APPEALS PROCESS FIRST STEPS.

bro58,

many thanks for your reply.

regards A.

ok derek thats great thanks

let us know when it gets done

cheers

martin

article wrote:

Biffer, looks pretty impressive. I like your approach re- to wrag related activities and how this may lead to a deterioration in your health. (exceptional circumstances rule ?)

I think that would apply to me as i have a hypertension problem (aswel as depression and clostrophobia) and my blood presure shot up when i got my wrag assesment, and stayed their resulting in me having to see my GP and more blood pressure tablets prescribed. Even had to have emergency blood tests, and monitoring of my blood pressure.

If this happens on just a letter recd at home I shudder to think how I will be when attending a work related interview.

Does anyone think I should point this out to CAB who are now taking charge of my case?.

regards A.

Thanks for your comment, Article.

With regard to your own query ... it seems to me that all of us should be pointing out anything and everything to anyone who will listen (both verbally and in writing) in order to make our case.

Personally, I'm emphasizing the 'worst case scenario' in all my dealings with DWP, etc. To do anything less than this is to leave the door open to doubt in the minds of those who have our fate in their hands. I feel that decision makers' 'doubts' are liable to result in decisions that are best for the DWP, rather than the claimant (such as putting people in WRAG who ought to be in SG).

I'm about to post another question (below), the replies to which we both might find useful ...

Biffer

Hi all,

Can anyone say exactly who makes the decision to place a claimant in WRAG? Is it Atos, or the DWP?

If it's Atos, how binding can that decision be if they haven't even seen the claimant? If it's the DWP, what qualifies their DM to rubber-stamp an Atos medical 'assessment' when he/she (presumably) has no medical training whatsoever?

Finally, has anyone thought of invoking human rights legislation regarding compulsory WRAG 'activities'? This might seem a little over-the-top, but the present Exceptional Circumstances wording seems suspiciously too vague for my liking: I think it's wide open to the personal interpretation of whichever DM handles your appeal case.

Personally, I haven't the energy to trail-blaze this approach in the Hague, but on the other hand, compulsory WRAG 'activities' really would make my mental condition worse.

My argument is that no reasonable person would voluntarily undertake 'activities' that would knowingly lead to a deterioration in their health or well-being, so surely it must be unreasonable for the DWP to insist that claimants participate in such 'activities' in the knowledge that said claimants' health would suffer as a result?

Yikes! I've got a headache now, so I'm going. Many thanks in advance for your replies.

Biffer

Biffer wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone say exactly who makes the decision to place a claimant in WRAG? Is it Atos, or the DWP?

If it's Atos, how binding can that decision be if they haven't even seen the claimant? If it's the DWP, what qualifies their DM to rubber-stamp an Atos medical 'assessment' when he/she (presumably) has no medical training whatsoever?

Finally, has anyone thought of invoking human rights legislation regarding compulsory WRAG 'activities'? This might seem a little over-the-top, but the present Exceptional Circumstances wording seems suspiciously too vague for my liking: I think it's wide open to the personal interpretation of whichever DM handles your appeal case.

Personally, I haven't the energy to trail-blaze this approach in the Hague, but on the other hand, compulsory WRAG 'activities' really would make my mental condition worse.

My argument is that no reasonable person would voluntarily undertake 'activities' that would knowingly lead to a deterioration in their health or well-being, so surely it must be unreasonable for the DWP to insist that claimants participate in such 'activities' in the knowledge that said claimants' health would suffer as a result?

Yikes! I've got a headache now, so I'm going. Many thanks in advance for your replies.

Biffer

Hi B,

In response to your first question.

The ATOS HCP will make recommendations in the medical report, as to the prognosis(recommended length of award), and as to which group of ESA (if any) the claimant is placed in.

These recommendations will be made taking into account any evidence that they have before them.

This could include, the claimant themselves, at a face to face, the ESA50, an ESA113, and any other documents that the claimant may have provided.

These recommendations are then put before the DWP DM, who taking said recommendations into account, along with any other evidence, decides what award, if any, of ESA should be made, with regards to ESA qualifying criteria and regulations, on the balance of probabilities.

I am afraid I can not really comment on the rest of your post.

bro58

Biffer wrote:

Finally, has anyone thought of invoking human rights legislation regarding compulsory WRAG 'activities'? This might seem a little over-the-top, but the present Exceptional Circumstances wording seems suspiciously too vague for my liking: I think it's wide open to the personal interpretation of whichever DM handles your appeal case.

Personally, I haven't the energy to trail-blaze this approach in the Hague, but on the other hand, compulsory WRAG 'activities' really would make my mental condition worse.

My argument is that no reasonable person would voluntarily undertake 'activities' that would knowingly lead to a deterioration in their health or well-being, so surely it must be unreasonable for the DWP to insist that claimants participate in such 'activities' in the knowledge that said claimants' health would suffer as a result?

Yikes! I've got a headache now, so I'm going. Many thanks in advance for your replies.

Biffer

Unfortunately the Human Rights Act does not normally apply to Acts of Parliament, and as ESA is enacted by virtue of The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 et seq, the HRA is unlikely to assist.