Advanced Search

Hi Johnny

I can't tell you why they want you to talk to a compliance officer - but often, it is just to check that you receive the money you should do. Members of the forum report being asked for one, and 99% of the time there are no issues and it has just been a standard call. If your savings are below 6k, you should have nothing to be concerned about.

The compliance officer won't be asking you about your health.

I hope that it goes well.

BIS

I have received an email informing me that a compliance officer needs to conduct a telephone interview about my claim in two weeks. Most of the letter seems generic apart from this section:

Please call us straight away on the number at the top of this letter if you get any money from a trust or charity. Certain trusts and charitable payments are not taken into account for benefit purposes. If you get money from one of these, you may not need to attend the interview.

I started claiming UC about 2 years. A few months later I applied and got PIP. I have not mentioned PIP on my UC journal. I thought PIP does not affect my UC. Also as PIP comes from DWP I assumed they would already know.
I have received a small amount of financial assistance from a family member to help with bills. I assumed family support would be ok but I am not so sure now.
My funds have always been below £6k, so I don't know why they need to speak to me.

Lastly, I assume they only want to talk about my finances as the only documents they have asked me to have at hand are bank statements.
Do I also need to be prepared to talk about my current health situation with a Compliance Officer? I assumed a health related talk would be with a health care professional?

Thank you in advance for any feedback or advice. Johnny

Hi all, just to say my decision letter came through, just as I was thinking MR - how to go about it etc. I'd discussed PIP with my GP who felt my medical history indicated the the lower award on mobility and daily living. I was surprised to see the DWP concurred. Shocked actually, had nearly a year of strain (Oct 23 to Aug 24) since forced migration over my partner SP age. I'd informed DWP a few months before he got it so assumed they'd just make my ESA a single claim. But it triggered off a few visits to the local JC, where I once worked ( to go in there shabby and ill was humiliating) and much form filling and then the WCA call.

Not to forget a sudden call from the local council - a compliance officer? she advised me to start a online UC claim ( on my partners birthday) immediately as HB stopped that day, that hour as we were no longer entitled to HB, so more forms that evening.

Going by the medical report sent to the DWP ( it didn't reflect the tape recording of the interview - I've worked for Ipsos MORI and nurses in a private hospital) I was prepared for a struggle, even tribunal. Further the PIP decision letter said they'd give me a "light" review later - not a specified date as I'd expected. It's been such a weight off my shoulders.

Through it all this site has pulled me through, been v unwell through it all and still no nearer to a consultant appt till after Christmas. Hard to see a doctor now - even my GP who is a decent sort. I know others on here are just as unwell and under review/assessment pressure so don't give up, read others experience and the mods considered advice on here to keep strong.

I'll stay a member of B&W because it's an invaluable site, the system is constantly changing and I feel in good company here. Good luck to those currently waiting, don't forget the guides here can help enormously. Thanks to those mods who've answered my questions too.

I had a "forced" migration and lost half of my income too. I'd informed the DWP of my partners pension, heard nothing, no correspondence back. Then on my partners birthday we had a call from a council "compliance" officer who told me to claim UC immediately. That stopped my ESA, now I find myself in debt with the rent! No protection whatsoever! Keep going for your mobility - you'll need that to make up for what they've taken from you.

I would be grateful for any advice. I have finally heard from the Appeal Court who say they cannot make a decision on the evidence they have with regard to the overpayment of the £14,000 and have decided to adjourn the hearing for further evidence from me and the DWP.

I Know that we sent a letter to the DWP advising them of my husband's NHS pension in 2012 which was sent tracked by Royal Mail. (On Benefits and Work's advice all letters are sent tracked). My husband despite having Parkinson's remembers me clearly typing the letter on our PC at the time. If I still had the PC I could have searched this. The DWP are saying they did not receive this. There have been many letters tracked sent to the DWP to which I have never received a response from. I received a call from a compliance officer in 2021 saying that we did not notify them of my husband's pension and so it is our word against theirs.

The courts have asked for the following: DWP for 16 letters of various dates notifying me of my responsibility to report all changes of circumstances straightaway.

Any contemporaneous note or record made by the compliance officer and her statement on 7 October 2021. Unfortunately on the day the compliance officer telephoned me to tell me that we had not notified them of my husband's pension I fell apart on the phone and went to pieces. My anxiety always makes me feel guilty and especially when speaking with the DWP and I believe this may have come across in the telephone conversation with the compliance officer. I was in a very panicked state not fully understanding what she was saying as it was such a shock at the time to learn that the DWP did not have any record of my husband’s pension. After the telephone call with her I struggled to sleep and eat and had panic attacks.

The courts want from me:

Whether I kept a copy of the letter from 2012 which I have not and have already told them this.
copy of the Royal mail receipt - again due to passage of time do not have.

An explanation of why i did not contact dwp to chase up a reply to the letter I say I sent in 2012 when there was no change in the amount of my ESA (IR)

We can only assume at the time that the DWP were satisfied that the NHS pension information given to them. I cannot recall any change in the ESA (IR). We received no further correspondence from them with regard to my husband's pension which did not alert us to contact them.
In 2012 we were new to DWP benefit system and did not know about any rulings which would affect the amount of benefit being received with the ESA (IR). When my husband received his state pension, the monthly amount was more than the NHS pension and the ESA (IR) amount was reduced and we received notification from the DWP of this. My husband's NHS pension was approx £235 per month.

The court wants to know whether I am willing to attend an oral hearing either in person or remotely. I will ask for remotely due to my condition.

I am so sorry for the length of this message, but I am so worried and feel that the courts are favouring the DWP. If we have to repay this amount it will be so unfair as we informed the DWP of the change. Why would this pension have not being discovered until now is beyond me. Thank you so much. Please reply when you can as I have 30 days to respond to the court.
Kind regards Spitfire

My mental health condition stops me from engaging with them. Also I wanted to close my claim with them prior to this. Does anyone know if closing a claim under review (with UCR ) agent cancels following phone appointments? This is not an investigation with compliance team or fraud team. it's with UCR agent. Does anyone know of their protocol at this stage?

Hi all

I'm going to post what my Statement of Reasons says in full, leaving out the facts not in dispute and making some abbreviations. If the facts not in dispute should be included please let me know. I've also left out the decision statement but can add that to this thread if anyone asks for it. It just said they were refusing the appeal because of my help seeking behaviour and lack of appropriate pain medication or something like that.

I will also make annotations next to places where there is an error of law/error of fact that I can identify, or other point that maybe needs to be made.

I'd really like advice/guidance on what to say etc to get this set aside.
If there are any pointers on what to say exactly or how this should be laid out, please let me know.

A huge thanks to anyone who makes it through this mammoth post. Enjoy!

1. The appellant made a claim for PIP on (date). On (date) she underwent a health assessment by telephone. On (date) the Decision Maker declined entitlement to the benefit, awarding 6 points for daily living (descriptors 1b, 4b, 6b) and 4 points for Mobility (descriptor 12b). A MR request was made on (date) incorporating a formal complaint about both the Health Assessment and the Decision Maker on multiple grounds including incompetence, unprofessional behaviour and discrimination (it is not pertinent for the Tribunal's purposes to report upon the allegations and their subsequent outcome save to note, as follows, that the clinical findings were revised) **A.

On (date) a review of the Health Assessment by the clinical escalations team added descriptor 5b to the daily living component (total 8 points) and amended descriptor 12b to 12d for the mobility component (total ten points). Upon MR a revised award was issued on (date) consistent with the revised health assessment. Accordingly, the appellant was awarded the standard rate of the daily living component and the standard rate of the mobility component from (date) until (date of early 2026). An appeal was duly lodged and the matter was listed for an oral hearing. MDBond attended and was supported by her mother who remained outside. A presiding officer attended on behalf of the DWP.

2. We unanimously refuse the appeal and uphold the decision of the Sec of State.

Issues

3. The issue for the Tribunal is whether, at the date of the decision of the S of S, the Appellant met the criteria for an award of the enhanced rate of either component of the PIP benefit. She suffers from endometriosis, anxiety, depression, migraines, dry eyes (has named 3 other conditions which I've redacted but which are evidenced in my paperwork).

4. Through her appeal submission, she asserts further difficulties with daily living activity 1 preparing food, activity 2 taking nutrition, activity 3 managing treatment and activity 9 mixing with other people as well as mobility activity 1 planning and following journeys and activity 2 moving around.

Facts not in dispute (I have left this out)

Findings of fact and reasons

6. For the purposes of the appeal the appellant's claim rests upon the effects of her physical and mental health to undertake safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a timely manner the activities which comprise the functional tests for daily living and mobility as set out in law. The task for the Tribunal is to reach conclusions, on the balance of probabilities, as to her (reliable) functional ability most of the days in the time period set out in the legislation.

Daily Living

7. Insofar as reasoning is provided, the DM appears to accept the HP's (revised) opinion that aids for activities 1, 4, 5 and 6 would alleviate the appellant's pain and fatigue symptoms such that she would be able to undertake them on more than 50% of days, taking into account regulation 4 **B. Whilst the Tribunal has exercised its discretion not to revisit the existing award we are not bound by the reasoning of the DWP and instead must make our own findings based on the available evidence, combined with our expertise.

8. The appellant's primary alleged malady is pain from her endometriosis **C, which renders her severely incapacitated for approx two thirds of the time. She asserts that she has been experiencing this pain for years. It manifests in her being unable to stand up straight, walk around the home safely, look up, take food (other than snacks), reach for pain medication, reliably toilet or wash or dress, or to go out at all.

Physical Health

9. Our conclusion, formed on the balance of probabilities, is that the appellant's account of both her pain management regime and her help-seeking behaviour **D is wholly inconsistent with the asserted duration and severity of pain which is alleged for the following reasons:

a) Whilst we accept that Mefenamic Acid is used to treat pain, the appellant is clear that it is ineffective in alleviating her debilitating pain symptoms which she endures for nearly two thirds of all days, every month. In the circumstances it is not credible that she has not sought additional help. **E

b) Mefenamic Acid is a mild to moderate NSAID. The appellant was clear in evidence that she has not been active in exploring with her GP alternative pain relief and has therefore been passive in this regard. **F Neither has she, in the last couple of decades, attempted to procure over the counter pain relief despite doing this for her migraines **G (Sorry but I just have to say this is all a total lie which is disproved from the audio and I'm stunned they have sunk so low as to make this all up).

c) The appellant's account of being in too much pain to remember take (typo) pain relief lacks both logic and credibility. **H In the vast experience of the Tribunal the onset of pain acts as a reliable trigger to take pain relief. **I

d) The appellant's account of pain making her forgetful also lacks force **J. She has no diagnosed memory problems. She conceded in evidence that her mother is not able to prompt her to take medication. She agreed in evidence that she could nonetheless set a phone alarm to remember to take pain relief (having acknowledged that she can predict with relative accuracy the days of her menstrual cycle on which pain will manifest) but has never thought to do so. **K

e) The appellant displays a similarly passive approach to specialist help for her condition. She has endured endometriosis for over 25 years. Faced with such debilitating pain, and having been under the care of a consultant gynaecologist until 2018 (page 61), it is not credible that she has not sought specialist help. **L

Firstly, she is educated and articulate. Secondly, she demonstrates in the paperwork ample skill and tenacity in asserting her rights. Even if it is true that she was unaware of an endometriosis clinic until her GP mentioned it in late 2022 (date redacted), is (typo) lacks credibility that 12 months later she had taken no further action to secure a referral such that by the date of the Tribunal hearing she still had not received an appointment. **M

f) The medical evidence in the bundle is unenlightening. It largely predates the claim by many years and focusses on her eye condition as well as a time in 2016/2017 when she had an acute gynaecological condition (fibroids). **N

10. In conclusion, we reject the appellant's account of the debilitating effects of her pain from endometriosis for the above reasons. We accept that she has endometriosis but we find that on the balance of probabilities such pain does not cause functional impairment for more than 50% of days. For reasons already mentioned we have not sought to revisit the award made by the S of State as we are not gatekeepers of the public purse and our role is independent. **O

Mental Health

11. We find that the appellant's anxiety and depression does not cause functional impairment on more than 50% of days for the following reasons:

a) The appellant's history does not support a conclusion that her mental ill health is significantly limiting. She asserts that she has endured issues with motivation due to depression since 2017 (5 years preceding the claim) but did not receive treatment until 2022, indicating that she coped with it without needing to bring it to her GP's attention until that time. **P

b) She is non compliant with her sertraline medication. Having rejected as unlikely the appellant's argument that her non compliance was due to physical pain, we conclude that the appellant's non compliance with anti depressant medication is indicative of her being able to manage her mental heath without it. **Q

If she was too unmotivated to take anti depressant medication (our having rejected that she was not in too much pain to decline to decline to do so) then she would reasonably have spoken to her GP about this after 2022. There is no evidence that she has done so. **R

In oral evidence she confirmed that she has only spoken to her GP about her mental health that one time in late 2022. **S

c) The appellant's history displays a passive attitude to her mental health condition. She appears to be content to wait for CBT sessions to become available more than a year after she took up her GP's recommendation to self refer for this programme, indicating that she is coping. **T

d) We adopt the HCP's observations on page 122 regarding motivation displayed by the appellant. **U

Disputed descriptors

12. Activity 1. No additional points are awarded. We do not accept that the appellant is limited by pain on more than 50% of days such that she is unable to prepare food. Paragraphs 9 and 10 above explain the reasoning.

13. Activity 2. No points are awarded. We do not accept that the appellant is limited by pain on more than 50% of days such that she is unable to reliably take nutrition.

14. Activity 3 - no points are awarded. We do not accept that the appellant is limited by pain on more than 50% of days such that she forgets to take medication.

15. Activity 9 - no points are awarded. Firstly the appellant's argument at pages 6 and 7 refers to physical pain being a barrier to leaving her home. The statutory test does not incorporate this element when assessing engagement. Secondly it relies upon behaviours exhibited (due to pain) if she was in the company of others. We have already concluded that the appellant is not limited by pain on more than 50% of days. Lastly the appellant's understanding of extreme psychological distress is unaligned with the statutory test. When this matter was explored in evidence she gave as a reference point the support she receives from her mother when in the presence of other people, where in she described that her mother would be able to seek help/rescue if the appellant got into difficulties (ergo a migraine) and thus provided a form of reassurance and calm. ** V

16 Activity 11. No points are awarded. The appellant was clear that she could go out alone, if required, on her "good days". This would include driving and using public transport as well as planning an unfamiliar journey on her telephone app. Her mother's role in accompanying her would be to trigger rescue if acute help was needed. None of this aligns with the statutory tests for Activity 11. We have already concluded that in our view the majority of the appellant's days are "good days".

17. Activity 12. No points are awarded. The appellant's argument rests on limitation due to pain about which we have already drawn conclusions. She walked to the Tribunal hearing a distance of 61 m without stopping . ** W
We reject for the reasons given the appellant's assertions that she walks 3 to 5 times slower than normal (by reference to Regulation 4) due to pain. She has no other condition that would limit her ability to walk normally and pain free. ** X

18. The Tribunal therefore rejects the appeal and upholds the decision of the SS (oh sorry, that's my typo! ).

My annotations

A

(it is not pertinent for the Tribunal's purposes to report upon the allegations and their subsequent outcome save to note, as follows, that the clinical findings were revised)

They have failed to mention that the assessor Capita confirmed their own assessment had 'not been up to standard', apologised and offered me compensation. I believe this is deliberate because if they admit they know it is not up to par, then why are they referring to it/accepting it as evidence in the SoR?

B
7. Insofar as reasoning is provided, the DM appears to accept the HP's (revised) opinion that aids for activities 1, 4, 5 and 6 would alleviate the appellant's pain and fatigue symptoms such that she would be able to undertake them on more than 50% of days, taking into account regulation 4 **B

No aids have been identified by the assessor for activity 1 at all, the rest I need to check. But if they have no identified any aids, and I have asked and they still have not identified one, and neither do I/can I use one safely that I have said I can use, why have the Tribunal said this and yet again failed to identify any aid themselves?

C

8. The appellant's primary alleged malady is pain from her endometriosis **C

Alleged? I have documented history of having been given the same NSAID for over 20 years and supplied some of this evidence to Tribunal and they say later they accept the NSAID is to treat pain, so why use the word alleged? Also why not mention the depression/anxiety as that is a related condition which I have made clear.

D

9. Our conclusion, formed on the balance of probabilities, is that the appellant's account of both her pain management regime and her help-seeking behaviour **D

What does help seeking behaviour mean? I don't believe this has been explained, or why it is bad/good.

E

a) Whilst we accept that Mefenamic Acid is used to treat pain, the appellant is clear that it is ineffective in alleviating her debilitating pain symptoms which she endures for nearly two thirds of all days, every month. In the circumstances it is not credible that she has not sought additional help. **E

I said in evidence that I have told my GP I couldn't cope with the pain. His response was to refer me to an endo clinic. How can I challenge my GPs decision not to offer anything else? In the past when I have been in excruciating pain, and have desperately asked a different GP for help as I would likely die from the pain, he suggested stopping my period completely and prescribed a fertility drug but only short term. No GP has ever offered or discussed or tried to offer me anything stronger. How is this my fault?

Also I have looked into it and the stronger painkillers will affect my fertility/ability to get pregnant, hormones, mental health or clash with my migraines/make my health worse. I have always wanted to try and have children so this is probably why I have never been offered a stronger painkiller. My consultant's letter or a past GP's letter in the bundle makes it clear I want to try for children, so again this is likely why. I was not probed on reasons why I was not given a stronger painkiller, I was simply asked what conversation I had with my GP over and over again.

It is therefore not true I have not sought additional help, and I gave and have supplied evidence and could supply more evidence of this. Not being given stronger painkillers is surely a decision for my GP to make, not me.

F

b) Mefenamic Acid is a mild to moderate NSAID. The appellant was clear in evidence that she has not been active in exploring with her GP alternative pain relief and has therefore been passive in this regard. **F

Already answered this in E. Not been passive. GP simply never answered me in the last conversation or they will likely prescribe a fertility drug to stop my periods/stop me getting pregnant which I wouldn't want.

G

Neither has she, in the last couple of decades, attempted to procure over the counter pain relief despite doing this for her migraines **G

The judge asked me if I'd tried OTC pain relief and I said I had but they don't do anything, so this is a lie.

Having tried OTC sometime in the 2000s and finding it didn't work at all, not even remotely, why would I then try it again at any point in the last ten years? And why would OTC be any better than a prescribed painkiller? My NSAID is also not just a painkiller it is to lessen the blood flow. So no OTC will do that.

I used to be prescribed my migraine relief drug but like a lot of stuff it's no longer prescribed so forced to buy OTC. It is not a matter of picking and choosing what I can get OTC.

H

c) The appellant's account of being in too much pain to remember take (typo) pain relief lacks both logic and credibility. **H

It probably lacks logic and credibility because I didn't say this. I said it's mostly because my pain is so overwhelming that it is hard to remember anything, or to do anything even if I do remember. I also said I limit what I eat and drink including all medications because of the pain, painful bowel movements, and vomiting. I avoid going to the toilet because it's so painful and I cannot walk upright so it's not safe as I can't see properly to avoid/judge obstacles, etc all of which I said. It also obviously means I can't cook safely/eat. It is a complete falsehood and total minimisation to state I don't take painkillers because I 'forget'. I have made these comments in my paperwork/application too so it's a bit ridiculous to ignore all of this.

I

In the vast experience of the Tribunal the onset of pain acts as a reliable trigger to take pain relief. **I

Does the panel have vast experience of endometriosis? Clearly not. Already explained above the lengths I have to go to in order to cope with the pain and the impact it has on me.

J

d) The appellant's account of pain making her forgetful also lacks force **J.

Already explained in H and I, the pain is all consuming and overwhelming, it is impossible to do much, and yes if I think the painkiller is not very effective, why would I bother taking it in these dire circumstances? I think it's clear they just don't want to believe me.

K

She agreed in evidence that she could nonetheless set a phone alarm to remember to take pain relief (having acknowledged that she can predict with relative accuracy the days of her menstrual cycle on which pain will manifest) but has never thought to do so. **K

Wrong. The GP was asking about setting alarms for the sertraline, not painkiller. So this is wrong.

Re my period, by this stage I did not feel comfortable disclosing everything to the panel so I simply went along with what they wanted (being fed up of being bombarded with 90+ repeat questions) so I think I said I can roughly tell when my period will start, but it was not in response to being asked about using a timer 'to remember'. I will have to check my transcript on this.

I actually can't predict with accuracy when my period will start or when the pain will start (I definitely cannot predict the pain as my body decides this, not me) and I did not say this! If I could I'd bottle it and sell it to all the women in the world who would love to know that I use an app to try and help me to gauge a rough date but this can vary by up to 7 days. The last two months I have started much earlier than expected. I can't predict this with accuracy and to suggest I or any other woman can is a nonsense. The fact that a man has written this ridiculous statement/drawn this conclusion just makes him look even more stupid as it shows he has no understanding at all of my condition or how different women's periods work.

L

e) The appellant displays a similarly passive approach to specialist help for her condition. She has endured endometriosis for over 25 years. Faced with such debilitating pain, and having been under the care of a consultant gynaecologist until 2018 (page 61), it is not credible that she has not sought specialist help. **L

What do they mean by specialist help? I have been to my GP multiple times over the years and constantly been dismissed or ignored. I didn't even know I had endo until it was discovered and diagnosed by accident after a fibroid surgery and my second gynae surgery and after multiple scans.

The consultant was assigned after my massive fibroid (a symptom of endometriosis) was discovered, after I was ignored by my GP when I first saw them complaining about pain and something in my tummy but was not even examined until it grew to a mammoth size and the pain was all month, outside of my period. I did not include any of my letters documenting that entire sorry episode in my evidence but happy to now.

In fact I was not assigned one consultant, but 3 different ones, one for cancer, then one for the fibroid who refused to perform keyhole surgery, then a different one for the fibroid who finally performed the keyhole surgery. Again I can document the struggle I had to endure to fight for over two years for surgery if anyone wants it, but I was not asked about any of this in the hearing so it was not put to me.

Not exactly passive and it's not true I've not had or sought specialist help. So why say this?

If he means I've been passive for the past few years, maybe that might be because I told my GP I couldn't cope and he said he'd refer me and there would be a very long wait post covid and not to contact him if it took a long time? He said the same about the counselling/mental health input. Maybe this passivity might also be something to do with my depression/fatigue? After years of fighting and not being heard and being forced to come to terms with the fact I may never have a family due to time running out, maybe all of this has taken a toll on my mental health?

M

Even if it is true that she was unaware of an endometriosis clinic until her GP mentioned it in late 2022 (date redacted), is (typo) lacks credibility that 12 months later she had taken no further action to secure a referral such that by the date of the Tribunal hearing she still had not received an appointment. **M

It is true, I didn't know an endo clinic existed locally until he mentioned it.
As stated above, my GP said it would be a very long wait and not to bother him.
Despite this I told the panel I did contact my GP in November 23 and sadly got put through to a different GP who failed to answer anything about my referral - didn't even confirm if one had been made - and instead asked if I had endo. I confirmed the diagnosis and he just said he was sending me for an ultrasound!!! Which was obviously very frustrating.

Again they have ignored what I told them. Or perhaps don't believe me but I can document the fact I was sent for an ultrasound as I declined to attend it. I can document this but I wasn't asked to in the hearing, I simply told them what happened which they have ignored.

N

f) The medical evidence in the bundle is unenlightening. It largely predates the claim by many years and focusses on her eye condition as well as a time in 2016/2017 when she had an acute gynaecological condition (fibroids). **N

Why are you mentioning I haven't done anything about my pain or endo etc for decades, yet when I supply evidence to contradict this, you complain about it? Bizarre.

Fibroids are an endometriosis symptom.
My fibroid letters are from my GP and my consultant stating how difficult life was for me at the time having to carry a pain causing watermelon sized tumour in my stomach, the impact it was having on me and confirm my endo diagnosis post surgery. It also confirms I have lesions which cannot be treated by painkillers or cannot be removed by surgery so I have to live with them. The lesions were not referred to by the GP when she quoted the letter from the consultant confirming the diagnosis.

Again I have no idea why they are slamming this as unenlightening. If you read it, you might understand why it's in the bundle.
The other letters are also to confirm diagnoses about my other conditions. Not sure why this is so offensive to include as evidence?

O

For reasons already mentioned we have not sought to revisit the award made by the S of State as we are not gatekeepers of the public purse and our role is independent. **O

I appreciate many of you don't agree with me on this point but the judge is effectively a keeper of the public purse seeing as he's the head of legal in the local council. All public sector legal workers are told they are keepers of the public purse. So I don't agree his role is independent. Is it worth mentioning this assertion may not be entirely true?

P

a) The appellant's history does not support a conclusion that her mental ill health is significantly limiting. She asserts that she has endured issues with motivation due to depression since 2017 (5 years preceding the claim) but did not receive treatment until 2022, indicating that she coped with it without needing to bring it to her GP's attention until that time. **P

Wow.
I was not asked about this in the hearing.
I will need to check but if anything relevant to this was said then I likely said I didn't want to accept my diagnosis and I'm still struggling to accept it and the impact my condition has had on my whole life. I had struggled with the depression since I had to live with the massive fibroid for years, then after getting the diagnosis I've struggled to cope with the realisation I have this condition and will likely never have the family I wanted. I am ashamed and embarrassed of my condition and the time it has robbed me of hence why I can't talk about it without getting upset. I was sobbing 42 times in the hearing and was blowing my nose 9 times.
Some of this I couldn't say to them as they were frequently interrupting me, or I was crying, or I felt I couldn't share it with them as they were not showing any empathy or compassion.
I have tried to maintain a façade of normality for decades but I just can't do it anymore. I also find it hard to talk about my feelings without crying which I'm sure my GP will confirm in writing if I ask him to so I avoid that.
But hey I guess I'm coping. Lol.

Q

b) She is non compliant with her sertraline medication. Having rejected as unlikely the appellant's argument that her non compliance was due to physical pain, we conclude that the appellant's non compliance with anti depressant medication is indicative of her being able to manage her mental heath without it. **Q

Again lol.
I explained in H what the answer is to this and the fact I cannot take meds or limit my intake of food and water inc medication to avoid toileting. etc and more pain and risks to my safety.
Also I actually told the panel I knew I would not be able to comply with the anti depressant medication due to the pain but my GP had pressured me to take it. I told them this is why I had pushed for therapy/counselling as well as being uncomfortable with being on more meds. They have ignored what I told them.

Historically I've been prescribed anti depressants before decades ago so there is a long history of me reporting this to my GP in the past. I stopped taking the anti depressants because they were not helping me. They didn't ask this.

R

If she was too unmotivated to take anti depressant medication (our having rejected that she was not in too much pain to decline to decline to do so) then she would reasonably have spoken to her GP about this after 2022. There is no evidence that she has done so. **R

I did speak to my GP as when I called in Nov 23 and got the different GP who didn't listen to me about the endo referral, he said he had to review my meds. I told him I was struggling to take it but he said nothing. Again they ignored what I told them.

S

In oral evidence she confirmed that she has only spoken to her GP about her mental health that one time in late 2022. **S

As stated above, not true.
Also as I struggle to talk about it without crying I would avoid this. I wasn't asked why I hadn't been back to the GP.
Also he had already told me it was a long wait for counselling and so had the therapy people and I had accepted that.

T

c) The appellant's history displays a passive attitude to her mental health condition. She appears to be content to wait for CBT sessions to become available more than a year after she took up her GP's recommendation to self refer for this programme, indicating that she is coping. **T

Again wow and lol Simply not true.
I supplied evidence that I have self referred and I'm on a waiting list. I went to the trouble of getting more evidence before the hearing to prove I am still on a waiting list.
How else is a waiting list meant to work without some level of acceptance?
In the meantime I tried to do some webinar sessions with them but these were not tailored, were 2 hours long, and although I didn't have to attend every single one weekly - which I can't do anyway due to my endo - this was a struggle to complete or keep up with due to my endo. I told them all of this but they have ignored this.

U

d) We adopt the HCP's observations on page 122 regarding motivation displayed by the appellant. **U

I'll have to refer back to what this says but my first question is why are you going with a discredited report? And with a health professional who no longer works for capita, either due to firing or what I don't know, but why are you accepting their version of events when it is discredited?

I have also supplied a written transcript of that assessment which should tell them I never said what the HP claims I did. So why accept it?

I will need to check this obviously but I think it will say something like - she writes online courses therefore she has no problems with motivation. I told her I did this on the minority of days and I was struggling to complete them due to illness/fatigue and depression. Transcript should show this.

V

15. Activity 9 - no points are awarded. Firstly the appellant's argument at pages 6 and 7 refers to physical pain being a barrier to leaving her home. The statutory test does not incorporate this element when assessing engagement. Secondly it relies upon behaviours exhibited (due to pain) if she was in the company of others. We have already concluded that the appellant is not limited by pain on more than 50% of days. Lastly the appellant's understanding of extreme psychological distress is unaligned with the statutory test. When this matter was explored in evidence she gave as a reference point the support she receives from her mother when in the presence of other people, where in she described that her mother would be able to seek help/rescue if the appellant got into difficulties (ergo a migraine) and thus provided a form of reassurance and calm. ** V

If it is the case I need support to socialise/talk etc from my mum, then why no points?
Oh I forgot, you don't accept this happens on 50% of days.
They ignored my sobbing 42 times, this probably explains why.
I explained I cannot go out nor socialise or interact socially at all due to pain/depression/fatigue. I can't walk upright so it would be socially embarrassing as well as cause me injury to try and walk like this.
I explained I cannot socialise nor do I have any desire to go out because my condition means my life is totally different to everyone else's and this makes me feel worse. My friendships have crumbled and are non existent. People will ask what have you been doing and what can I say? They all have families and I don't which makes me feel worse. It is too upsetting and isolating for me. Also my uncontrollable sobbing should have told them I wasn't ok but clearly it didn't.

W

17. Activity 12. No points are awarded. The appellant's argument rests on limitation due to pain about which we have already drawn conclusions. She walked to the Tribunal hearing a distance of 61 m without stopping . ** W

It was not put to me that the distance I walked was 61m!
It is absolutely not 61m! It is 20/30 metres at most.
This is outrageously wrong as I told them I walked up the side road to the venue slowly and with support from my mother and I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.

X

We reject for the reasons given the appellant's assertions that she walks 3 to 5 times slower than normal (by reference to Regulation 4) due to pain. She has no other condition that would limit her ability to walk normally and pain free. ** X

It is not just pain that limits or slows my walking. I also explained to the panel I had fatigue and was slow on that day. I also have depression which I believe has an impact on both my walking and speech/thinking. If not I've no idea why they were constantly interrupting instead of letting me speak.

This maybe of help:

General Practitioners (GPs) in the UK are bound by a variety of specific regulations and laws that ensure they adhere to high standards of medical practice and patient care. Here are some of the key regulations and laws:

1. General Medical Council (GMC) Regulations
Good Medical Practice: The GMC's core guidance document sets out the principles and values on which good practice is founded. It includes duties such as respecting patient confidentiality, obtaining informed consent, and maintaining professional competence.
Fitness to Practise: Regulations that define the procedures for investigating and adjudicating complaints about a doctor's fitness to practise.

2. Data Protection Act 2018 (incorporating GDPR)
Governs how personal data, including medical records, should be handled and protected.
Ensures patient information is kept confidential and secure, with strict guidelines on data sharing and patient consent.

3. Mental Capacity Act 2005
Provides a framework for making decisions on behalf of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make decisions themselves.
Ensures that any decision made for a person who lacks capacity is in their best interests.

4. Equality Act 2010
Prohibits discrimination in healthcare settings on grounds of race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, and other protected characteristics.
Ensures all patients receive fair and equitable treatment.

5. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Requires GPs to provide a safe working environment for their staff and patients.
Ensures compliance with health and safety regulations to prevent accidents and injuries.

6. Medicines Act 1968 and Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Governs the prescribing, dispensing, and administration of medicines.
Includes regulations on controlled drugs and ensures proper use and record-keeping of such substances.

7. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
Establishes the framework for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.
Requires GPs to report any concerns about abuse or neglect to appropriate authorities.

8. National Health Service (NHS) Regulations
NHS (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2004: Sets out the terms under which GPs provide services to the NHS, including quality standards, patient access, and performance monitoring.
NHS Constitution: Establishes patients' rights and the standards of care they can expect from the NHS, including GP services.

9. Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
Requires GPs to notify public health authorities of certain infectious diseases.
Helps in the monitoring and control of outbreaks to protect public health.

10. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012
Consolidates and updates the law on the regulation of medicines for human use, including authorizations, manufacturing, distribution, and pharmacovigilance.

11. Mental Health Act 1983
Provides the legal framework for the treatment and care of people with mental health disorders.
Includes provisions for involuntary admission and treatment of patients under certain conditions.

12. Freedom of Information Act 2000
Allows public access to information held by public authorities, including NHS bodies.
GPs must comply with requests for information while maintaining patient confidentiality.

Hi guys,

My sister has a progressive spinal condition (Degenerative Disc Disease) - and had a telephone-based WCA at the end of April. She also has Gastritis and an Underactive Thyroid. Due to her spinal disability, she's previously been in the support group for 9 years. I am her appointee with the DWP.

She has yet to hear the result of her latest WCA - but we are expecting to hear imminently as its been almost 6 weeks.

During each assessment, we covertly record it - whether that be a physical or telephone assessment.

After every assessment, I obtain a copy of the assessors report.

We do this for this very reason. I obtained a copy of the assessors report from the DWP 3 days ago - and I am FURIOUS and DISGUSTED at what the assessor has written.

It is full of lies - not just one or two - but, literally, FULL of them - and I haven't even finished going through the report yet. I am about half way through.

In addition to that, the assessor has 'twisted / manipulated' what my sister said - and completely omitted information that is vital to my sisters claim.

I have already informed the CHDA that I will be making a formal complaint. I have given them some snippets as to why, and given them a little to work with - but I have made it clear that I am sending a long, formal written complaint.

I have also notified them that I will be reporting their assessor to the General Medical Council - and, if my sisters benefits or health are impacted negatively, we will also be taking her and/or the CHDA to court to recover any financial loss or physical hard that her vindictive actions cause my sister.

Thankfully, we have an audio recording as evidence, and I have produced a word-for-word transcript of the audio too. I also have the full report, along with copies of all medical evidence that the assessor used.

To cut to the chase, based on the assessors findings, she has assessed my sister as being fit for work and recommended 0 points to the DWP decision maker.

To cut to the chase, is it possible to apply for an assessors report to be "written off" as not being in compliance with the legislation and therefore being unlawful - in addition to being full of lies, full of manipulated dated, and all of the evidence that has been referred to is between 5 to 9 years old. NO NEW EVIDENCE has been looked at or been made reference to at all.

Some of the lies include:

1. Stating that the interview and examination took an hour and 10 minutes. The actual interview and assessment was just 23 minutes.

2. She stated that my sister said that she had been in a road traffic accident. My Sister has NEVER been in a road traffic accident in her life.

3. She stated that my sister does not suffer with incontinence - despite evidence being provided that she does have incontinence due to lack of nerve sensation.

4. She stated that my sister does not wear incontinence pads. My sister stated that she DOES wear incontinence pads.

5. She stated that my sister walks 10 metres between rooms - implying that she has a large property. My sisters property is not even 10 metres in total size. It is actually tiny - with the whole single-floor property only being 8 metres in length from front door to the furthest back wall - and 7 metres wide from one side of the property to the other.

6. She states that my sister has NO medication symptoms, and NO thyroid symptoms - yet the medical evidence shows that she does have symptoms of both, and the audio recording captures this too.

7. She has stated that my sister takes a 3 minute walk to her GP - yet the audio recordings clearly captures my sister saying that we go by car and it is less than 1 minute away.

8. She's given diagnosis dates that are ALL completely different to the diagnosis dates given.

9. She has documented medication that my sister has never been on - yet omitted medication that my sister is actually taking.

10. She has constantly referred to my sister using a wheelchair throughout her report - yet she's indicated to the DWP decision maker that my sister can walk more than 200 metres aided or unaided and does not use a wheelchair........

11. She has stated that "when my sister comes back from GP appointments, she will stand and make herself a hot drink and continue with her day as normal" - yet my sister said that when she comes back, she will be wiped out from pain and will need to lay down until her pain eases......

12. She stated that "My sister has home grocery deliveries, packs the items away and will happily engage in conversation with the driver" - yet my sister told the assessor that our mum goes round on grocery delivery day, our mum answers the door and puts things away, and she does not engage with the drivers because she suffers with social anxiety.

13. She states that my sister can get dressed without any problems - despite my sister saying she uses aids to help her get dressed (evidence of this was also provided with social care documents listed showing the aids and adaptations they've provided her with).

14. The assessor has said "She has no other pain" despite my sister saying that her body has dropped on one side due to her back condition, which means she cannot stand level - which causes pain in her leg and ankle. Medical evidence of this was also provided - but not referred to.

15. She has stated "Since stopping her pain relief, her Gastritis has improved". My sister actually said that her gastritis was CAUSED by prolonged opioid use (Gabapentin). A hospital document was provided as evidence that clearly states that my sister's Gastritis was caused by opioid-induced Narcotic Bowel Syndrome, and she MUST NOT be prescribed opioids under any circumstances. Her Gastritis has NEVER improved - and her diet is restricted to just fish or chicken. Anything else gives her terrible acid reflux, and she will suffer faecal incontinence.

The list goes on and on. Every single page has lies - all of which can be backed up by the audio recording.

Then there are the manipulations of what my sister said.

a. The assessor stated "She can brush her teeth standing for three minutes". What my sister actually said is that she stands against the wall to brush her teeth, regularly grabbing her toilet frame to regain her balance.

b. The assessor states "She takes 10mg once daily" of her pain relief - but my sister actually said "I take 10mg to 20mg per day, depending on how bad my paid is. On a goodish day I can take 10mg, but on a bad day, I will have to take 20mg.

Again, there are loads of these too - but you're probably bored of reading by now, plus I think I've made the point now lol.

So, it is my opinion that this report should be dismissed as 'not fit for purpose'. I also believe that the assessor, who the CHDA confirm is a 'registered General Practitioner', should be struck off from the medical register (and I am the kind of person that will push until all avenues have been exhausted - so I won't be giving up lightly).

IF the decision maker is equally reckless and incompetent, could I highlight all of the issues with the report at Mandatory Reconsideration stage in the hope that it will be written off and a new and fair assessment re-done that is actually done properly and lawfully?

Hi just an update, so the lady has just phoned me for my compliance interview…
She started off reading the legal stuff and I thought ey up somethings wrong here…

She asked me if I had bank accounts at different banks, isa, bonds etc.

Did I have a lodger, partner etc…

Answered her honestly, I asked her if this was a random check and she said yes initially then said no.

She went on to say that in 2020/21 my savings went over 6k by 800£. I explained covid and no shops etc open so imagine most people would have a bit of extra.

I explained I spend via credit card and that payment goes out monthly. So my account may slightly go over 6k temporarily but soon dips back down once credit card is payed.

She said that was feasible but wants a recent statement to close the case ?

My qs are:
What case?
And am I legally bound to send her my bank statement ?


Thanks. Jak

Thanks. I will do that. The woman did call me back after I left my number on her answer phone. She says she's calling back at 1pm for compliance interview. I'll keep you informed

I think I managed to post this earlier but have more info. I can't find my post.

So random letter arrives saying we need some information from you. Please let us have your phone number. Signed compliance officer ...

Envelope address is dwp CFCF comp Wolverhampton. Which I beleive is counter fraud dep ?

On back of envelope is habd written I and 6 numbers.

Any idea what's going on ?

Hi. I've just received a fesl12 letter from a compliance officer saying they haven't a phone number for me and want me to ring them with it as they are missing some information about me.

Anyone had this letter ? Is it legit. What are they upto? Few typos etc on the letter too.

Interested in peiples experiences re this.

My esa was extended due to covid toll feb 2026 so don't understand what's going on.

Thanks jak

Hi,

I found recently, to my great happiness, I could cope with a bit of part-time driving work, but am finding extreme difficulty in getting any shifts given to me through my temp agencies. So through other sources, i.e. gig and part-time permanent or contract work, it's extremely hard to find stuff that's consistently within the earnings limits: most proper employers pay above minimum wage now. And some gig ones have funny hours/pay patterns. This is also material for a friend on PIP and ESA-LCWRA who through nominal self-employment has occasionally exceeded hours/earnings limits (under her interpretation of the rules). So:


Pension contributions and net earnings

Can pension contributions reduce employed earnings prior to the £183.50 (min wage x 16hrs) assessment being applied for ESA exempt ('permitted') work purposes, in the way it does for income tax, i.e. it reducing the pre-income-tax income by 50% of the amount contributed?


Pension contribs and gig work/self-employed net earnings

If so could pension contributions achieve a similar result in the case of nominally self-employed gig work, through ad-hoc contributions?


Pension contribs and employers refusing to operate pension schemes

Where an employer refuses to operate a pension scheme, can I reduce my nominal earnings for ESA purposes by making ad-hoc contributions?



Statutory holiday pay, minimum wage, and the moment at which the holiday pay is deemed to have been earned

Given for income tax purposes statutory holiday pay must (surely?) be deemed to be earned in the week in which the employee elects for it to be taken, and given some employers are entitled to pay it at the same time as the wage (as long as it’s itemized), do those latter (immediate) payments a) get treated as not immediate earnings for tax purposes and b) for ESA purposes?


Statutory holiday pay, minimum wage, and self-employment (as matter of statutory interpretation)

and given as a matter of policy & statutory interpretation it’s unrealistic to presume self-employed workers don’t need/won’t take holidays, can an analogous ‘holiday apportionment’ be applied to self-employed earners’ incomes, to raise the weekly £183.50 cap by the statutory holiday minimum of 12.07%, i.e. to £205.65 (so long as the earner takes 5.6 weeks’ holiday, or less on a pro-rata basis)?


Unpaid travel time between piecework jobs, and 16 hour limit

Does unpaid travel time on public transport between piecework gig (car delivery) jobs in a several-delivery day count as work hours?


Point at which the week begins for purposes of 16 hour limit

If a gig ‘employer’ (in fact they declare it’s self-employment’) only offers a minimum of 3-day tranches of work, paid by cars delivered (3-4 deliveries a day, £20-£28 a delivery, they estimate £80 income a day, although some online report as little as £40-50, they estimate taking 8-10 hours to perform), could someone in my shoes with a 16 hour limit (18 with averaging) declare my week-beginning to be after one of those 3 days, and do one 3-day tranche every two weeks instead of every one week, ergo on one ‘week’ I do 1 shift and on another ‘week’ I do two?


New PW1 form for each new work pattern?

Do I need to submit a new PW1 form for every new employer (or gigwork organizer) given each will have a slightly different work-pattern, pay, and set of duties?


Can one begin work if technically uncertain but has at least arguable case about PW1 (permitted/exempt work terms) compliance?

If I’m worried that a ‘no’ answer might be forthcoming to one of the above questions arising from a PW1 submission, but that a ‘yes’ is crucial to it falling within permitted work rules, does that mean I can/can’t begin the work but submit a PW1 immediately if I’m to keep my ESA, or is it OK to begin the work, submit PW1 immediately, and then stop it if ESA say it doesn’t fall within the rules?


I truly despair of getting any other work I can do with my current training and experience and capability level, and these questions and similar have become crucial, both for me and a friend in a similar position.

With enormous thanks - Jonathan

Hi ArchieD123

I have never come across one, and I have been doing benefits for many years. I have heard from members on the forum who have undergone a compliance interview, from reading the link I sent you, Once your identity has been confirmed, you will be informed of the purpose of the interview.

Hopefully forum members who have also had a compliance interview will be able to offer you first hand experience.

Gary

Thanks Gary.

I’ve read elsewhere online that these interviews are being requested randomly. Is it likely be a full investigation or could it just be to verify the information I gave at the telephone assessment? I’ve never been asked to have one of these previously.

Hi ArchieD123

Welcome to the forum.

You might want to have a look at the following FAQ which explains where everything is; www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/guides-for-claimants/faq/forum.

A DWP compliance interview, also referred to as a customer compliance interview, is a procedure undertaken by the DWP where they have reason to suspect that you are claiming a benefit that you are not entitled to, or if they suspect that your personal circumstances have changed but that you have not notified them of the change; www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/dwp-com...iew-questions-guide/

Gary

Hi,

I recently had a telephone assessment for my PIP renewal and now I have received a letter in the post saying I am to have a compliance interview with the DWP with a date and time. It doesn’t give any more details than that.

Does anyone know what this could be about or whether it is something to worry about?

Thanks

Andrew, as C says, it is the comment
""you are the only person prolonging this review with your persistent hospital admissions"
that is disgusting bullying.
Please maybe a little, put yourself in the original poster's shoes before drafting a reply which, on the surface at least, seems to lack empathy for someone whose condition/s mean they have been in and out of hospital repeatedly. That is very disorientating in itself, and dealing with admin on top can be difficult. Thank you for, I hope, reflecting.

I`m afraid I don`t read the response from DWP as "disgusting" or "bullying". I read it as a person trying to do her job but getting little, or no, cooperation from her "client" (for want of an expression).

"The department can and are able to infer from your lack of engagement with the A42 form"; this isn`t bullying or disgusting, the DWP lady was advising that they have the power to assume that someone isn`t being helpful or truthful (I`m not calling anyone a liar here, this is my interpretation of the details provided).

"Firstly I have told them I will sign the forms if they are filled out correctly"; On face value this is implies that they don`t agree with how the A42 is completed, but why they aren`t completed correctly isn`t mentioned. To allow people to make an informed comment, it would have been better to provide a bit more information.

Before you respond, please understand I am not criticising anybody here, I`m just explaining my interpretation of the situation based on the comments of the poster.