I recently attended a pca and was subsequently disllowed this benefit. I 
received my appeal papers 7 days ago and now realise my original diagnosis 
was not included in this. I first claimed this benefit 7 years ago and they 
would appear to have lost my original diagnosis which identified learning 
and memory deficit and the resulting problems. I have since received various 
brain scans etc, this has identified the reasons for this deficit. When I 
completed my IB 50 form I included all this information but assumed they 
stll have my original diagnosis, now I realise they do not. Therefore the 
decision that was made to refuse incapacity benefit was based on incomplete 
information. I  have taken this to appeal but did not realise my original 
diagnosis had been lost. Can this decision be overturned on the basis that 
this information was not available, I have a copy of thois original 
diagnosis and have since informed Jobcentre plus of this.
Does the existing mechanism used by them allow for this type of error, and 
how can a reconsideration including this information be acheived? 
Thanks

url:http://myreader.co.uk/gp/1397-1.aspx

"John McLeish"  wrote in message 
news:0ce25ecd387842c185fc0fa3deae1076@newspe.com...
>I recently attended a pca and was subsequently disllowed this benefit. I
> received my appeal papers 7 days ago and now realise my original diagnosis
> was not included in this. I first claimed this benefit 7 years ago and 
> they
> would appear to have lost my original diagnosis which identified learning
> and memory deficit and the resulting problems. I have since received 
> various
> brain scans etc, this has identified the reasons for this deficit. When I
> completed my IB 50 form I included all this information but assumed they
> stll have my original diagnosis, now I realise they do not. Therefore the
> decision that was made to refuse incapacity benefit was based on 
> incomplete
> information. I  have taken this to appeal but did not realise my original
> diagnosis had been lost. Can this decision be overturned on the basis that
> this information was not available, I have a copy of thois original
> diagnosis and have since informed Jobcentre plus of this.
> Does the existing mechanism used by them allow for this type of error, and
> how can a reconsideration including this information be acheived?
> Thanks
>
> url:http://myreader.co.uk/gp/1397-1.aspx


Have you been to a tribunal yet?

"John McLeish" wrote in
news:0ce25ecd387842c185fc0fa3deae1076@newspe.com: 

> I recently attended a pca and was subsequently disllowed this benefit.
> I received my appeal papers 7 days ago

There are two stages to the appeal.  First the decision goes back in front 
of a decision maker.  They might be able to find the original diagnosis, 
but I doubt it'll make any difference.

Then the appeal will go in front of a tribunal organised by the department 
of justice.

Get as much medical information as you can to take to that tribunal.

It's probably a good idea to go to CAB and get advice.

Good Luck!

"Niteawk"  wrote in
news:QoudnRf5IN7uLcTaRVnyvwA@bt.com: 

> 
> "John McLeish"  wrote in message 
> news:0ce25ecd387842c185fc0fa3deae1076@newspe.com...
>> I recently attended a pca and was subsequently disllowed this benefit.
>> I received my appeal papers 7 days ago
-------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^

[snip]
 
> Have you been to a tribunal yet? 

Optimistic :P

I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered as 
the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine, they 
reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair there 
should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We are 
supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to be 
based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond further 
doubt?

url:http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/13972685.aspx

"John McLeish"  wrote in message 
news:d8d7eb5e990b4825a0380a9e21655ac2@newspe.com...
>I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered as
> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine, 
> they
> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair 
> there
> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We are
> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to be
> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond 
> further
> doubt?
>

Its not about fair with them, its kick em orf asap. What you need to do now 
is see the manager at your JC, s/he has the authority to reverse the 
decision based on new information and should let you know there and then 
what the decision is.
If it goes against you then the next stage is to appeal. The CAB will help 
you with this, make sure you attend the tribunal in person rather than 
having the appeal heard in your absence, this way you can argue your case 
and are more likely to win.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:29:24 -0000, "Niteawk" 
wrote:

>
>"John McLeish"  wrote in message 
>news:d8d7eb5e990b4825a0380a9e21655ac2@newspe.com...
>>I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered as
>> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine, 
>> they
>> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair 
>> there
>> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We are
>> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to be
>> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond 
>> further
>> doubt?
>>
>
>Its not about fair with them, its kick em orf asap. What you need to do now 
>is see the manager at your JC, s/he has the authority to reverse the 
>decision based on new information and should let you know there and then 
>what the decision is.

Wrong. The JC manager is NOT a decision maker.

>If it goes against you then the next stage is to appeal. The CAB will help 
>you with this, make sure you attend the tribunal in person rather than 
>having the appeal heard in your absence, this way you can argue your case 
>and are more likely to win. 

Wrong - because there is no "If it goes against you" in the first
place. You can, by all means, make an appeal against the decision if
you feel it is incorrent and that you can give further eveidence for
consideration but please ask at your JC for the correct procedure and
ensure you follow it.

On 8 Dec, 09:06, "John McLeish" wrote:
> I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered as
> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine, they
> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair there
> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We are
> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to be
> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond further
> doubt?
>
> url:http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/13972685.aspx

Both another person looking at the decision and a tribunal would be
because of the error made by the jobcentre.
You'd hardly bother if it was your error.

There is a mechanism within the existing system to deal with decisions
reached on incomplete information.
They are another decision by another decision maker, and then there is
appeal.

They don't necessarily know they have incomplete information unless
you tell them the complete information in the first place. If you give
them enough to make a decision on, they will make a decision. To award
or reject.
I'd presume the initial diagnosis wouldn't make much difference now.
Its what your current diagnosis is - much can change in 7 years,
including medical science.

Martin  <><

"Gran"  wrote in message 
news:ph5ll35o5026ok1oji9jv390p1ecc7eqi5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:29:24 -0000, "Niteawk" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John McLeish"  wrote in message
>>news:d8d7eb5e990b4825a0380a9e21655ac2@newspe.com...
>>>I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered 
>>>as
>>> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine,
>>> they
>>> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair
>>> there
>>> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We 
>>> are
>>> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to 
>>> be
>>> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond
>>> further
>>> doubt?
>>>
>>
>>Its not about fair with them, its kick em orf asap. What you need to do 
>>now
>>is see the manager at your JC, s/he has the authority to reverse the
>>decision based on new information and should let you know there and then
>>what the decision is.
>
> Wrong. The JC manager is NOT a decision maker.

The JC manager knows who to speak to and can get a decision there and then.


>
>>If it goes against you then the next stage is to appeal. The CAB will help
>>you with this, make sure you attend the tribunal in person rather than
>>having the appeal heard in your absence, this way you can argue your case
>>and are more likely to win.
>
> Wrong - because there is no "If it goes against you" in the first
> place. You can, by all means, make an appeal against the decision if
> you feel it is incorrent and that you can give further eveidence for
> consideration but please ask at your JC for the correct procedure and
> ensure you follow it.

Are you sure about asking at the JC, why bother if there is no chance of 
having the decision looked at again? He might as well sod the JC and go to 
the CAB to get his appeal underway - if what your saying is correct, which I 
think it isnt :)

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Gran"  wrote in message 
> news:ph5ll35o5026ok1oji9jv390p1ecc7eqi5@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:29:24 -0000, "Niteawk" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John McLeish"  wrote in message
>>> news:d8d7eb5e990b4825a0380a9e21655ac2@newspe.com...
>>>> I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be 
>>>> reconsidered as
>>>> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine,
>>>> they
>>>> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair
>>>> there
>>>> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. 
>>>> We are
>>>> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision 
>>>> to be
>>>> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond
>>>> further
>>>> doubt?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its not about fair with them, its kick em orf asap. What you need to 
>>> do now
>>> is see the manager at your JC, s/he has the authority to reverse the
>>> decision based on new information and should let you know there and then
>>> what the decision is.
>>
>> Wrong. The JC manager is NOT a decision maker.
> 
> The JC manager knows who to speak to and can get a decision there and then.

It's simply a case of asking for the decision to be looked at again, 
submitting an appeal ensures that the decision is looked at once again 
and if there is no change then the case is sent to appeal.  The JC 
manager has nothing to do with the decision making process and it is not 
sound advice to suggest everyone who wishes to challenge a decision / 
make an appeal goes via the manager.

> 
> 
>>
>>> If it goes against you then the next stage is to appeal. The CAB will 
>>> help
>>> you with this, make sure you attend the tribunal in person rather than
>>> having the appeal heard in your absence, this way you can argue your 
>>> case
>>> and are more likely to win.
>>
>> Wrong - because there is no "If it goes against you" in the first
>> place. You can, by all means, make an appeal against the decision if
>> you feel it is incorrent and that you can give further eveidence for
>> consideration but please ask at your JC for the correct procedure and
>> ensure you follow it.
> 
> Are you sure about asking at the JC, why bother if there is no chance of 
> having the decision looked at again? He might as well sod the JC and go 
> to the CAB to get his appeal underway - if what your saying is correct, 
> which I think it isnt :)
> 

The correct procedure is to ask the DM to look again at the decision, 
this can be done by a simple request to look again at the facts or by 
making an appeal, which means the case is re-examined at the local level 
anyway and then proceeds to appeal if the decision stands. I'd suggest 
doing the latter.

It's sound advice for the poster to seek advice from the CAB but he 
needs to ensure he gets his review request / appeal in within the 28 day 
limit and not all CABs are easily accessible, especially at this time of 
year.

Robbie

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5rvqlkF16j87aU1@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Gran"  wrote in message 
>> news:ph5ll35o5026ok1oji9jv390p1ecc7eqi5@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:29:24 -0000, "Niteawk" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John McLeish"  wrote in message
>>>> news:d8d7eb5e990b4825a0380a9e21655ac2@newspe.com...
>>>>> I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be 
>>>>> reconsidered as
>>>>> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not 
>>>>> mine,
>>>>> they
>>>>> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair
>>>>> there
>>>>> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We 
>>>>> are
>>>>> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision 
>>>>> to be
>>>>> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond
>>>>> further
>>>>> doubt?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its not about fair with them, its kick em orf asap. What you need to do 
>>>> now
>>>> is see the manager at your JC, s/he has the authority to reverse the
>>>> decision based on new information and should let you know there and 
>>>> then
>>>> what the decision is.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The JC manager is NOT a decision maker.
>>
>> The JC manager knows who to speak to and can get a decision there and 
>> then.
>
> It's simply a case of asking for the decision to be looked at again,

Exactly, and you can do that by asking the manager to look into for you, no 
need for reams of paperwork at that stage.





and it is not
> sound advice to suggest everyone who wishes to challenge a decision / make 
> an appeal goes via the manager.
>

Why? because they do not like to be disturbed, to hell with them. I always 
ask for the manager and believe me they get their skates on when dealing 
with me because my next step will be to go to their boss, afterall I am not 
going to waste my time with some nobody who can hide behind excuses like I 
was not sure what to do, I havnt been in the job long and all that crap. 
Managers cant make these excuses, they know exactly what to do.



>>
>>
>>>
>>>> If it goes against you then the next stage is to appeal. The CAB will 
>>>> help
>>>> you with this, make sure you attend the tribunal in person rather than
>>>> having the appeal heard in your absence, this way you can argue your 
>>>> case
>>>> and are more likely to win.
>>>
>>> Wrong - because there is no "If it goes against you" in the first
>>> place. You can, by all means, make an appeal against the decision if
>>> you feel it is incorrent and that you can give further eveidence for
>>> consideration but please ask at your JC for the correct procedure and
>>> ensure you follow it.
>>
>> Are you sure about asking at the JC, why bother if there is no chance of 
>> having the decision looked at again? He might as well sod the JC and go 
>> to the CAB to get his appeal underway - if what your saying is correct, 
>> which I think it isnt :)
>>
>
> The correct procedure is to ask the DM to look again at the decision, this 
> can be done by a simple request to look again at the facts.

Bang on, thats all you need to do for starters, see the manager, s/he will 
know who to contact.




 or by
> making an appeal, which means the case is re-examined at the local level 
> anyway and then proceeds to appeal if the decision stands. I'd suggest 
> doing the latter.

Save the paperwork until you have no option but to appeal. As above see the 
manager first, you know you are on the right track then.


>
> It's sound advice for the poster to seek advice from the CAB but he needs 
> to ensure he gets his review request / appeal in within the 28 day limit 
> and not all CABs are easily accessible, especially at this time of year.
>

The CAB hold triage and give priority to cases like this, you will be seen 
fairly quickly.

We seem to have differing views on this but the general consensus is go to 
the JC, see manager is optional, present case verbally, I prefer to speak to 
the organ grinder in situations like this. If that fails, see CAB to put an 
appeal together, the idiots will look at it again and I guarantee you they 
will disallow it, they dont usually change their minds because basically you 
are asking them the same question twice, after that its off to the tribunal 
service. And if they knock you back, onwards you go, right up to the 
european court of human rights if you can.

On 8 Dec, 09:06, "John McLeish" wrote:
> I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered as
> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine, they
> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair there
> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We are
> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to be
> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond further
> doubt?
>
> url:http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/13972685.aspx

A reconsideration can be made on the original facts or additional
evidence which you can provide.  A diagnosis in itself won't make any
difference as it's capabilty for work that's the issue here not what
is wrong or whether you are likely to improve or get worse.

Mike

On 8 Dec, 14:38, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Gran"  wrote in message
>
> news:ph5ll35o5026ok1oji9jv390p1ecc7eqi5@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:29:24 -0000, "Niteawk" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>"John McLeish"  wrote in message
> >>news:d8d7eb5e990b4825a0380a9e21655ac2@newspe.com...
> >>>I have not been to an appeal yet, I would prefer this to be reconsidered
> >>>as
> >>> the error was made by Jobcentre plus. This is their error and not mine,
> >>> they
> >>> reached a decision on incomplete information. If they wish to be fair
> >>> there
> >>> should be a mechanism within the existing system to allow for this. We
> >>> are
> >>> supposed to live in free and fair society. Is it fair for a decision to
> >>> be
> >>> based on incomplete evidence, especially as it can be proven beyond
> >>> further
> >>> doubt?
>
> >>Its not about fair with them, its kick em orf asap. What you need to do
> >>now
> >>is see the manager at your JC, s/he has the authority to reverse the
> >>decision based on new information and should let you know there and then
> >>what the decision is.
>
> > Wrong. The JC manager is NOT a decision maker.
>
> The JC manager knows who to speak to and can get a decision there and then.
>
>
>
> >>If it goes against you then the next stage is to appeal. The CAB will help
> >>you with this, make sure you attend the tribunal in person rather than
> >>having the appeal heard in your absence, this way you can argue your case
> >>and are more likely to win.
>
> > Wrong - because there is no "If it goes against you" in the first
> > place. You can, by all means, make an appeal against the decision if
> > you feel it is incorrent and that you can give further eveidence for
> > consideration but please ask at your JC for the correct procedure and
> > ensure you follow it.
>
> Are you sure about asking at the JC, why bother if there is no chance of
> having the decision looked at again? He might as well sod the JC and go to
> the CAB to get his appeal underway - if what your saying is correct, which I
> think it isnt :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Before ANY appeal takes place a recon is done by a decision maker.  If
the OP appeals it will be reconsidered and if the decision isn't
superceeded (changed) the appeal goes forth.

Mike

Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but 
required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure was 
in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this type of 
benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior to 
this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating this 
I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this for 12 
months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this. Basing 
this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise that 
everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not admit, 
firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I had 
contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed in 
a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal 
capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that time 
he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be found, 
indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to him.
 The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that 
time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they intentionally 
place obstacles in our way

url:http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/13972685.aspx

"John McLeish"  wrote in message 
news:16bcb6cc19e84fb3a00612f4f902aaf7@newspe.com...
> Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but
> required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure 
> was
> in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this type 
> of
> benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior to
> this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating 
> this
> I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this for 
> 12
> months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this. Basing
> this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise that
> everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not admit,
> firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I had
> contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed 
> in
> a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal
> capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that 
> time
> he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be found,
> indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to 
> him.
> The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that
> time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they intentionally
> place obstacles in our way
>

When one of them takes a decision to stop your money, the rest of them tend 
to follow suit. Even when they know they are completely in the wrong, as in 
law that is, they will not reverse that decision. You will have to go to 
tribunal, and then the tribunal service will try to persuade to accept the 
decision.

I think you should go to the CAB, I found them very useful as a third party 
witness to counter any mucking about by the JC.

They will also let you know if there is anything in law that can help your 
case, draft letters, fill in forms and send them off to T.S for you, which 
takes care of your appeal nicely.

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:56:56 -0000, "Niteawk" 
wrote:

>
>"John McLeish"  wrote in message 
>news:16bcb6cc19e84fb3a00612f4f902aaf7@newspe.com...
>> Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but
>> required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure 
>> was
>> in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this type 
>> of
>> benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior to
>> this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating 
>> this
>> I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this for 
>> 12
>> months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this. Basing
>> this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise that
>> everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not admit,
>> firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I had
>> contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed 
>> in
>> a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal
>> capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that 
>> time
>> he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be found,
>> indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to 
>> him.
>> The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that
>> time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they intentionally
>> place obstacles in our way
>>
>
>When one of them takes a decision to stop your money, the rest of them tend 
>to follow suit. 

You really are a sad little person, aren't you? I do appreciate it
must be difficult taking a balanced look at the world when that chip
on your shoulder is so heavy as to make you lean towards the one-sided
view but even so ......

Gran wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:56:56 -0000, "Niteawk" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "John McLeish"  wrote in message 
>> news:16bcb6cc19e84fb3a00612f4f902aaf7@newspe.com...
>>> Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but
>>> required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure 
>>> was
>>> in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this type 
>>> of
>>> benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior to
>>> this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating 
>>> this
>>> I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this for 
>>> 12
>>> months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this. Basing
>>> this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise that
>>> everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not admit,
>>> firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I had
>>> contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed 
>>> in
>>> a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal
>>> capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that 
>>> time
>>> he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be found,
>>> indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to 
>>> him.
>>> The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that
>>> time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they intentionally
>>> place obstacles in our way
>>>
>> When one of them takes a decision to stop your money, the rest of them tend 
>> to follow suit. 
> 
> You really are a sad little person, aren't you? I do appreciate it
> must be difficult taking a balanced look at the world when that chip
> on your shoulder is so heavy as to make you lean towards the one-sided
> view but even so ...... 


I think we should all be prepared to pass out with shock here, but for 
once I'm going to (almost) agree with Niteawk! Things may have changed 
since my days of the DHSS / DSS / DWP but the approach that the appeals 
officer used to take was to approach the original Decision Maker and ask 
them to reconsider his or her decision. If the DM (who was called an 
Adjudication Officer back then - yes a few years ago!) refused to 
reconsider the decision then the Appeal Officer would only overturn the 
decision (acting as a Decision maker) if it was wrong in the application 
of the law or else he or she would then allow the case to proceed to 
appeal. However Niteawks other point, that even if "they" knew they were 
completely in the wrong with regards to the law then they would not 
reverse the decision is wrong. I know it is wrong as my appeals 
colleagues would reverse the decision and then inform us why it was wrong.

In addition, when a decision of mine was appealed, and I refused to 
change the decision and it proceeded to appeal and the claimant won, the 
appeals officer made a point of showing me where the tribunal thought my 
decision was wrong. The latter may have just been policy in my office 
but it was an eye opener as it showed that even I was fallible ;)
-- 
Robbie

On 9 Dec, 21:30, Robbie  wrote:
> Gran wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:56:56 -0000, "Niteawk" 
> > wrote:
>
> >> "John McLeish"  wrote in message
> >>news:16bcb6cc19e84fb3a00612f4f902aaf7@newspe.com...
> >>> Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but
> >>> required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure
> >>> was
> >>> in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this type
> >>> of
> >>> benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior to
> >>> this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating
> >>> this
> >>> I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this for
> >>> 12
> >>> months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this. Basing
> >>> this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise that
> >>> everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not admit,
> >>> firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I had
> >>> contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed
> >>> in
> >>> a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal
> >>> capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that
> >>> time
> >>> he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be found,
> >>> indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to
> >>> him.
> >>> The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that
> >>> time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they intentionally
> >>> place obstacles in our way
>
> >> When one of them takes a decision to stop your money, the rest of them tend
> >> to follow suit.
>
> > You really are a sad little person, aren't you? I do appreciate it
> > must be difficult taking a balanced look at the world when that chip
> > on your shoulder is so heavy as to make you lean towards the one-sided
> > view but even so ......
>
> I think we should all be prepared to pass out with shock here, but for
> once I'm going to (almost) agree with Niteawk! Things may have changed
> since my days of the DHSS / DSS / DWP but the approach that the appeals
> officer used to take was to approach the original Decision Maker and ask
> them to reconsider his or her decision. If the DM (who was called an
> Adjudication Officer back then - yes a few years ago!) refused to
> reconsider the decision then the Appeal Officer would only overturn the
> decision (acting as a Decision maker) if it was wrong in the application
> of the law or else he or she would then allow the case to proceed to
> appeal. However Niteawks other point, that even if "they" knew they were
> completely in the wrong with regards to the law then they would not
> reverse the decision is wrong. I know it is wrong as my appeals
> colleagues would reverse the decision and then inform us why it was wrong.
>
> In addition, when a decision of mine was appealed, and I refused to
> change the decision and it proceeded to appeal and the claimant won, the
> appeals officer made a point of showing me where the tribunal thought my
> decision was wrong. The latter may have just been policy in my office
> but it was an eye opener as it showed that even I was fallible ;)
> --
> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And even tribunals can be wrong.
They tend to be stuck with the same law as the decision makers. As I
recall, the decision maker looking to see if the decision could be
changed before appeal had to look at the appeal letter.
If he could satisfy all the points raised in the letter, he could
change the decision. If there were any points that couldn't be
satisfied, the decision had to remain unchanged and had to go to the
tribunal.
Seeing as some people write some right crap in their appeal letter
(including one CSA appeal letter that was over 200 pages long), the
process can work against them.

Martin  <><

"Gran"  wrote in message 
news:0uiol3lj6vhpqh5bjklspkt8p440duguar@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:56:56 -0000, "Niteawk" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John McLeish"  wrote in message
>>news:16bcb6cc19e84fb3a00612f4f902aaf7@newspe.com...
>>> Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but
>>> required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure
>>> was
>>> in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this 
>>> type
>>> of
>>> benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior 
>>> to
>>> this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating
>>> this
>>> I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this 
>>> for
>>> 12
>>> months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this. 
>>> Basing
>>> this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise 
>>> that
>>> everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not 
>>> admit,
>>> firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I 
>>> had
>>> contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed
>>> in
>>> a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal
>>> capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that
>>> time
>>> he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be 
>>> found,
>>> indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to
>>> him.
>>> The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that
>>> time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they 
>>> intentionally
>>> place obstacles in our way
>>>
>>
>>When one of them takes a decision to stop your money, the rest of them 
>>tend
>>to follow suit.
>
> You really are a sad little person, aren't you? I do appreciate it
> must be difficult taking a balanced look at the world when that chip
> on your shoulder is so heavy as to make you lean towards the one-sided
> view but even so ......

Sad is having to deal with cunts like you every time I go to the JC when all 
I require is a piece of paper to sign. Do you think you morons will ever see 
that.

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5s354kF16obtgU1@mid.individual.net...
> Gran wrote:
>
> I think we should all be prepared to pass out with shock here, but for 
> once I'm going to (almost) agree with Niteawk! Things may have changed 
> since my days of the DHSS / DSS / DWP but the approach that the appeals 
> officer used to take was to approach the original Decision Maker and ask 
> them to reconsider his or her decision.


It certainly has changed since you were there, I am going to hazzard a guess 
an say that was a long time ago. The last debacle I had with ND, I was given 
3 sanctions in quick succession and had to put in 3 appeals. Two of them 
were knocked on the head only because it would have meant 3 hearings. I 
still had to go to TS on one of the sanctions despite producing case history 
from the CAB to show the it was incorrect. So I went to tribunal and 
chairman of the TS also tried his best to make the sanction stick, "er how 
about I reduce the amount of time", he said. I had to point out that there 
is nothing he can do but overturn the decision, thats the law, if not point 
me to the next stage of the appeals process. They are supposed to be 
impartial yet there he was making silly proposals, trying for all he was 
worth to win the case for the DWP.



If the DM (who was called an
> Adjudication Officer back then - yes a few years ago!) refused to 
> reconsider the decision then the Appeal Officer would only overturn the 
> decision (acting as a Decision maker) if it was wrong in the application 
> of the law or else he or she would then allow the case to proceed to 
> appeal. However Niteawks other point, that even if "they" knew they were 
> completely in the wrong with regards to the law then they would not 
> reverse the decision is wrong. I know it is wrong as my appeals colleagues 
> would reverse the decision and then inform us why it was wrong.

They certainly knew they were in the wrong with me, even the CAB told them. 
I am sure you will understand when I say I think they are all bent, even 
when the law was 100% in my favour they still tried to do me.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:5s354kF16obtgU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Gran wrote:
>>
>> I think we should all be prepared to pass out with shock here, but for 
>> once I'm going to (almost) agree with Niteawk! Things may have changed 
>> since my days of the DHSS / DSS / DWP but the approach that the 
>> appeals officer used to take was to approach the original Decision 
>> Maker and ask them to reconsider his or her decision.
> 
> 
> It certainly has changed since you were there, I am going to hazzard a 
> guess an say that was a long time ago. The last debacle I had with ND, I 
> was given 3 sanctions in quick succession and had to put in 3 appeals. 
> Two of them were knocked on the head only because it would have meant 3 
> hearings. I still had to go to TS on one of the sanctions despite 
> producing case history from the CAB to show the it was incorrect. So I 
> went to tribunal and chairman of the TS also tried his best to make the 
> sanction stick, "er how about I reduce the amount of time", he said. I 
> had to point out that there is nothing he can do but overturn the 
> decision, thats the law, if not point me to the next stage of the 
> appeals process. They are supposed to be impartial yet there he was 
> making silly proposals, trying for all he was worth to win the case for 
> the DWP.

Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella, even 20 
years ago decisions about sanctions had nothing to do with the benefit 
paying side of the operation (ie the old DHSS / DSS / DWP benefit 
officers - that seems to be the same now). It's not that long ago since 
I worked there, it seems to be the same set up even now. In fact, I know 
it's the same now.

> 
> 
> If the DM (who was called an
>> Adjudication Officer back then - yes a few years ago!) refused to 
>> reconsider the decision then the Appeal Officer would only overturn 
>> the decision (acting as a Decision maker) if it was wrong in the 
>> application of the law or else he or she would then allow the case to 
>> proceed to appeal. However Niteawks other point, that even if "they" 
>> knew they were completely in the wrong with regards to the law then 
>> they would not reverse the decision is wrong. I know it is wrong as my 
>> appeals colleagues would reverse the decision and then inform us why 
>> it was wrong.
> 
> They certainly knew they were in the wrong with me, even the CAB told 
> them. I am sure you will understand when I say I think they are all 
> bent, even when the law was 100% in my favour they still tried to do me.
> 

See, again it's your us against them approach that lets you down - "they 
are all bent" - oh, please - that really is chip on the shoulder time, 
as was pointed out to you in an earlier post. I'm sure you are a nice 
person in real life but you approach officialdom with contempt - as is 
your right - but you have to expect it back if you tar everyone with the 
same brush, and you probably annoy the hell out of the staff you have to 
deal with. Certainly I'd have you down as an annoyance and a 
troublemaker and I wouldn't go the extra yard to help you. Though I 
wouldn't deny you anything you were entitled to - if I did I would be 
breaking the law.

I still say you are pushing the system to its edge to avoid dealing with 
the real issue - which is your inability to get a job. And as for the 
CAB being the good guys - many of the staff are ex-benefits officers but 
they don't have to deal with the wrath of an irate claimant. They can be 
the good guys because they can give you tea and sympathy - but they 
can't give you benefit. Which also means they don't have to turn you 
down either.

I still think you are your own worst enemy - but your mirror points 
towards the dole office and not your face. You see the enemy but you 
don't see who it really is...
-- 
Robbie

>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>> news:5s354kF16obtgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Gran wrote:
>> It certainly has changed since you were there, I am going to hazzard a 
>> guess an say that was a long time ago. The last debacle I had with ND, I 
>> was given 3 sanctions in quick succession and had to put in 3 appeals. 
>> Two of them were knocked on the head only because it would have meant 3 
>> hearings. I still had to go to TS on one of the sanctions despite 
>> producing case history from the CAB to show the it was incorrect. So I 
>> went to tribunal and chairman of the TS also tried his best to make the 
>> sanction stick, "er how about I reduce the amount of time", he said. I 
>> had to point out that there is nothing he can do but overturn the 
>> decision, thats the law, if not point me to the next stage of the appeals 
>> process. They are supposed to be impartial yet there he was making silly 
>> proposals, trying for all he was worth to win the case for the DWP.
>
> Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella, even 20 years 
> ago decisions about sanctions had nothing to do with the benefit paying 
> side of the operation (ie the old DHSS / DSS / DWP benefit officers - that 
> seems to be the same now). It's not that long ago since I worked there, it 
> seems to be the same set up even now. In fact, I know it's the same now.
>

Things have changed since you were there, these days JC and ND advisers stop 
your money, they are not DM's. The idea of having a DM to look your case is 
so the JC/ND can make excuses like its not us stopping your money, its up to 
a DM. What planet do they live on? they raise a so called doubt and you JSA 
is stopped from that instant. Thats what I mean by following suit.
I have spoken to DM's on the phone, you give them all the information they 
ask for and they tell you to put it in writing, something you have already 
done, so I send them the same information again only to get countless more 
letters from them requesting further information, which by now has been 
provided at least 6 times or more, via JC, over the phone and in writing, 
they have all the information but keep asking for more, very funny.



>>
>>
>> If the DM (who was called an
>>> Adjudication Officer back then - yes a few years ago!) refused to 
>>> reconsider the decision then the Appeal Officer would only overturn the 
>>> decision (acting as a Decision maker) if it was wrong in the application 
>>> of the law or else he or she would then allow the case to proceed to 
>>> appeal. However Niteawks other point, that even if "they" knew they were 
>>> completely in the wrong with regards to the law then they would not 
>>> reverse the decision is wrong. I know it is wrong as my appeals 
>>> colleagues would reverse the decision and then inform us why it was 
>>> wrong.
>>
>> They certainly knew they were in the wrong with me, even the CAB told 
>> them. I am sure you will understand when I say I think they are all bent, 
>> even when the law was 100% in my favour they still tried to do me.
>>
>
> See, again it's your us against them approach that lets you down - "they 
> are all bent" - oh, please - that really is chip on the shoulder time, as 
> was pointed out to you in an earlier post. I'm sure you are a nice person 
> in real life but you approach officialdom with contempt - as is your 
> right - but you have to expect it back if you tar everyone with the same 
> brush, and you probably annoy the hell out of the staff you have to deal 
> with. Certainly I'd have you down as an annoyance and a troublemaker and I 
> wouldn't go the extra yard to help you. Though I wouldn't deny you 
> anything you were entitled to - if I did I would be breaking the law.


Obviously you do not like me slagging of the JC, I speak as I find, as for 
you breaking the law denying benefit people are entitled to, thats a laugh. 
Point me to one instance where anything was ever done about this.



>
> I still say you are pushing the system to its edge to avoid dealing with 
> the real issue - which is your inability to get a job. And as for the CAB 
> being the good guys - many of the staff are ex-benefits officers but they 
> don't have to deal with the wrath of an irate claimant. They can be the 
> good guys because they can give you tea and sympathy - but they can't give 
> you benefit. Which also means they don't have to turn you down either.

I am not pushing anything, they are the experts, I do what they say so if I 
am out of work it is down to them.


>
> I still think you are your own worst enemy - but your mirror points 
> towards the dole office and not your face. You see the enemy but you don't 
> see who it really is...

You can think what you like, it matters not a whit to me.

Robbie  wrote in
news:5s3i8kF173mcpU1@mid.individual.net: 

[snip]

> Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella,

Just to clarify for people reading: The health checks are carried out by 
ATOS healthcare for the DWP, the decision is made by a DWP decision 
maker, the first step of the appeals process is to have that decision 
looked at again by another DWP DM, and then to go to tribunal, which is 
organised by the Department of Justice.

Have I got that right?

I found the whole thing pretty frustrating.  The decision was made on the 
Friday before a bank holiday weekend, so by the time I got the oletter my 
payment was overdue.  They did write to my GP to get health information, 
but I don't get care from my GP.  I asked them to write to the health 
trust providing my care, and they refused, telling me that it was my 
responsibility to get evidence.  I get the evidence and the DM says they 
can't look at it, and I'll have to take it to tribunal.

Tribunals are fine, but it took something like six months.  In that time 
a person can apply for JSA or IS(reduced rate).  It seemed weird to me 
that I was saying that I was unfit for work and they were offering me a 
benefit that I have to declare a willingness to actively look for (and be 
available for) work.  

Paying back a social fund loan that I had to take out to pay the rent 
took my weekly income from about £90 (IB) to less than £30.  

My local council is very quick to stop HB payment as soon as they hear 
your income has gone up, but they don't do anything when they hear that 
your income has dropped.

On 10 Dec, 11:50, bealoid  wrote:
> Robbie  wrote innews:5s3i8kF173mcpU1@mid.individual.net:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella,
>
> Just to clarify for people reading: The health checks are carried out by
> ATOS healthcare for the DWP, the decision is made by a DWP decision
> maker, the first step of the appeals process is to have that decision
> looked at again by another DWP DM, and then to go to tribunal, which is
> organised by the Department of Justice.
>
> Have I got that right?
>
> I found the whole thing pretty frustrating.  The decision was made on the
> Friday before a bank holiday weekend, so by the time I got the oletter my
> payment was overdue.  They did write to my GP to get health information,
> but I don't get care from my GP.  I asked them to write to the health
> trust providing my care, and they refused, telling me that it was my
> responsibility to get evidence.  I get the evidence and the DM says they
> can't look at it, and I'll have to take it to tribunal.
>
> Tribunals are fine, but it took something like six months.  In that time
> a person can apply for JSA or IS(reduced rate).  It seemed weird to me
> that I was saying that I was unfit for work and they were offering me a
> benefit that I have to declare a willingness to actively look for (and be
> available for) work.  
>
> Paying back a social fund loan that I had to take out to pay the rent
> took my weekly income from about £90 (IB) to less than £30.  
>
> My local council is very quick to stop HB payment as soon as they hear
> your income has gone up, but they don't do anything when they hear that
> your income has dropped.

Ummmm....you may not get care from your GP. But they will have
records, passed to them by other professionals, about your health.
Writing to the health trust just means someone has to access the same
records the GP should have.

And if you don't see your GP, they won't have personal knowledge to go
on - merely someone else's notes that may not be entirely relevant.

As for Friday before bank holiday weekend, it is a working day. People
do have decisions made then.
Post gets sent out - not their problem how long Royal Mail takes to
deliver stuff - pretty sure the JC aren't the ones to schedule bank
holidays.

Martin  <><

bealoid wrote:
> Robbie  wrote in
> news:5s3i8kF173mcpU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella,
> 
> Just to clarify for people reading: The health checks are carried out by 
> ATOS healthcare for the DWP, the decision is made by a DWP decision 
> maker, the first step of the appeals process is to have that decision 
> looked at again by another DWP DM, and then to go to tribunal, which is 
> organised by the Department of Justice.
> 
> Have I got that right?

That's right - my comment was about the sanctions regime, which used to 
be administered by a separate department at one time. but what you said 
about the decision making and appeals process is correct (it's the 
Tribunals service, which is part of the Ministry Of Justice).
> 
> I found the whole thing pretty frustrating.  The decision was made on the 
> Friday before a bank holiday weekend, so by the time I got the oletter my 
> payment was overdue.  They did write to my GP to get health information, 
> but I don't get care from my GP.  I asked them to write to the health 
> trust providing my care, and they refused, telling me that it was my 
> responsibility to get evidence.  I get the evidence and the DM says they 
> can't look at it, and I'll have to take it to tribunal.
> 
> Tribunals are fine, but it took something like six months.  In that time 
> a person can apply for JSA or IS(reduced rate).  It seemed weird to me 
> that I was saying that I was unfit for work and they were offering me a 
> benefit that I have to declare a willingness to actively look for (and be 
> available for) work.  
> 
> Paying back a social fund loan that I had to take out to pay the rent 
> took my weekly income from about £90 (IB) to less than £30.  
> 
> My local council is very quick to stop HB payment as soon as they hear 
> your income has gone up, but they don't do anything when they hear that 
> your income has dropped.

The appeals service is frustratingly slow and still cumbersome. Part of 
the problem is that there are so many appeals and despite the appeals 
process being streamlined many times there is still backlogs. Up to 1995 
the benefits system allowed for this by not reducing IS if you opted to 
claim that benefit until the appeal was heard. Now the option is JSA or 
living on reduced IS - not exactly much of a choice given the length of 
time that an appeal may take. Even then not everyone qualifies for IS. 
The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming 
you are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA 
find the rule silly.

Why was the repayments on the SF loan so large? Or have I misunderstood 
what you wrote?
-- 
Robbie

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>


> The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming you 
> are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA find 
> the rule silly.
>


I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are clearly 
not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will tell you 
that they dont do this  ;)

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
> 
> 
>> The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming 
>> you are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on 
>> JSA find the rule silly.
>>
> 
> 
> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are 
> clearly not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will 
> tell you that they dont do this  ;)

"They" don't put them on anything - the word you are looking for is 
"force" not "put"! It's not a legal requirement to claim JSA you know ;)

-- 
Robbie

On 10 Dec, 13:38, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming you
> > are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA find
> > the rule silly.
>
> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are clearly
> not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will tell you
> that they dont do this  ;)

????????

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10 Dec, 13:38, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>> The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming you
>>> are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA find
>>> the rule silly.
>> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are clearly
>> not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will tell you
>> that they dont do this  ;)
> 
> ????????
> 
> Martin  <><

Yup, I thought this too! Did you say that Martin, I don't recall it...

-- 
Robbie

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5s52hqF175ncsU1@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
>> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>
>>
>>> The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming 
>>> you are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA 
>>> find the rule silly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are 
>> clearly not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will 
>> tell you that they dont do this  ;)
>
> "They" don't put them on anything - the word you are looking for is 
> "force" not "put"! It's not a legal requirement to claim JSA you know ;)
>

Stop nicking my lines, remember you are batting for the enemy ;) Its not a 
legal requirement to eat either but we do and you can always sleep on a park 
bench, or you might if you fancy it, claim benefit. Like its a choice, my 
eye it is.

wrote in message 
news:42bd0786-68b6-42a0-b5d9-2815c3abe86c@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On 10 Dec, 13:38, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming 
>> > you
>> > are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA 
>> > find
>> > the rule silly.
>>
>> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are 
>> clearly
>> not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will tell you
>> that they dont do this  ;)
>
> ????????
>

Short memory :)

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5s56p3F17eb4uU1@mid.individual.net...
> mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 10 Dec, 13:38, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming 
>>>> you
>>>> are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA 
>>>> find
>>>> the rule silly.
>>> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are 
>>> clearly
>>> not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will tell you
>>> that they dont do this  ;)
>>
>> ????????
>>
>> Martin  <><
>
> Yup, I thought this too! Did you say that Martin, I don't recall it...
>
> -- 

Selective memory.

"bealoid"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A02776C36508YAsfKJXSTO@194.117.143.53...
> Robbie  wrote in
> news:5s3i8kF173mcpU1@mid.individual.net:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella,
>
>
> My local council is very quick to stop HB payment as soon as they hear
> your income has gone up, but they don't do anything when they hear that
> your income has dropped.

This is interesting, how can your income go up to that extent if you are not 
working.

On 10 Dec, 13:38, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > The JSA farce about having to say you are fit for work while claiming you
> > are not fit for work is ridiculous. Even the JC staff working on JSA find
> > the rule silly.
>
> I have mentioned this in a previous thread, they put people who are clearly
> not fit to work on JSA. Now I know why. People like Martin will tell you
> that they dont do this  ;)

???????

Martin  <><

Robbie  wrote in
news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net: 

> bealoid wrote:

[snip]

>> Paying back a social fund loan that I had to take out to pay the rent
>> took my weekly income from about £90 (IB) to less than £30.  

> Why was the repayments on the SF loan so large? Or have I
> misunderstood what you wrote?

I didn't include all the information.  My wife claims IB and DLA (care 
component). We made a joint claim for IS, and some of her benefits reduced 
my IS to (something like) £48 per week.

bealoid wrote:
> Robbie  wrote in
> news:5s4qerF1731jdU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> bealoid wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Paying back a social fund loan that I had to take out to pay the rent
>>> took my weekly income from about £90 (IB) to less than £30.  
> 
>> Why was the repayments on the SF loan so large? Or have I
>> misunderstood what you wrote?
> 
> I didn't include all the information.  My wife claims IB and DLA (care 
> component). We made a joint claim for IS, and some of her benefits reduced 
> my IS to (something like) £48 per week.

ah... not that it's relevant to the matter in hand but does your wife 
get the middle rate care for DLA?

-- 
Robbie

On 10 Dec, 10:01, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> >>news:5s354kF16obtgU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Gran wrote:
> >> It certainly has changed since you were there, I am going to hazzard a
> >> guess an say that was a long time ago. The last debacle I had with ND, I
> >> was given 3 sanctions in quick succession and had to put in 3 appeals.
> >> Two of them were knocked on the head only because it would have meant 3
> >> hearings. I still had to go to TS on one of the sanctions despite
> >> producing case history from the CAB to show the it was incorrect. So I
> >> went to tribunal and chairman of the TS also tried his best to make the
> >> sanction stick, "er how about I reduce the amount of time", he said. I
> >> had to point out that there is nothing he can do but overturn the
> >> decision, thats the law, if not point me to the next stage of the appeals
> >> process. They are supposed to be impartial yet there he was making silly
> >> proposals, trying for all he was worth to win the case for the DWP.
>
> > Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella, even 20 years
> > ago decisions about sanctions had nothing to do with the benefit paying
> > side of the operation (ie the old DHSS / DSS / DWP benefit officers - that
> > seems to be the same now). It's not that long ago since I worked there, it
> > seems to be the same set up even now. In fact, I know it's the same now.
>
> Things have changed since you were there, these days JC and ND advisers stop
> your money, they are not DM's. The idea of having a DM to look your case is
> so the JC/ND can make excuses like its not us stopping your money, its up to
> a DM. What planet do they live on? they raise a so called doubt and you JSA
> is stopped from that instant. Thats what I mean by following suit.
> I have spoken to DM's on the phone, you give them all the information they
> ask for and they tell you to put it in writing, something you have already
> done, so I send them the same information again only to get countless more
> letters from them requesting further information, which by now has been
> provided at least 6 times or more, via JC, over the phone and in writing,
> they have all the information but keep asking for more, very funny.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> If the DM (who was called an
> >>> Adjudication Officer back then - yes a few years ago!) refused to
> >>> reconsider the decision then the Appeal Officer would only overturn the
> >>> decision (acting as a Decision maker) if it was wrong in the application
> >>> of the law or else he or she would then allow the case to proceed to
> >>> appeal. However Niteawks other point, that even if "they" knew they were
> >>> completely in the wrong with regards to the law then they would not
> >>> reverse the decision is wrong. I know it is wrong as my appeals
> >>> colleagues would reverse the decision and then inform us why it was
> >>> wrong.
>
> >> They certainly knew they were in the wrong with me, even the CAB told
> >> them. I am sure you will understand when I say I think they are all bent,
> >> even when the law was 100% in my favour they still tried to do me.
>
> > See, again it's your us against them approach that lets you down - "they
> > are all bent" - oh, please - that really is chip on the shoulder time, as
> > was pointed out to you in an earlier post. I'm sure you are a nice person
> > in real life but you approach officialdom with contempt - as is your
> > right - but you have to expect it back if you tar everyone with the same
> > brush, and you probably annoy the hell out of the staff you have to deal
> > with. Certainly I'd have you down as an annoyance and a troublemaker and I
> > wouldn't go the extra yard to help you. Though I wouldn't deny you
> > anything you were entitled to - if I did I would be breaking the law.
>
> Obviously you do not like me slagging of the JC, I speak as I find, as for
> you breaking the law denying benefit people are entitled to, thats a laugh.
> Point me to one instance where anything was ever done about this.
>
>
>
> > I still say you are pushing the system to its edge to avoid dealing with
> > the real issue - which is your inability to get a job. And as for the CAB
> > being the good guys - many of the staff are ex-benefits officers but they
> > don't have to deal with the wrath of an irate claimant. They can be the
> > good guys because they can give you tea and sympathy - but they can't give
> > you benefit. Which also means they don't have to turn you down either.
>
> I am not pushing anything, they are the experts, I do what they say so if I
> am out of work it is down to them.
>

I think we all know why you're out of work, the above statement
provides ample proof.

Mike

On 9 Dec, 23:52, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Gran"  wrote in message
>
> news:0uiol3lj6vhpqh5bjklspkt8p440duguar@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:56:56 -0000, "Niteawk" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>"John McLeish"  wrote in message
> >>news:16bcb6cc19e84fb3a00612f4f902aaf7@newspe.com...
> >>> Thanks for the info, I had contacted the manager at jc last Friday but
> >>> required to question if this type of error was common and what procedure
> >>> was
> >>> in place to deal with it. As I stated previously I have claimed this
> >>> type
> >>> of
> >>> benefit for the past 7 years I had been in receipt of jobseekers prior
> >>> to
> >>> this for 6 years little did I know of the problems I had but on stating
> >>> this
> >>> I found a newsgroup at that time and discovered I could backdate this
> >>> for
> >>> 12
> >>> months as I had been in receipt of benefit prior to claiming this.
> >>> Basing
> >>> this on present circumstances and given past experience I now realise
> >>> that
> >>> everyone has to fight for their rights because the system will not
> >>> admit,
> >>> firstly it has made an error and secondly how this can be resolved. I
> >>> had
> >>> contacted the manager at the jc around 4 weeks ago and had been informed
> >>> in
> >>> a letter from him he could not "intervene at decisions made at personal
> >>> capability assessment". I have now questioned his authority as at that
> >>> time
> >>> he should have been made aware that my previous papers could not be
> >>> found,
> >>> indeed I included a copy of this  diagnosis in that very letter, sent to
> >>> him.
> >>> The wider picture here is, he did not take the necessary action at that
> >>> time...........was this just laziness on his part or do they
> >>> intentionally
> >>> place obstacles in our way
>
> >>When one of them takes a decision to stop your money, the rest of them
> >>tend
> >>to follow suit.
>
> > You really are a sad little person, aren't you? I do appreciate it
> > must be difficult taking a balanced look at the world when that chip
> > on your shoulder is so heavy as to make you lean towards the one-sided
> > view but even so ......
>
> Sad is having to deal with cunts like you every time I go to the JC when all
> I require is a piece of paper to sign. Do you think you morons will ever see
> that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm pretty damn sure that the poor souls who deal with you on a
regular basis know only too well that all you want to do is turn up,
sign the paper and get your cheque.

However the gov. insists that they try and help and/or persuade you to
try and find work.  Clearly they are wasting their time and they
probably know this by the second time they meet you if not the first
but they have to follow the rules as do you.  I dare say even the gov.
knows for some all the help and persuasion is a waste of time however
they don't want to make I too easy to get benefits or everyone will be
at it.

You have three choices put up with the rules, get a job or campaign to
change the rules - posting to ng and calling the staff names doesn't
count as campaigning.


Mike

"Niteawk"  wrote in
news:TvydnUIdZK7p7cDaRVnyhwA@bt.com: 

> 
> "bealoid"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A02776C36508YAsfKJXSTO@194.117.143.53...
>> Robbie  wrote in
>> news:5s3i8kF173mcpU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Although the whole system now falls under the DWP umbrella,
>>
>>
>> My local council is very quick to stop HB payment as soon as they
>> hear your income has gone up, but they don't do anything when they
>> hear that your income has dropped.
> 
> This is interesting, how can your income go up to that extent if you
> are not working. 

For example: a person claiming IB will move from IB short term to IB long 
term, which is an increase. 

Or one person in a couple could become (in)eligible for some benefit - as 
soon as the council hears about something that stops a person's entitlement 
to HB they'll reduce it (or stop it).  Any change in the other direction 
needs the claiment to provide three months of bank statements.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:22a5c0e6-e1de-4c5e-9409-4329cb91331f@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On 10 Dec, 10:01, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message

you down either.
>>
>> I am not pushing anything, they are the experts, I do what they say so if 
>> I
>> am out of work it is down to them.
>>
>
> I think we all know why you're out of work, the above statement
> provides ample proof.
>

All it proves is how useless they are :)

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:3fc2b4c1-b954-4867-8677-d5726d63116d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Dec, 23:52, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> "Gran"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0uiol3lj6vhpqh5bjklspkt8p440duguar@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I'm pretty damn sure that the poor souls who deal with you on a
> regular basis know only too well that all you want to do is turn up,
> sign the paper and get your cheque.
>
> However the gov. insists that they try and help and/or persuade you to
> try and find work.  Clearly they are wasting their time and they
> probably know this by the second time they meet you if not the first
> but they have to follow the rules as do you.  I dare say even the gov.
> knows for some all the help and persuasion is a waste of time however
> they don't want to make I too easy to get benefits or everyone will be
> at it.
>
> You have three choices put up with the rules, get a job or campaign to
> change the rules - posting to ng and calling the staff names doesn't
> count as campaigning.
>

Here we go again, another I am all right jack giving it large with the help 
angle, what madness is this persuading people to get a job. If I refused 
point blank to look for work, what do you think would happen?

On 10 Dec, 22:36, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> news:3fc2b4c1-b954-4867-8677-d5726d63116d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Dec, 23:52, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> "Gran"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:0uiol3lj6vhpqh5bjklspkt8p440duguar@4ax.com...
>
> > I'm pretty damn sure that the poor souls who deal with you on a
> > regular basis know only too well that all you want to do is turn up,
> > sign the paper and get your cheque.
>
> > However the gov. insists that they try and help and/or persuade you to
> > try and find work.  Clearly they are wasting their time and they
> > probably know this by the second time they meet you if not the first
> > but they have to follow the rules as do you.  I dare say even the gov.
> > knows for some all the help and persuasion is a waste of time however
> > they don't want to make I too easy to get benefits or everyone will be
> > at it.
>
> > You have three choices put up with the rules, get a job or campaign to
> > change the rules - posting to ng and calling the staff names doesn't
> > count as campaigning.
>
> Here we go again, another I am all right jack giving it large with the help
> angle, what madness is this persuading people to get a job. If I refused
> point blank to look for work, what do you think would happen?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They'd refuse point blank to pay the benefit payable to 'job seekers'?

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:e8245dcc-6cb8-4284-832b-6c3650be178a@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 10 Dec, 22:36, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> "Mike"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:3fc2b4c1-b954-4867-8677-d5726d63116d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9 Dec, 23:52, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> >> "Gran"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:0uiol3lj6vhpqh5bjklspkt8p440duguar@4ax.com...
>>
>> > I'm pretty damn sure that the poor souls who deal with you on a
>> > regular basis know only too well that all you want to do is turn up,
>> > sign the paper and get your cheque.
>>
>> > However the gov. insists that they try and help and/or persuade you to
>> > try and find work.  Clearly they are wasting their time and they
>> > probably know this by the second time they meet you if not the first
>> > but they have to follow the rules as do you.  I dare say even the gov.
>> > knows for some all the help and persuasion is a waste of time however
>> > they don't want to make I too easy to get benefits or everyone will be
>> > at it.
>>
>> > You have three choices put up with the rules, get a job or campaign to
>> > change the rules - posting to ng and calling the staff names doesn't
>> > count as campaigning.
>>
>> Here we go again, another I am all right jack giving it large with the 
>> help
>> angle, what madness is this persuading people to get a job. If I refused
>> point blank to look for work, what do you think would happen?- Hide 
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> They'd refuse point blank to pay the benefit payable to 'job seekers'?
>

Do you think so, what about Bealoid, cant work but still qualifies for JSA 
under their rules. I will tell you why trying to persuade (ie forcing people 
to apply for low paid dead end jobs) people to work does not or never will 
work.  If they existed - those who really did not want to work would claim 
sickness benefit.
All they have to do is pester the hell out of your GP, tell them you have a 
bad back, cant lift fuck all, throw in a phobia like fear of open spaces or 
people and get signed off work by your GP then you can claim a higher rate 
of benefit. Even if you cant get signed off, at the very least you can get a 
letter to show you have been to your GP with the following symptoms, which 
the GP has to give you. Who is going to employ people with a poor medical 
history, no one ;) The point is, the JC can muck about all it wants, those 
who are really determined not to work will find a way to defeat the system, 
its not rocket science.

On Dec 11, 10:05 am, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:e8245dcc-6cb8-4284-832b-6c3650be178a@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Dec, 22:36, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:3fc2b4c1-b954-4867-8677-d5726d63116d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com..> >> > On 9 Dec, 23:52, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> >> "Gran"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:0uiol3lj6vhpqh5bjklspkt8p440duguar@4ax.com...
>
> >> > I'm pretty damn sure that the poor souls who deal with you on a
> >> > regular basis know only too well that all you want to do is turn up,
> >> > sign the paper and get your cheque.
>
> >> > However the gov. insists that they try and help and/or persuade you to
> >> > try and find work.  Clearly they are wasting their time and they
> >> > probably know this by the second time they meet you if not the first
> >> > but they have to follow the rules as do you.  I dare say even the gov> >> > knows for some all the help and persuasion is a waste of time however> >> > they don't want to make I too easy to get benefits or everyone will be
> >> > at it.
>
> >> > You have three choices put up with the rules, get a job or campaign to
> >> > change the rules - posting to ng and calling the staff names doesn't
> >> > count as campaigning.
>
> >> Here we go again, another I am all right jack giving it large with the
> >> help
> >> angle, what madness is this persuading people to get a job. If I refused
> >> point blank to look for work, what do you think would happen?- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > They'd refuse point blank to pay the benefit payable to 'job seekers'?
>
> Do you think so, what about Bealoid, cant work but still qualifies for JSA> under their rules. I will tell you why trying to persuade (ie forcing people
> to apply for low paid dead end jobs) people to work does not or never will> work.  If they existed - those who really did not want to work would claim> sickness benefit.
> All they have to do is pester the hell out of your GP, tell them you have a
> bad back, cant lift fuck all, throw in a phobia like fear of open spaces or
> people and get signed off work by your GP then you can claim a higher rate> of benefit. Even if you cant get signed off, at the very least you can get a
> letter to show you have been to your GP with the following symptoms, which> the GP has to give you. Who is going to employ people with a poor medical
> history, no one ;) The point is, the JC can muck about all it wants, those> who are really determined not to work will find a way to defeat the system> its not rocket science.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is Bealoid refusing point blank to look for work? Must have missed
that post.

Persuading people to work may not work in your eyes. But seen it
happen many times myself.
Low paid dead end jobs exist because of the need for the work to be
done, not because of the need for people to have jobs.
And is any job really a dead end? Are any jobs so restrictive of
people that they cannot improve themselves, cannot apply for other
jobs, cannot do anything without employers permission?

Sickness benefit isn't actually for those who really do not want to
work.

You can of course try and persuade your GP about a non-existant
problem in order to get sick benefits.
Though you will lose out somewhat - unemployed get access to more
freebies than sick people.
Oh, and new ideas the government have is that people will be assessed
on what they can do rather than what they can't, for those on
incapacity benefit.
So back onto JSA you go - bad back? Hey, you can use a keyboard and
mouse.

As for employing with poor medical history? I'm one of them.
An employee who has in excess of 30 days sick a year, two major
medical conditions and yet I'm employed. And damn good at my job, if I
do say so myself.  :)
I have a career, working on professional qualification (with
government paying for the big bill and employer paying for travelling
to tutorials) and a job only a few minutes walk from town.

Yes, those determined not to work can always find a way to use the
system. So stay on benefit, with limited increases each year, a £10
Christmas bonus and poor pension prospects. While others of us are
earning money, taking additional work if we wish for extra, pay rises
several times benefit increase, Christmas bonuses well in excess of
£10 and decent pension prospects. Even a new car on occasion.  :)
Oh, and you spending more time and effort to avoid a job than most
people put into working.

Martin  <><

"Niteawk"  wrote in
news:BIWdnaJs-qF9_cPanZ2dnUVZ8tKsnZ2d@bt.com: 

> 
> If they existed - those who really did
> not want to work would claim sickness benefit.
> All they have to do is pester the hell out of your GP, tell them you
> have a bad back, cant lift fuck all, throw in a phobia like fear of
> open spaces or people and get signed off work by your GP then you can
> claim a higher rate of benefit.

I wish it was as easy as that.

Medical advice for bad backs is to take suitable painkillers and keep it 
moving.  People with bad backs who claim IB are historic cases, 
grandfathered in under old rules and treatment methods.  It'd be hard to 
get on IB with a bad back now.

But, taking your point about having an illness and getting a GP to sign 
you off: you need doctors notes regularly for the first six months.  Then 
you'd need an independant medical exam.  Then you'd need independent 
medical reviews every so often after that.

A few people don't have to see "Specialist IB advisors", but they are 
there and there is some genlte pressure to get everyone to see them.

[snip]

> Who is
> going to employ people with a poor medical history, no one ;) 

this is unfortunatly true, even though those companies are probably 
breaking some discrimination law. :-(

I woudl advise seeking an advocate to help with you on your behalf.

"bealoid"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A038A4362F1CYAsfKJXSTO@194.117.143.53...
> "Niteawk"  wrote in
> news:BIWdnaJs-qF9_cPanZ2dnUVZ8tKsnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>>
>> If they existed - those who really did
>> not want to work would claim sickness benefit.
>> All they have to do is pester the hell out of your GP, tell them you
>> have a bad back, cant lift fuck all, throw in a phobia like fear of
>> open spaces or people and get signed off work by your GP t