THE FACE OF TODAY

[Sportsman]

John

I was referring to this particular case and the incompetency of the individuals who sent out the letters in the wrong format.

I just cannot believe that this was done deliberately so that he would miss appointments and lose benefit.

I can believe that someone deserves a boot up the backside.

[gozzer]

John

I was referring to this particular case and the incompetency of the individuals who sent out the letters in the wrong format.

I just cannot believe that this was done deliberately so that he would miss appointments and lose benefit.

I can believe that someone deserves a boot up the backside.

 

Sorry Dave, I'm getting my threads mixed up, (it's an age thing ). I thought I was on the other thread where you were discussing the NHS, and cutbacks in particular.

 

 

John.

[Steve Burke]

I disagree with those who think this is just individual incompetence. It's not just a few letters to the blind. If it were I'd certainly agree though.

 

Instead it seems to be just the tip of the iceberg, and it affects people with all sorts of disabilities, not just the blind. This is why disability charities are up in arms. This is my busiest time of the year, so I haven't time to quote references. Anyone interested should be able to find plenty of instances.

 

There seems to be too much pressure on the staff and the outside contractors to get people off benefits at any cost. This pressure comes from management and in turn they're under pressure from the DWP. Ultimately the buck stops with the PM. That's why I wrote I'm considering voting to get this government out.

 

It's similar to the target setting in the NHS. In the wider context this is very laudable. But it creates its own problems.

 

I can sympathise to a certain extent with the front line staff who're being put under such pressure. They also have first hand experience of the spongers. And of course there are far too many of these layabouts. They've rightly been getting publicity.

 

But there's also a huge number of the disabled who aren't getting a fair crack of the whip. They seem to be getting little publicity, perhaps until now.

 

Far too many of the disabled are getting their benefits cut off incorrectly. Some of these vulnerable members of society don't have the energy or health to appeal. Of those that do, an alarmingly high proportion have their appeals upheld. One can't claim these cases are all down to incompetence!

 

And in the meantime, and this can be for a very long time, all their benefits are stopped. What are they then supposed to do? Its not a question of just tightening their belts or working harder like most of us could and would do. Many of these disadvantaged people simply don't have this option, and without their benefits they simply can't afford to eat. Their only recourse is charity.

 

These people are victims, who are being sacrificed in the name of cutting government expenditure.

 

So, no, it's not individual incompetence. It's political incompetence.

 

Yes, we've got to stop the spongers. But the current system is badly flawed, and simply isn't fit for purpose.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Steve Burke

[Steve Walker]

I agree that there is a more general issue around aggressively looking to get people off disability benefits which is very much policy driven (and the "sanctioning" of people who don't appear to be cooperating is a big part of that), but I don't think there is a policy to deliberately fail to send out accessible communications and I would be sceptical that there is a culture where that would be even implicitly accepted. It's just too stupid a thing to do, I can't believe anyone would be able to say that they did this deliberately and not be at risk of disciplinary action.

[Steve Burke]

Steve, I'm not for one minute suggesting that's a deliberate policy of sending out letters that the blind can't read. This indeed is down to individual incompetence.

 

However I am suggesting that there's undue pressure on the department and thus the staff to get the disabled off benefits. This is being implemented unfairly. The government must be aware of this, and it's this I and many others object to.

 

You and others who know me will know I rarely get heated over anything. This is one of the few issues that makes my blood boil.

 

Yes, we have to do something about the spongers. But, as I said before, the cost to the disabled is too great using the current unfair system. The system therefore needs changing.

 

It may be that Joe Public cares more about dealing with the spongers than helping the disabled. What's more likely is that the public doesn't know how unfairly the disabled are being treated.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Steve Burke

[Steve Walker]

Yes, I think that's fair comment, Steve.

 

It's not really new, though. My mum was unable to work through ill health a decade ago. After initially qualifying for help, she had her case reviewed and denied against the opinion of her GP and she just couldn't face the stress of jumping through the hoops again. Thirty odd years of NI contributions and the system wasn't there for her when she needed it. I knew other people who did qualify because, ironically, they were well enough to keep appealing.

 

The system is broken and has been for a long time.

[Ken L]

He used to be fine with text when his girlfriend was with him.

He has told the DWP that he is blind.

Has he actually requested correspondence in Braille now that his girlfriend has left?

 

The DWP wont assume that he needs Braille just because he's blind, because not all blind people read Braille and many of them have partners or family members that deal with post.

Those that do request Braille correspondence have a simple box ticked on their records and all correspondence goes out in the right format. A few manually produced letters might require the staff member to notice the flag but as a warning tells them that the flag is set on every interaction with the computer system, it's kinda hard to miss.

The situation with contractors might be different but I rather suspect that we are getting a rather one sided version of events.

[big_cod]

What happened to that gentleman is appauling but he is just the tip of the iceberg my brother had an acident in 1976 fell 50ft through a roof in foundry died 3 times on operating table can hardly walk these days cant sit for long in one position is full of metal manages to get out and about but has a floppy foot due to his back injury and guess what had his interigation by ATOS who if i aint mistaken got bonuses for recomending disabled people for work was told mobility was going to be stopped .

 

He had to get a letter from his own GP to tell these morons he wasnt fit for work he is also over 60 was never out of work till he had to stop due till his injurys eventually took there toll he was a roof sheeter at the time of the accident he later worked as rigger on lift barges he actually work on the lifting barge that lifted the mary rose but with breaking both legs and back and both arms is going to have give you problems in later life and now he struggles like hell and when he went for his interegation with ATOS he got his letter saying he was fit for work unbelivable but whe you driven by peformance tables and bonuses whats going to happen i solely lay the blame at foot of the door of this goverment especailly Ian Duncan Smith a very arrogant man my brother and many many other genunie disabled people have suffered the same fate under ATOS many have been put under tremendous pressure you can say what you like try to defend them but this goverment arent caring at all and dont give a hoot and i am sure they will pay the penalty at the ballot box and rightly so.

 

paul.

Edited March 11, 2014 by big_cod

[Ken L]

What happened to that gentleman is appauling but he is just the tip of the iceberg my brother had an acident in 1976 fell 50ft through a roof in foundry died 3 times on operating table can hardly walk these days cant sit for long in one position is full of metal manages to get out and about but has a floppy foot due to his back injury and guess what had his interigation by ATOS who if i aint mistaken got bonuses for recomending disabled people for work was told mobility was going to be stopped .

 

He had to get a letter from his own GP to tell these morons he wasnt fit for work he is also over 60 was never out of work till he had to stop due till his injurys eventually took there toll he was a roof sheeter at the time of the accident he later worked as rigger on lift barges he actually work on the lifting barge that lifted the mary rose but with breaking both legs and back and both arms is going to have give you problems in later life and now he struggles like hell and when he went for his interegation with ATOS he got his letter saying he was fit for work unbelivable but whe you driven by peformance tables and bonuses whats going to happen i solely lay the blame at foot of the door of this goverment especailly Ian Duncan Smith a very arrogant man my brother and many many other genunie disabled people have suffered the same fate under ATOS many have been put under tremendous pressure you can say what you like try to defend them but this goverment arent caring at all and dont give a hoot and i am sure they will pay the penalty at the ballot box and rightly so.

 

paul.

Can get out and about.

Had his mobility stopped.

Given that the criteria for the mobility component of DLA are that a recipient be "unable or virtually unable to walk", that sounds like the right decision to me - dropped foot or no dropped foot.

Of course, that would be the DLA/PIP assessment which isn't done by ATOS and has nothing to do with being fit for work.

[gozzer]

Can get out and about.

Had his mobility stopped.

Given that the criteria for the mobility component of DLA are that a recipient be "unable or virtually unable to walk", that sounds like the right decision to me - dropped foot or no dropped foot.

Of course, that would be the DLA/PIP assessment which isn't done by ATOS and has nothing to do with being fit for work.

 

"Can get out and about", I didn't see that in Pauls post Ken. I saw "He struggles like hell". He might be able to move around with difficulty, but that's not the same as getting "out and about", is it.

 

What job do you think he would be able to do, and more to the point, do you think an employer would pay him to do it?

That's the paradox with this system. The assessors have a set of criteria, that they should work to, (regardless of any financial incentive to get people off benefits), but that criteria, is not always compatible with working in the 'real' world, where mental competence, and physical ability are needed, to make employing a person financially viable, or even desirable.

 

John.