The letter from Newcastle. (Thank'ee kindly, Sorr, 'tis more than Oi deserve.)

At first glance, this second letter (see previous post, "DWP don't only decline to answer...") looked like good news. While I'm waiting for my appeal, I'm still being paid a benefit allowance, although at not much more than half the rate I was getting before DWP & ATOS got their teeth into me: the good bit is that this benefit is being increased in April.

But, by less than the 1% announced in Parliament. Only a penny less - they've rounded the increase down to the nearest 10p. But that really is penny-pinching. Of course, they'll say, 'what's one pee?' Well, in the light of how much they're deigning to let me have, quite a lot...

At least the increase will cover my costs, I thought... the cost of all the letters I have to send recorded delivery so that I have some evidence when DWP tell me that I didn't send this or that letter; the amount ATOS decided not to pay towards my fares (when I went for my assessment) without explaining why; the amount I'm going to have to pay for a SAR because I'm clearly being mucked me around. Of course, it'll take a lot of weeks...

Then I came to the second part of the letter. Later in the year my benefit (contributions based ESA, I think) is going to stop dead. If the letter is to be believed, the payments will stop even if my appeal goes in my favour... heart-attack time - it took quite an effort of will to realise that DWP only implied that, and that in fact they have no right yet to make such a decision. However does look like the benefit will stop if - even if - my appeal hasn't been heard yet.

There is a law which applies to DWP about how they treat the mentally ill (2010, I think). It includes not springing sudden unpleasant financial surprises. They've ignored that law far worse than this with me already, but even so... how to save the mentally ill from stress, Not.

But I forgot: ATOS' physiotherapist (I still can't believe that...) has decided that I'm fine and dandy. So they can't possibly be breaking any law designed to protect the mentally ill.

I restate: my invalidity benefit was due to me as a matter of contract. You, and the state, may believe that that counts for nothing. But breach of contract by a government remains a serious matter.

This crash-stop of my benefit came as a chilling shock. Because I'm not so well, keeping up with everything do with WCA on the net and elsewhere is not always so easy: I had no idea that the same sudden stop is happening to hundreds of thousands of people who are presently on the same benefit. How are they, we, all going to live?????

Anyway, the immediate point of this post is that the increase is so small, and will last for such a short time, that it'll come nowhere near covering the costs that DWP are inflicting on me... and I don't really know what to do...

Forgive the language, but, Bugger.

DWP don't only decline to answer...

On Saturday, I got three letters, all at once, from DWP. (That makes five since January, all from different Jobcentres hundreds of miles apart.) The first two were simply contradictory and confusing, but each of Saturday's three was a pain, on a Chinese Water Torture sort of level.

About the letter from Hyde BDC, for now, (which wasn't spell-checked)... story so far:

In my post "DWP decline to answer", 2nd. February, (bottom of column to right of page until I work out how to do internal links), I copied a letter of complaint I sent to DWP in January.

It was delivered to DWP and signed for on 7th. January. On the 'phone a fortnight later, DWP confirmed that they had the letter.

Last week I wrote again, escalating my complaint because they hadn't responded.

In Saturday's letter, they told me they don't have my letter of complaint and I'd better send another.

As the citizen said in my previous post today, below: "Anyone would think they were trying to put people off complaining."

Surreal Pt 2: Complaint to ATOS requires FoI submission?

http://dwpnegligence.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/378/

Before Christmas I half wanted to escalate a complaint to ATOS (about travel arrangements).

I was ill, and my heart wasn't really in it, so I was easily dissuaded when ATOS faffed about the procedure. It's a good thing I was dissuaded, because I wouldn't have coped too well with what follows.

A citizen wanted to escalate a complaint and asked ATOS what to next. They said (s)he'd already exhausted the process (almost certainly incorrectly - there is an independent tier, it seems).

Citizen asks for copy of procedure.

Response? That'll require a Freedom of Information request...

To which was added, after more correspondence: ...from DWP, since DWP are ATOS' Data Protection Officers.

Citizen's dry comment: "Anyone would think they were trying to put people off complaining."

Indeed!

(See next my next post).

Surreal Pt 1: Banned from her own tribunal.

http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/2013/02/08/mother-is-banned-from-her-own-disability-tribunal-because-of-her-wheelchair/

Woman turns up for her tribunal hearing at Acorn House, Basildon, but isn't allowed in. (She's been without payments since 2011). She was by no means the first - it had been going on for months...

Reason: she's in a wheelchair, there might be a fire, health and safety...

The interesting questions never get answers:

1. Had anyone noticed that this had been going on for months? Remember, failure to be in attendance at your own tribunal reduces your chance of a favorable outcome by 85%!

2. The paperwork connected with her case was available before the tribunal hearing. Did it mention that she would be in a wheelchair? I bet it did... and no-one took any notice.

So she's had to travel to this place, and is now told she can wait another 2 months (and travel further for the next hearing). 2 months without her money.

Was this nonsense arranged by Department for Work and Pensions? or by HM Courts and Tribunals Service? If it's the latter, that really boosts my confidence that I'm going to get a competent appeal hearing!

I was wrong: Philip Hensher was wrong. (Although I'm more likely to be tasered.)

I posted the other day (Hensher is not wrong, but he misses the point. January) that Hensher wasn't wrong, just limited. I feel that I may have been naif. I took him, as I'm afraid I've always too easily taken people, on his own terms. I happened to read johnnyvoid's posting later, which got me looking at both sides more carefully. (http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/philip-henshers-crass-hypcocrisy/) There is some nastiness (on a few sites) against Hensher, but two points were clear: (1) his supporters were more frightening than his detractors and (2) Hensher's research was not as up to scratch as I had assumed. It doesn't change my essential point however: we on this side of the battlelines are losing the PR war at the moment - their side is more organised, after all - and we don't help our cause by abuse.

The media are quick to condemn verbal abuse by those who protest and readers are quick to nod and agree. They are both much slower to condemn the substantive abuse by the other side. Unfortunately that's the way it is. Somehow we've got to change that...

-/-

The middle-aged man tasered by the police outside Bucking Palace today (widely reported)...

The police said 'he tried to make an exhibition of himself ', holding a knife to his own throat, although he had not in any way threatened the general public. (He reacted aggressively when the police challenged him).

The knife, the tasering, the fifteen policemen, the tourists, the witnesses, all provided quite a lot of copy for the press.

Will we hear at such length why this guy was behaving in such a way? (I lay odds of 3:1 that ATOS and/or DWP come into it somewhere.)

It won't do very much good, but he had a more immediate impact on the media than did the Commons backbench debate on Work Assessment the other week. (In the latter case, it was Hensher who took the limelight over the next few days. Ho hum.)

-/-

As a matter of interest, did the backbench debate do some good? I wasn't expecting banner headlines, and I know it was part of a long and sometimes subtle battle, but I hoped for some reaction in the media.

[Of course Mechanica McVey, the most immediately concerned minister, wasn't there. She's not that stupid: if she had attended, she might have had to think on her feet... I must stop this ad hominem abuse, I know, but, thankless job or not, I can't think how in any conscientious government she would ever have become a minister.]

DWP economical with the truth. (A saving of 80%)

Further to my previous posting (below):

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee found back in 2009 that DWP was only recording 20% of the complaints made against them. The committee commented, “It is not clear why this should be so.” [Jonathan Moore, politics.co.uk]

Have things improved? I bet my complaint hasn’t been recorded. (If it has, how do DWP report that it was ‘actioned’?)

Or am I so mad now that I can’t see that my complaint is obviously frivolous and/or vexatious?

By the way: DWP officially refer to me as a ‘customer’, and to Jobcentre Plus as a ‘business’. Hoo-ee!

-/-

I finally got around to seeking a Google listing this week. I found myself on Thursday. Just in time for what I consider to be my first truly significant posting - earlier today.

DWP decline to answer.

The following are extracts from a letter which I sent to DWP, on 4^th January (personal details removed):-

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'.

DWP don't reply.

Just for the record:

I've written to DWP a couple of times since I put in my appeal.

No reply to a letter of 17th December (recorded delivered on 20th), so this week I checked by phone. "We won't be replying," they said, although the letter would be forwarded with my appeal (to be heard in minimum 6 months time).

It's not that what I asked is necessarily that important: I'm just not keen on being ignored all the time. (Extracts below.)

What worries me far more is that I sent a much more serious letter in January (which they also say they're not going to answer). This was a grave complaint, with legal implications and having a profound bearing on both my assessment and my appeal - and on me. I suppose I have give them a month to change their mind and reply... Delivered to them 7th January, so full text here after 7th February. It may be my first important contribution to the whole ATOS/DWP/assessment debate.

I hope that Google and the other search engines are beginning to show this blog in their results by then... Years ago, I got my previous blog well up in the ratings very quickly, but I've forgotten how I did it!

My letter included:

1) "I understand that when I requested (the) HCP report, I was entitled to an extension of the deadline for submitting my appeal, which is not discretionary. Can you confirm that this is the case?" (I was given no extra time, so I had just six days to prepare the appeal. I was unwell; I didn't do a good job.)

2) "I recently requested from DWP a copy of ATOS HCP’s report of my face-to face interview...along with copies of paperwork (evidence) given by my carer and myself to HCP. I was promised that I would be sent all of this. I have received HCP’s report, but not the other paperwork. This consisted of a letter from my carer, and some evidence handed over by me to HCP at her request which, not intended to be handed over, had not been copied by me. I should be most grateful if this could be expedited."

3 "I also understand that the interview itself may have been recorded. Again, I should be grateful if this could be confirmed and, if so, I could be advised how to obtain a copy. Some conversation that took place might be subject to interpretation, and I need to have this material when it comes to my appeal." (I have reason to believe that there is a recording, but I can't yet prove it.)

The rest of the letter related directly to the appeal.

Hostile criticism, but only where it’s earned.

Everybody I’ve spoken to and, for that matter, all the internet stuff I’ve seen, blame ATOS for the horrors that benefit claimants are being put to. Especially, ATOS is getting the stick for the decisions which are often so perverse that subsequently nearly 50% of them are reversed on appeal.

This criticism is largely misdirected.

[In passing: Every ATOS employee I’ve had dealings with has been polite, patient, understanding and thoroughly professional.

[The same has not been entirely true with the DWP: About 1/3 are lovely; about 1/3 start off hostile but can be brought round if I am polite and friendly (which I can understand...), and about 1/3 are abrupt, bullying and thoroughly unpleasant, and there’s no getting through to them.]

It’s not ATOS which makes the decisions, it’s DWP. So why isn’t DWP getting the stick?

The answer’s simple. Mediocre leadership will always pass the buck downwards, or at least away. I don’t know whether ATOS are being deliberately set up to take the flak, but I certainly assume so: all the evidence points that way.

The government are determined to ‘restructure’ the benefits system. (You may feel that they should being doing exactly that, or you may not: that is not the issue here.) They get the civil service (DWP) to do their dirty work for them; the DWP farm out contact with the public - and the flak from the public - to ATOS (and ATOS farms it out to their skivvies in the front line).

The issue becomes so confused that we blame the wrong people. [It’s not for nothing that my DWP contact is based hundreds of miles from where I live...]

You may say that Duncan Smith, Grayling and Osborne stand up for what they’re doing. But have you trying putting a point of view to them? They’re so isolated from the rest of us that they think they’re untouchable... but more of that anon.

That leaves this question: Should the physiotherapist who was appointed to assess my mental health have recused herself because she wasn't suitably qualified? Of course, another question then arises: COULD she have done so, without losing her job?

So... It’s not, or not always, the people in the front line: it’s the system that bears examination – a system which I suspect has been set up very carefully and very deliberately to grind me down (along with a million or so other folks) - and to make sure that we can't kick back.

More about this as the blog proceeds. I hope.

I plan to put the dagger in, but I want to be sure that I hit the right target.

The Physiotherapist.

After I had filled in the questionnaire and attended the assessment interview, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) wrote me a letter to say that there was nothing functionally wrong with me and that I could go back to work.

They cited inter alia that, during my interview, I was able to maintain eye contact.

The letter was so very odd (and so dismissive of the mental problems that are the basis of my claim) that I asked about the qualifications of the doctor who interviewed me. Not a doctor, it turned out: a physiotherapist.

So, wondering about the basis for the decision that I'm well (the letter accused me of lying, in almost so many words), I assumed that I must have been damned by a report from my own GP. I did her wrong: the DWP had never asked for any information from her.

When I queried the DWP about this, I was told that the assessment - affecting my whole life - is made 'on the basis of the day'.

You who read this know nothing about me (nor about whether I'm swinging the lead and trying to get benefits I don't need). So I'm not asking for your unquestioning acceptance of what I'm claiming. If you follow my blog over the next few weeks, maybe we can see where we go. I promise to try for the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Catch.

If you're well enough to attend your assessment interview, you are well enough to work. If you don't attend, you lose your entitlements.

If you have mental problems, those are the rules in the new welfare state.

Catch 22 is alive and well.