tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post281720282166463480..comments2023-07-04T16:57:28.929+01:00Comments on Where's the Benefit?: Third Harrington review of the Work Capability AssessmentLisahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16714918894319998184noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-60724123309850312612012-11-20T22:56:20.543+00:002012-11-20T22:56:20.543+00:00This report is the best that the Government can bu...This report is the best that the Government can buy! <br /><br />There is really isn't any modification that can be put in place to resolve the WCA issues. From the base level up it has been implemented with the intention of removing 500,000 claimants. If this was really an independant report then anybody with the slightest credibility would be repeating that issue in report after report.<br /><br />That said, there is nothing within this report that is not already addressed by the remaining sections of the Social Security Administrations Act 1992 or the Social Security Act 1998. (The remaining parts that where not butchered by the WRA's that is).<br /><br />As an example the Secretary of State already required decision makers to record a summary of the reasons for their decisions. However the current IBR and ESA teams have been so poorly trained that they do not even know the basics of the Decision Makers Guide never mind the laws which their decisions are based upon.<br /><br />Prof Harrington was made aware of a very serious legal issue with the migration process (Which he chose to ignore). <br /><br />Basically under the Social Security Act 1998, 'revisions' (alterations to previous decisions) where replaced by reconsiderations and supersessions. However forgot to repeal or ammend this in respect of income support or incapacity benefit in the Welfare Reform Acts. (Apart from the 1st and 2nd tier tribunals) What this effectively means is that the termination of existing awards as the result of migration to ESA have been in err of law. At last count this runs at approx' £13Billion fraud by the DWP.<br /><br />To show this is not just pie in the sky, I have been invited to no less than 6 WCA's and have had 2 BF223ESA's issued, I have not attended any of the WCA's or completed a single BF223ESA form, yet I am still in reciept of Income support paid as incapacity benefit.<br /><br />The two points in law I have sucessfully challenged with so far are.<br /><br />1. Data Protection Act (I have never signed an ESA50) and refuse to do so in respect of the wording of the Declaration.<br /><br />2. Right of Supersession under the Social Security Act 1998 (Basically they no longer have anybody qualified to carry out said supersession as the departments have been all but phased out.<br /><br />There is also another issue, should somebody fail to attend a WCA, because they cannot count the existing benefit as whole under the WRA, they have to class it as partial, then Chapter 14, Section 19 (3) of the Social Security Act 1998 (and its ammendments)only allows them to terminate ESA and then have to repeat the invitation again under the WRA. IBR have been interpreting this in err of law, even if you set aside the right of supersession they cannot use that section of law to terminate an existing award made under the SSA1998 as the request for an assessment relates to ESA, not for an example Incapacity Benefit.<br /><br />In respect of the DPA issue, previously it had been argued that ATOS Healthcare was a data processor on behalf of the DWP. However the Information Commissioner takes a different point of view.<br /><br />If an organisation "Offers an opinion which on the balance of probabilities will alter a later decision". Then they are defined as a Data controller (I have paraphrased the non quoted parts)<br /><br />Which means by law, to share a claimants information with ATOS Healthcares assessment centres, a signature of authority must be given (I cannot be coerced or not clearly explained). In otherwords claimants have to be clearly informed that they have the right to refuse to give DPA authority and this cannot count against them on their claim. <br /><br />Anybody who has read the declaration on the current ESA50 will be aware that this is not explained. It is also not explained that they do not have to give this authority indefinately.<br /><br /><br />So I happily remain a thorn in the side for the DWP and ATOS, as well as pointing out the flaws in Prof Harringtons Paid for report.<br /><br /> Gen William Taggarthttp://www.r-force.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7999633524276247455.post-54837084527966906042012-11-20T15:10:51.149+00:002012-11-20T15:10:51.149+00:00Re. the first quote, it reminds me so much of the ...Re. the first quote, it reminds me so much of the response I got from the BBC when I complained about one of their BBC1 hate-fests. It basically accused me of doing the bidding of campaigners. It's amusing that anyone should think that disability-rights campaigning is remotely organised or powerful, as opposed to consisting of a bunch of very knackered people and the occasional ally, but it mainly just makes me angry.<br /><br />Painting themselves as the victim is often the first tactic bullies use when their behaviour is exposed, and it's one of the most stunningly revolting things anyone can do. How dare they act as if we're the problem? How dare they act as if we're deliberately making things difficult by having the gall to fight for our lives? I find the people involved in these shenanigans actually physically repulsive, which puts them in the company of no-one bar a couple of rapists I've encountered. I want to make a really nasty joke at this point, but I'm going to resist the temptation. <br /><br />Blood on their hands.Jannoreply@blogger.com