TEXT:
Assertions made in
HCP’s and Decision Maker’s reports.
I refer to my recent assessment process by ATOS for DWP. I
particularly refer to the DWP decision maker’s letter of explanation, together
with the report from the ATOS physiotherapist at ****** (centre) whom I met for
a face-to-face interview.
The physiotherapist
who interviewed me asserted in her report that I presented a long standing (sic)
history of depression “which was caused by childhood abuse”.
This is an outrageous assertion. I have never believed, nor
affirmed to that person or to any other, that my depression was caused or
initiated in any such way: her assertion is unfounded and without reasonable
provenance and is profoundly offensive, hurtful and, I am forced to argue,
personally damaging.
The wider implications of the assertion – including in at
least two respects with regard to my assessment* - are far-reaching, and equally
unacceptable.
* (a) Such an unfounded
assertion must cast doubts on the professional competence of the entire
interview and assessment process; and
(b) Such a misidentification of
the origins and nature of my condition mean that its appraisal can only be
compromised.
I note that the decision maker’s report quoted the assertion
verbatim and without qualification.
[I suspect that, in this and other ways, data protection
laws and statutory requirements placed on DWP with regard to my mental health
have been breached - as well as procedures required of both DWP and
ATOS. I shall pursue this if health allows.]
[The following
paragraphs contain personal information which I don’t want to purvey.]
************
Unfortunately, the above-mentioned is only one of a series
of assertions, made by ATOS’ physiotherapist (and by DWP’s decision maker),
which were not only unfounded but contrary to information presented or offered
by me. (This to the extent that I can find no evidence that much of the
information presented by me through DWP’s original questionnaire (or directly
to HCP) was ever read at all by ATOS
or DWP; while it is clear that what I said in the interview was not always
noted with due care*.)
[* I felt that the fact that my doctor’s
evidence was never sought by DWP was not germane to this complaint.]
[A selection of other unfounded
assertions by the Health Care Professional (!) follows here.]
************
In view of the influence of these and other assertions on
any determinations that are made about my future, I must regard these repeated
offences as being of fundamental importance. I must therefore insist most
emphatically that they be corrected. In view of the now demonstrably inaccurate
nature of a substantial amount of data held about me by DWP, I believe I should
then be offered an opportunity to see and correct as necessary all such data which DWP or associated
bodies hold about me
If DWP is unwilling or unable to make all appropriate
corrections, and to allow me to audit the data they hold about me, I request
that I be advised.
Thank you for your attention.
END TEXT.
In a telephone conversation, a DWP person acknowledged
receipt of this letter.
She also advised me that DWP don’t intend to reply to it.
I originally deferred posting this
as a courtesy, to give them time to respond... I’m not quite sure why I bothered.
NB: I think DWP will eventually suggest that the complaint should be addressed to ATOS. But (1) DWP is at fault here and (2) ATOS is contracted by DWP, working to DWP's rules. But then, half the effect of privatisation is that responsibility becomes elusive... think 'railway accidents'.
No comments:
Post a Comment