That was
wrong.
Showing posts with label Department of Work and Pensions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Work and Pensions. Show all posts
02 August 2013
Important Advice for the Atos Medical Examination: Beware the warm smile and the gentle voice!
I was at the
SHP blog workshop on Friday when a conversation began about the Atos medical
examination and about the assessment procedure. One of the participants in the
conversation had recently been for a medical examination she had taken a friend
to observe the procedure. Her friend began taking notes at which point the
examiner told the person to stop as it is not allowed.
Labels:
ATOS,
Benefits,
Department of Work and Pensions,
Disability,
Employment Support Allowance,
ESA,
Health,
illness,
Impact,
Mental Health,
Work capability assessment
14 February 2013
The Tory Nasty Party are back: Lord Freud and the Bedroom Tax
I could not believe what I was hearing on the
B.B.C. Radio Five Live Victoria Derbyshire morning programme in a
discussion with Lord Freud and Radio Five listeners about the imminent new Under
Occupancy Act, otherwise infamously known as the Bedroom Tax.
This tax comes into effect on Monday 1st April 2013.
The Bedroom Tax is where people who have a
spare bedroom and are on a benefit will have their housing benefit cut.
Lord Freud was asked specific questions by
listeners regarding how the tax would affect them.
One had a son in the army and wanted to keep
his bedroom for when the son was on leave so he felt he had a home to come back
to. Another had separated from his wife and the 3 children stayed with him at
the weekend, the school holidays and at other times. Another had
disabilities that affected his breathing and he had to use an oxygen tank and
other apparatus to help him breathe. He had to sleep with his head raised on
the bed so he slept in a separate room from his wife so they could both sleep
without him disturbing her from the noise of the oxygen and his sleeping
position in the bed. Another had a daughter going to university.
Lord Freud did not answer the specific
questions asked by people on the phone but choose to give the bog standard
Government answer such as “difficult times, times of austerity” we need to
reform the system to stop the scroungers, [my words], living
in luxury (?) with too many rooms that they don’t need.
Here is the solution that Lord Freud gave to
the tenants:
To the father who has his children stay at
the weekends and various other nights Lord Freud said: “He should move to a one
bedroom house then buy a sofa bed so the 3 children could sleep in the living
room.”
To the parents of the student at university
he said; “Why don’t you take in a lodger.” So what does the daughter do when
she returns home for a weekend visit and during the holidays? Sleep with the
lodger? Obviously he is not aware that as a student living in student
accommodation it is classed as temporary accommodation. The man with breathing
and other medical problems he ignored.
It beggars belief that this Lord of the
realm, who is the Prime Minister David Cameron’s Under Secretary of State
(Lords) for the Department of Work and Pensions, who between January 2008 and
February 2009 acted as an advisor on welfare reform to the U.K. government, is
ignorant of the tenancy law; that he does not know that under the tenancy
agreement between a tenant and the local council or housing association it is illegal
to sublet any part of the accommodation. Yet here he is happily telling people
to break the conditions of their tenancy agreement.
Apart from Lord Freud’s lack of knowledge
regarding tenancy agreements, I feel it shows the arrogance of members of the
Tory party to tell people to say “It is alright, just take in a lodger”.
Problem solved, easy peasy.
Say it did happen. First of all it would lead
to complications on any welfare payment they receive whether they are working
or not. Probably any welfare benefit they get would be cut or stopped
including their rent and council tax payments. Would the tax man have interest
in this extra income?
What about insurance cover? Many
insurance companies will not insure you or the house if you have a lodger, or
the premium is very expensive. What happens when the offspring comes home from
University and the Army? Do they sleep in the living room or the bathroom? Do
you want a lodger in your house using all the facilities?
This is rich coming from a man who owns two
large houses. One, a country mansion in Kent, which is believed to be one of
the oldest in England, has eight bedrooms. The other is a £1.9 million four
bedroom house in Highgate, London that he shares with his wife. So that is a
total of 12 bedrooms for two people which of eight are only used at weekends,
holidays or for entertaining on special occasions.
What a hypocrite Lord Freud is. A
man who owns two homes with twelve bedrooms for two people is plunging over
100,000 people into poverty, causing them extreme anxiety and leading to their
illnesses becoming acute.
Is this not a form of “ethnic cleansing,”
this time done on a socio-economic scale rather than a race or religious
doctrine?
Just to show this multi-millionaire’s
arrogance and lack of feeling for the working class communities, vulnerable and
people with mental or physical problems, Lord Freud stated in an
interview with The House magazine, "We've got the circumstances now
where... people who are poorer should be prepared to take the biggest risks -
they've got least to lose."
The Tory “Nasty Party” is back with a
vengeance.
McTaggart
Labels:
Austerity.,
Benefits,
Capitalism,
Central Government,
Community,
Council,
Council Tax,
Department of Work and Pensions,
Deprivation,
Disability,
Family,
Government,
Health,
Housing,
Impact,
Parliament,
Tax
09 January 2013
Happy New Year? It was until the Tory-led coalition once again began its attack on the poorly paid
It was until the Tory-led coalition once
again began its attack on the poorly paid.
In fact the attack on the low wage earner
and the people on benefits began just after Christmas with the right wing
Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne demanding that the National State
Welfare budget be cut by £10 billion. Where did that figure come from? Was it
just plucked out of the air as a good “sound bite” figure to ensure the
headlines would follow in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail?
I have not seen any figures to justify this
claim that it is £10 billion that needs to be cut from the Welfare budget. It
appears to tally with the Tory led coalition aim to cut the loan deficit.
I am also astonished, as far as I have
seen/heard at the way the media such as the BBC television and radio channels,
Channel 4 or the ITV news have never crossed examined the Chancellor of the
Exchequer George Osborne on how he came to this conclusion. Just a thought, I find it a wee bit strange
that you never see George Osborne give interviews. Is that due to his past performances
in live interviews and gaffe blown comments?
On Tuesday 8th January 2013 the
House of Commons voted to restrict any rise of benefits of working age to 1%
over the next 3 years. This included Working Tax Credits, a payment by the taxpayer to boost the pay of low-paid workers rather than have the worker being
paid a living wage by the large companies who make billion of pounds profit to
pay their shareholders a large dividend at the tax payer’s expense.
When I say shareholders I am not talking
about the person in the street who may have a few shares in a company but the
very large global companies listed on the London, New York and the Tokyo stock
exchange which make billions of pounds/dollars profit every year.
--McTaggart
--McTaggart
Labels:
Austerity.,
Benefits,
Capitalism,
Central Government,
Department of Work and Pensions,
Government,
Impact,
MPs,
public services,
Social change,
Unemployment,
work
04 January 2013
A Keen Jobseeker's Story
One of our bloggers
would like to share with Unheard Holler a complaint she is making about the
long, difficult experience she has had as a Jobseeker.
There’s lots of
details below about the mental distress she has suffered, what she calls the
‘incompetence’ of JobCentre staff, the debt she has got into following
repeated, ‘unfair’ sanctions and miscommunications.
Read on to find out
the reality of being a keen, dedicated Jobseeker...
To Whom It May Concern
I write to you to
raise a complaint on the treatment I have received from both Job Centre Plus
and Prospects staff whilst I have been on the work programme.
I have been on the
work programme since June 2011, to date I am yet to be assisted to locate
suitable employment or training opportunities to increase my chances of
employment via the job centre and the work programme. I have been deeply
dissatisfied with the treatment I have received from staff at both Job centre
plus and Prospects my reasons are detailed below.
· I was granted
indefinite leave to remain in the UK and had provided a letter from the home
office to confirm this at the start of the work programme in June 2011. I also
advised my JSA advisor that I had a letter confirming my indefinite leave to
remain status but was never asked to provide this information and instead was
placed on a sanction in July 2012.
· I was never advised
reason for the sanction or how this could be appealed until I requested a
letter be sent detailing the reason for the sanction. This was sent on the
21/08/2012 over a month since the sanction was put in place.
· Following a meeting
with a JSA advisor and Job Centre Plus manager it was established that the job
centre advisor had made a note on the system“claimant not looking for work” and
raised a sanction.
· On the 21/09/2012 a
letter of appeal was made this included copies of indefinite leave to remain
letter from the home office, letters from the home office confirming they were
looking into an application for a duplicate passport, and a copy of my sign on
book that documented my efforts to search and apply for jobs on a weekly basis.
· The manager advised
that this would be looked into and a decision made within 1 week from the 21/09/2012.
· No decision was made
until the 19/10/2012 following meeting with another Job Centre Plus manager.
The information presented in the appeal on the 21/09/2012 was presented again
to the Job Centre manager and he recommended the sanction be lifted and a back
payment was made for £923 the following week. The manager advised this sanction
was raised following a miscommunication.
· It has established
during the above meeting with the Job Centre Plus manager that another
sanctioned had been applied for failure to apply for two jobs, yet no letter
had been sent to confirm this and was first aware of this whilst in the meeting
with the Job Centre Plus manager.
· Following a phone
call to DWP I was advised the sanction would be lifted on the 07/11/2012.
During my time with
the work programme my IT and literacy skills have not been addressed. Despite
requesting help to locate training, to improve my chances of employment
opportunities I am yet to have these needs met.
During my visits to the job centre, I was made to feel like a second class citizen. I often felt like I was being spoken to like something on the bottom of the staff’s shoe. Advisors never ensured I had a good understanding of what I was required to do. I would often get confused in sessions with advisors and relied on the assistance of my support worker to ensure I understood the content of the meetings with JSA advisors.
Due to the issues I have had in the past with the Job Centre Plus it was recommended by a Job Centre Manager that I attend all work programme and Job Centre sessions with my support worker. However when I requested my support worker be present at my next work programme meeting it was refused by the Prospects manager, I was aware my advisor contacted Prospects to discuss my sanction and action plan but Prospect staff were not forthcoming and I can only assume that Prospects do not approve of clients receiving support from other agencies.
This left me feeling
extremely frustrated and annoyed that the manager of Prospects was denying my
right to have my needs met by allowing my support worker to be present to
ensure I had a full understanding of my role in my action plan with the work
programme advisor and to advocate on my behalf ensuring my voice was heard in
the action plan and the action plan was been completed.
I have no faith or
assurance in Job Centre Plus or the Work Programme. I fear my benefits can be
cut at any moment for no good reason.
Staff ignore me or
show me attitude when attending the Job Centre. Once whilst in the Job Centre
completing a job search I over heard a manager gossiping about me to an advisor
in relation to my right to work in the UK.
During my sanction I
felt I was going throw a mental breakdown and visited my GP about my state of
mind, consequently I was advised that my cholesterol was high and was offered
counselling.
I borrowed money from
family members, which caused an already difficult domestic situation to become
worse and put me at greater risk. Eventually my family ignored my calls for
help, and I succumbed to pressure to take out a high rate cash loan, in order
to cover fulfilments to my council tax and rent as I was being threatened with
court action.
Whilst on my sanction
I had to walk to all appointments, job interviews, as I was without money and
often without food, but as I feared there would be further consequences to my
benefits so I persevered with the walking. The constant walking has
consequently caused health problems to my feet.
I have been on an
action plan with the Work Programme for over a year and I have received more
comprehensive support from my support work in aiding me to be in a better
position to obtain work which include attend ETE workshops, locating suitable
training opportunities, as well as emotional support around the sanction and
dealing with job centre and work programme advisors.
The key points that I
would like to make in this complaint are:
- I have not received
basic support to prepare for work.
- I attended every
single appointment and fulfilled job search requirements whilst on sanction.
- I was sanctioned
unfairly, through Job Centre Plus staff incompetence.
- I did not receive
communication of either sanction to my benefits.
- The sanction which
was applied incorrectly was only corrected because I and my support worker
challenged the sanction.
- My lack of knowledge
of what I am entitled to and lack of confidence to challenge staff means I rely
on my support worker and this was denied by Prospect staff.
- I was left with
large debt following my sanction.
- My mental state was
hugely affected by events that followed from the sanction to my benefits.
Signed,
A Keen Jobseeker
Labels:
Austerity.,
Benefits,
Central Government,
Department of Work and Pensions,
Government,
Impact
19 October 2012
TUC Anti- Austerity March Saturday 20th October 2012 London
Are you going to be at the Anti-Austerity march leaving from the
Embankment, London at 12.00 p.m.to Hyde Park?
Join the march on Saturday 20th October at 12.00 p.m. at the Embankment London.
If not, why not?
There will thousands of people from all over U.K. arriving by coach,
train and motor car to demonstrate against the Tory led Coalition government
austerity cuts and the Tory dogma that it is the poorest who have to suffer for
their austerity programme to work.
There is definitely a hollow ring to the Prime Minister David Cameron’s
slogan “that we are all in it together”. Little or no pay rises cuts to social
welfare funding and changes to how benefits such as Housing Benefit will be
paid whilst cutting the tax threshold that the highest earners in the country
have to pay.
The disabled, sick and the terminally ill being passed as fit for work
by a biased and disgraceful medical assessment procedure.
Cuts to the N.H.S. budget meaning less staff, ward closures and worst
of all hospital closures. This week it
was announced in several counties in England that ambulance stations will be
closed in local areas and main “hubs” will replace them. This will mean an
ambulance travelling many miles further to an emergency taking a longer tome
which is often crucial in saving a person’s life.
Let us make it clear to the Government that we, the people are very
unhappy with this Government’s policy on the economy and their programme for
austerity cuts.
Join the march on Saturday 20th October at 12.00 p.m. at the Embankment London.
Remember, “We are many but they are few”.
Labels:
Austerity.,
Benefits,
Central Government,
Department of Work and Pensions,
Disability,
Housing,
Impact,
Politics,
public services,
Social change,
Tax,
Unemployment,
Work capability assessment
06 June 2012
It was Just an Oversight
Recently, a mother of a disabled child was prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions for not declaring earnings she received whilst claiming benefit. One could say the mother was 'on the fiddle'.
It was a part time job cleaning a pub for 10 hours a week to help her provide the extras needed for her disabled child.
The mother said it was an oversight and had intended to declare the earnings but just never got around to it. She had offered to repay the money she had received in benefit.
The mother was ordered to repay the money, which she had already offered to do, and was given a suspended prison sentence. The mother was spared a custodial sentence only because she had a disabled child and the child would probably have been taken into care.
“It was an oversight”, said Baroness Warsi after being caught fiddling her House of Lords expenses.
The good Baroness was claiming £165.50 a night for a room she never paid any money for! Baroness Warsi claims (?!!!) she only stayed there twice a week for 6 weeks. That amounts to £1,986.
Not just that, the person, her friend, whom she pleads she paid the rent money to, was living there rent-free.
Why should anyone pay rent money to a friend who is living there rent-free? Either he is ripping her off or there was no money paid, apart from the Tax Payer paying the Tory Party Co-Chairperson. Remember 'we are all in this together', preaches Baroness Warsi at every opportunity she can get.
The good Baroness is quoted saying: “Due to an oversight, for which I take full responsibility, the flat was not included on the Register of Lords’ Interests when its value and the rent received came to exceed the thresholds for disclosure.”
An oversight?
This is the woman who is Co-Chairperson of the Tory Party, the leading party of the coalition in government, who attends meetings at the highest level and steers the Tory party policies.
As yet no action has been taken against the good Baroness, either by the authorities or by the Prime Minister, David Cameron. He has decided there is no case to answer, no inquiry to be held, and defiantly no resignation.
The Baroness admits to the fiddle but as far as the good “Lady” is concerned that is the matter finished with.
No investigation, no charges brought, and defiantly no disciplinary action by the Prime Minister, he who promised to rid the House of Commons of sleaze and corruption, the Tory party or Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.
Compare this to the case of the mother with a disabled child, who was earning about £50.00 a week to help provide for herself and her disabled child. Who was hauled through the court system, photographed, D.N.A. samples taken and finger printed, and now has a criminal record. Spent months not knowing of her or her child’s future, as she may have been sent to prison.
This is a person who would be labeled by the good Baroness Warsi as a “scrounger” and “benefit fiddler”.
The £1,986.00 that the Baroness claimed probably illegally would take the mother working as a cleaner, at £50.00 a week, approximately 40 weeks, that is 10 months, to earn.
Can anyone see the comparison and discrepancies in the two cases of fiddling the tax payer?
McTaggart
It was a part time job cleaning a pub for 10 hours a week to help her provide the extras needed for her disabled child.
The mother said it was an oversight and had intended to declare the earnings but just never got around to it. She had offered to repay the money she had received in benefit.
The mother was ordered to repay the money, which she had already offered to do, and was given a suspended prison sentence. The mother was spared a custodial sentence only because she had a disabled child and the child would probably have been taken into care.
“It was an oversight”, said Baroness Warsi after being caught fiddling her House of Lords expenses.
The good Baroness was claiming £165.50 a night for a room she never paid any money for! Baroness Warsi claims (?!!!) she only stayed there twice a week for 6 weeks. That amounts to £1,986.
Not just that, the person, her friend, whom she pleads she paid the rent money to, was living there rent-free.
Why should anyone pay rent money to a friend who is living there rent-free? Either he is ripping her off or there was no money paid, apart from the Tax Payer paying the Tory Party Co-Chairperson. Remember 'we are all in this together', preaches Baroness Warsi at every opportunity she can get.
The good Baroness is quoted saying: “Due to an oversight, for which I take full responsibility, the flat was not included on the Register of Lords’ Interests when its value and the rent received came to exceed the thresholds for disclosure.”
An oversight?
This is the woman who is Co-Chairperson of the Tory Party, the leading party of the coalition in government, who attends meetings at the highest level and steers the Tory party policies.
As yet no action has been taken against the good Baroness, either by the authorities or by the Prime Minister, David Cameron. He has decided there is no case to answer, no inquiry to be held, and defiantly no resignation.
The Baroness admits to the fiddle but as far as the good “Lady” is concerned that is the matter finished with.
No investigation, no charges brought, and defiantly no disciplinary action by the Prime Minister, he who promised to rid the House of Commons of sleaze and corruption, the Tory party or Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.
Compare this to the case of the mother with a disabled child, who was earning about £50.00 a week to help provide for herself and her disabled child. Who was hauled through the court system, photographed, D.N.A. samples taken and finger printed, and now has a criminal record. Spent months not knowing of her or her child’s future, as she may have been sent to prison.
This is a person who would be labeled by the good Baroness Warsi as a “scrounger” and “benefit fiddler”.
The £1,986.00 that the Baroness claimed probably illegally would take the mother working as a cleaner, at £50.00 a week, approximately 40 weeks, that is 10 months, to earn.
Can anyone see the comparison and discrepancies in the two cases of fiddling the tax payer?
McTaggart
27 May 2012
Irony and the Paralympics
Does anyone recognise the name ATOS?
If not, then you have never had the courtesy of an invite by them on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions, for a Benefits Assessment Medical Examination. I use the words "Medical Examination” loosely as the "medical" is conducted by a question and answer interview prompted by computerised questions. A fully qualified doctor very rarely does this interview. It could be conducted by a nurse, a medical secretary, or, who knows, by someone just walking by with nothing else to do?
The company, which is being paid over £100 million a year, for at least 5 years, for this privilege, is the health care arm of ATOS.
The company is charged with getting claimants off the higher rate of benefit and into a “fit for work/able to work” category. This includes terminally ill people, I prefer to use the word people rather than claimant, who have died a couple of months after being classified as “fit for work”.
Over 70% of people who appeal the ATOS decision to withdraw their Disability Benefit win their appeal.
The appeal is funded by the British Tax Payer and not by ATOS, who still receive their payment in full, and suffer no financial penalty for their wrong assessment of the person who has gone through months of the mental and financial suffering of being on a low benefit (when you appeal a decision you are put on a low benefit until your appeal is decided), and not knowing if their appeal will be successful.
Appeals can often take months to be heard due to the increase in people appealing, and backlog of appeals due to the cut back in staff and resources to deal with the appeals.
Here is a statement, the first part of which I find laughable, from the ATOS home page:
We support the Department’s efforts to drive disability equality. Disability assessments for benefit eligibility are transformed by Atos-delivered business process outsourcing services. We are handling 1.2 million referrals a year and six million face-to-face assessments across 142 locations.
There are claims, which have never been denied by anyone when questioned over this, that ATOS and the medical assessors receive a bonus for every person that is declared “fit to work”.
The Irony is that ATOS has been selected as one of the main sponsors of the Paralympics.
It is reported that ATOS paid a paltry £63 million for this privilege, which in reality is being paid for by the British Tax Payer, to promote the company as a benefactor for people with a Disability (if I may use the word for the context of this blog).
ATOS Worldgrid: promotes itself as a unique player delivering innovative services to the new smart energy market.
ATOS Worldline: advertises itself as using core expertise in HI-Tech Transactional Services (HTTS), as a specialist in electronic payment services, eServices, for customers, citizens and communities and services for financial markets.
If not, then you have never had the courtesy of an invite by them on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions, for a Benefits Assessment Medical Examination. I use the words "Medical Examination” loosely as the "medical" is conducted by a question and answer interview prompted by computerised questions. A fully qualified doctor very rarely does this interview. It could be conducted by a nurse, a medical secretary, or, who knows, by someone just walking by with nothing else to do?
The company, which is being paid over £100 million a year, for at least 5 years, for this privilege, is the health care arm of ATOS.
The company is charged with getting claimants off the higher rate of benefit and into a “fit for work/able to work” category. This includes terminally ill people, I prefer to use the word people rather than claimant, who have died a couple of months after being classified as “fit for work”.
Over 70% of people who appeal the ATOS decision to withdraw their Disability Benefit win their appeal.
The appeal is funded by the British Tax Payer and not by ATOS, who still receive their payment in full, and suffer no financial penalty for their wrong assessment of the person who has gone through months of the mental and financial suffering of being on a low benefit (when you appeal a decision you are put on a low benefit until your appeal is decided), and not knowing if their appeal will be successful.
Appeals can often take months to be heard due to the increase in people appealing, and backlog of appeals due to the cut back in staff and resources to deal with the appeals.
Here is a statement, the first part of which I find laughable, from the ATOS home page:
We support the Department’s efforts to drive disability equality. Disability assessments for benefit eligibility are transformed by Atos-delivered business process outsourcing services. We are handling 1.2 million referrals a year and six million face-to-face assessments across 142 locations.
There are claims, which have never been denied by anyone when questioned over this, that ATOS and the medical assessors receive a bonus for every person that is declared “fit to work”.
The Irony is that ATOS has been selected as one of the main sponsors of the Paralympics.
It is reported that ATOS paid a paltry £63 million for this privilege, which in reality is being paid for by the British Tax Payer, to promote the company as a benefactor for people with a Disability (if I may use the word for the context of this blog).
ATOS Worldgrid: promotes itself as a unique player delivering innovative services to the new smart energy market.
ATOS Worldline: advertises itself as using core expertise in HI-Tech Transactional Services (HTTS), as a specialist in electronic payment services, eServices, for customers, citizens and communities and services for financial markets.
• Nowhere does it mention about removing people’s benefits and forcing them into poverty or mental stress or depression.
• Nowhere does it mention about any support, financial or otherwise, for people, communities, or organisations dealing with any Mental or Physical Health situations.
McTaggart
Labels:
ATOS,
Benefit,
Department of Work and Pensions,
Disability,
Health,
London 2012,
Paralympics,
Politics,
Tax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)