIP and ESA assessment processes function satisfactorily for the majority of claimants’.

Now, though, the campaigning organisation Benefits and Work has revealed that PIP feedback is based on around 1% of claimants being asked just one single question: “How satisfied were you with your overall experience with Capita / Independent Assessment Service’.”

On its website, it says: “In most cases the claimant is phoned by a Capita or Atos (IAS) employee and asked this question. Occasionally they are written to instead.”

This way of gathering customer feedback is flawed. Those asked for their opinion know that it is not given anonymously. Additionally, they could feel that a critical response may affect assessments of their claims.

No questions asked about accuracy

misleadingWhile a question is asked their ‘overall experience’, there are no questions about the accuracy of the assessment report or whether any additional evidence was considered. I find that strange, if not downright peculiar, because those are the areas about which most claimants’ criticisms are levelled.

Not content with misleading a parliamentary committee, the DWP is misleading general practitioners (GPs) into not issuing sick notes to ESA claimants appealing a decision.

Benefits and Work says:

Claimants who challenge a fit for work decision cannot claim ESA during the mandatory reconsideration stage. They may be able to claim JSA, but many claimants don’t for fear of sanctions.

However, if the mandatory reconsideration is unsuccessful, claimants can then lodge an appeal and reclaim ESA whilst waiting for their case to be heard.

But the DWP has changed the letters that it sends out to GPs when a claimant is found fit for work. The letters tell the GP not to issue any more sick notes and no longer say they can do so if the claimant appeals the decision.

The result, as legal advice charity Zacchaeus 2000 Trust discovered, is claimants going hungry because they have no money for food. Claimants may also have to change to a new GP practice to try to find a doctor who will issue them with a sick note.

The DWP has offered no explanation whatsoever for the change in the wording of the letter, except that it was altered as a result of a ‘ministerial requirement’.

That it is a ministerial requirement that claimants be caused as much suffering as possible, regardless of the law, will probably come as no surprise to our readers.

I must say, I agree. How can any government department set out to deliberately mislead and ultimately deceive? It is disgusting and needs to stop now.

* * * * *

Affiliate disclaimer: This affiliate disclosure details the affiliate relationships of MS, Health & Disability at 50shadesofsun.com with other companies and products. Read more.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks, a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. I am not a doctor and cannot and do not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise stated.

Government intends to record PIP assessments


This is wonderful news …. or is it? I suppose it depends on your view of the honesty of the government and its department responsible for disability benefits.

The UK’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) intends to record the controversial Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment as “a standard part of the process”. At least, that’s what it claims. If it happens, such a move would be great news for campaigners and disability benefit claimants

recordDWP also says it will make the PIP claim form more user-friendly. Not before time, if it happens.

Neither move is being made of the DWP’s own volition but because the agency has been forced onto the back foot. This followed an amazing response by claimants who answered a call for evidence by the parliamentary Work and Pensions committee.

My issue is that there is a vast difference between “intends” to record and actual action. And history shows that the DWP has made previous promises to government committees, only to break them a few months later.

Record: DLA must be held to account

One such promise was to try out issuing a warning before a first sanction is made. But the trial fell by the wayside because, it was claimed, there was not enough parliamentary time to pass new laws. A lame excuse, if ever I heard one.

What is concerning me about the DWP’s intention to record, is that it has given no indication of when it plans to make it happen. What’s more, we don’t know whether such recordings of face-to-face assessments will be restricted to official centres, or whether home visits will also be on record.

Given that intentions are not actions and no timetable has been announced, you will probably forgive my cynicism. Should parliament accept the DLA’s word? I think not!

This government and its DWP need to be held to account. Do I trust them? No, not all – but I’d be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong. It’s just that I’m not holding my breath.

* * * * *

Affiliate disclaimer: This affiliate disclosure details the affiliate relationships of MS, Health & Disability at 50shadesofsun.com with other companies and products. Read more.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks, a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. I am not a doctor and cannot and do not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise stated.

Disability benefit decisions continue to use unlawful criteria

It is almost unbelievable, but it seems to be true. The people running the government department responsible for disability welfare benefits appear to have confirmed that they are either stupid, irresponsible, incapable, or all three.

As if all the mess with disability benefit claims, notably Personal Independence Payment (PIP), has not been enough – it is getting worse. Welfare campaigners Benefits and Work says the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions is:

  • advising claimants who were refused PIP before November 28 2016 to consider claiming again if they experience overwhelming psychological distress in relation to planning and following journeys, BUT
  • admits that it will turn them down again and that its decision will be based on criteria that (have) already been declared unlawful.

assessmentsOn its website, Benefits and Works’ Steve Donnison continues:

The DWP have also admitted that they are still making unlawful decisions on new claims and refusing PIP mobility to people who are entitled to it.

Their excuse is that they have not yet had the time to update guidance to health professionals and decision makers in relation to PIP mobility and psychological distress.

This follows the DWP’s decision in January to drop their appeal against (the court ruling), in which a judge held that changes to PIP mobility law made by the DWP were unlawful.

Updated guidance is expected to be available in the summer.

The DWP will then begin going through 1.6 million PIP claims, looking for all the wrong decisions they have made, and are still making, and put them right . . . sometimes we are genuinely just lost for words.

New: ‘Drive-by’ PIP assessments

I could not agree more, but it seems that the much renowned PIP claims assessors, contracted to the DWP, have come up with another wheeze. Here is Donnison again:

It’s too soon to say how widespread the issue is.

But there are a worrying number of reports, from Benefits and Work members and elsewhere, of claimants losing their benefits because a PIP assessor claims they were not at home when the assessor called.

In each case the assessor is able to describe the appearance of the house, such as the colour of doors and windowsills, and this is taken as sufficient evidence that the assessor called.

In one case The Independent newspaper contacted Capita and it was suddenly decided that the assessor had indeed called, but at the wrong time. So, another assessment was arranged.

In two cases involving Benefits and Work members CCTV evidence appears to have supported the claimants’ assertion that no-one had come knocking at the door.

These may be isolated incidents based on genuine misunderstandings and mix-ups about times or addresses. Or they may be evidence of something more disturbing: assessors under time pressure doing a drive-by of a claimant’s home and then claiming to have called.

We don’t, as yet, know the accuracy of this ‘drive-by’ allegation but it would come as no surprise to me if it is proved to true.

* * * * *

Affiliate disclaimer: This affiliate disclosure details the affiliate relationships of MS, Health & Disability at 50shadesofsun.com with other companies and products. Read more.

* * * * *

50shadesofsun.com is the personal website of Ian Franks, a freelance medical writer and editor for various health information sites. He enjoyed a successful career as a journalist, from reporter to editor in the print media. He gained a Journalist of the Year award in his native UK. Ian received a diagnosis of MS in 2002 and now lives in the south of Spain. He uses a wheelchair and advocates on mobility and accessibility issues.

* * * * *

Note: Health-related information available on 50shadesofsun website is for your general knowledge only. It is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. I am not a doctor and cannot and do not give you medical advice. You should seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues. Also, consult a doctor before starting a new diet or exercise programme. Any opinions expressed are purely my own unless otherwise stated.