Arbeit Macht Frei: Appeal And Your Benefits Could Be Stopped!

[scifisam]

This isn't right either.

At worst your claim should be suspended whilst the local authority assess your ongoing entitlement. They will only have been made aware by the DWP that ESA - or any other passporting benefit such as IS or JSA - has stopped, but notthe reason for its stopping. So for all they know, this could be because you've gone back to work. So yes, you will need to show that you remain entitled, but this shouldn't take a new claim - a simple confirmation that you have appealed and have no other income (or have JSA) in the meantime is enough.

From the POV of a tenant or landlord, suspended means no rent is being paid, so it's quibbling to say it's not been stopped. There is nothing simple about anything to do with housing benefit claims.

 

[sheothebudworths]

That is true. Which is why the reforms will affect a lot of ESA claimants, even more so if this policy is introduced. I was trying to clarify the issue, not condone it.

I knew that, Jackobi!

 

[dynamicbaddog]

This is not a done deal yet though, if they want to bring this in there will have to be reports, consultations and a debate in the Commons. Hopefully the plans will get dropped somewhere along the line.

 

[Libertad]

If a disabled person fails a Work Capability Assessment and then goes on to appeal their case, if they have no other means of support (i.e. savings), they're going to need to apply for Job Seekers Allowance.

If they apply for JSA it will invalidate their Employment and Support Allowance claim because they'll have to make an 'agreement' when applying for JSA that they're 'fit for work'.

e2a This has been pointed out earlier in the thread but I was making a brew.

They've really thought this one out. Cunts.

 

[sheothebudworths]

It's one of those curiosities of how the law (and particularly social security law in the UK) works.

Entitlement to benefits depends on a decision made by a Decision Maker. It is the last or most recent decision which is the effective or operative decision. So if a DM for your ESA claim decides you are capable of work then a DM for JSA must accept this decision and award JSA even if you have appealed the ESA decision - so long as you are prepared to jump through the hoops of signing on and don't go into the jobcentre and mug yourself off by saying you are too unwell to work.

Ok - but so you WOULD effectively still have to *pretend* to be well enough to work (and it's just that that couldn't then be used against you at appeal)?! That's fucking ridiculous!
But so it's true to say is it that if you chose to be absolutely honest all the way through (which you ought to feel able to, obviously) then you *wouldn't* in fact be entitled to anything (other than the reduced rate payments) until your appeal was heard?

 

[Jackobi]

I knew that, Jackobi!

Good, thank-you! I may have got a bit defensive, as discussing this is making me feel angry.

 

[sheothebudworths]

Good, thank-you! I may have got a bit defensive, as discussing this is making me feel angry.

No probs! Sorry if it wasn't clear (I've seen enough of your posts on the subject to have a very clear idea of your viewpoint! ) - and totally understand the anger, obviously (I can barely express my rage at all this stuff - it's horrific)!

 

[past caring]

From the POV of a tenant or landlord, suspended means no rent is being paid, so it's quibbling to say it's not been stopped. There is nothing simple about anything to do with housing benefit claims.

No - it isn't fucking "quibbling".

There was a time when the law was structured in such a way that your IS or JSA claim ending did in fact end your HB/CTB entitlement. That hasn't been the case since (iirc) November 2006. The position now is that, at worst, the LA has the power to suspend your claim whilst it investigates your continued entitlement. However, many LAs - despite the changes in the law having taken place some five years ago - still act as if they had never happened. In some cases, e.g. where a claimant doesn't receive the decision which ended their claim or where the end of the claim has also supposedly resulted in an overpayment of benefit - it will make a fucking huge difference that the LA did not have the legal power to end the claim and, because it did not send out the suspension letter that it should have done, the claimant will still be in time to supply whatever information was needed to decide their ongoing entitlement - even six or eight months later. Such cases are far from rare.

And again, supplying the information that should permit a suspension to be lifyed - proof of "nil" income or that the ESA decision has been appealed so that benefit will be shortly reinstated - is a lot less onerous (and should therefore be a lot easier for a LA to process) than the evidence required (new claim form, proof of NI, proof of ID, proof of Child Benefit and Tax Credits, proof of all benefits, last three months bank statements - only original documents accepted) with a new claim.

So no, not quibbling at all.

 

[past caring]

Ok - but so you WOULD effectively still have to *pretend* to be well enough to work (and it's just that that couldn't then be used against you at appeal)?! That's fucking ridiculous!
But so it's true to say is it that if you chose to be absolutely honest all the way through (which you ought to feel able to, obviously) then you *wouldn't* in fact be entitled to anything (other than the reduced rate payments) until your appeal was heard?

Well yes, except I'm not sure you'd even be entitled to reduced rate payments - reduced rate payments of what?

 

[Jackobi]

If someone is on ESA and gets disallowed by ATOS they have the right to appeal and receive ESA

Currently that is the case, but proposals [in the Welfare Reform Bill] aim to withdraw the right to receive ESA whilst the appeal is processed.

 

[scifisam]

No - it isn't fucking "quibbling".

There was a time when the law was structured in such a way that your IS or JSA claim ending did in fact end your HB/CTB entitlement. That hasn't been the case since (iirc) November 2006. The position now is that, at worst, the LA has the power to suspend your claim whilst it investigates your continued entitlement. However, many LAs - despite the changes in the law having taken place some five years ago - still act as if they had never happened. In some cases, e.g. where a claimant doesn't receive the decision which ended their claim or where the end of the claim has also supposedly resulted in an overpayment of benefit - it will make a fucking huge difference that the LA did not have the legal power to end the claim and, because it did not send out the suspension letter that it should have done, the claimant will still be in time to supply whatever information was needed to decide their ongoing entitlement - even six or eight months later. Such cases are far from rare.

And again, supplying the information that should permit a suspension to be lifyed - proof of "nil" income or that the ESA decision has been appealed so that benefit will be shortly reinstated - is a lot less onerous (and should therefore be a lot easier for a LA to process) than the evidence required (new claim form, proof of NI, proof of ID, proof of Child Benefit and Tax Credits, proof of all benefits, last three months bank statements - only original documents accepted) with a new claim.

So no, not quibbling at all.

Why are you so angry? We're not exactly enemies in this.

You're right - but also right in that many councils don't necessarily follow the rules. That means HB/CTB claims will often be suspended.

For someone who actually is entitled to DLA, even submitting that lesser proof would be difficult.

 

[Dhimmi]

Aye it's a scummy trick, but why link a rejection of it to the phrase
"Arbeit Macht Frei"?

Just ever so slightly disrespectful, unless you mean to say hey you know all those dead jews murdered? They're the same as this...

They're not.

 

[past caring]

I'm just fucking angry in general - not specifically directed at you (well, just a little bit ).

As said earlier, I think it's important to be precise about what is being proposed and what the effects will be as that makes it less difficult to oppose and gives people a clearer idea of what their rights might be. LAs would like nothing better than for thinking an end to ESA entitlement also ends automatically entitlement to HB/CTB - I think it's important that people know it doesn't.

 

[dynamicbaddog]

How accurate is this story? I've just seen this on the benefits and work site, news story dated 18th October.
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/benefits-news/story/172

Today, the Lords Committee for the Welfare Reform Bill met for the 5th reading. The first question asked of Lord Freud was about the restriction of benefits whilst appealing being found '​fit for work'​. He said that there are no plans to do this and anyone appealing will continue to be paid at the assessment rate.

 

[past caring]

If a disabled person fails a Work Capability Assessment and then goes on to appeal their case, if they have no other means of support (i.e. savings), they're going to need to apply for Job Seekers Allowance.

If they apply for JSA it will invalidate their Employment and Support Allowance claim because they'll have to make an 'agreement' when applying for JSA that they're 'fit for work'.

e2a This has been pointed out earlier in the thread but I was making a brew.

They've really thought this one out. Cunts.

It was also pointed out earlier in the thread that the last bit is bollocks. What did you do with the brew - chuck it over your monitor or something?

 

[past caring]

I would be much more inclined to believe something on the benefits and work site than the New Statesman when it comes to benefits. Actually working in the field and fairly clued-up/authoritative, as opposed to ageing Laurie Pennys

 

[Libertad]

It was also pointed out earlier in the thread that the last bit is bollocks. What did you do with the brew - chuck it over your monitor or something?

What do you want, a fucking apology or something? Take it somewhere else.

 

[scifisam]

I'm just fucking angry in general - not specifically directed at you (well, just a little bit ).

As said earlier, I think it's important to be precise about what is being proposed and what the effects will be as that makes it less difficult to oppose and gives people a clearer idea of what their rights might be. LAs would like nothing better than for thinking an end to ESA entitlement also ends automatically entitlement to HB/CTB - I think it's important that people know it doesn't.

Yeah, I agree - maybe I was the one quibbling. But a quibble well worth making, since, as you say, councils don't always keep up with the rules, and, as I said, ESA claimants aren't always the best placed to fight an obstructive system.

 

[purenarcotic]

I have to say, speaking as a Jew I don't find the use of the phrase offensive at all; if you take the phrase as an entity in itself as opposed to what it now historically stands for then it does have a level of application in the sense that the concept created by these awful proposed plans place work as the only way to live a 'fruitful' life. Which incidentally was the original purpose of Auschwitz; as a slave labour camp for a planned super city formed from the surrounding cities which would have been devoid of Poles and full of 'pure' Germans brought in. The architectural plans even went into such detail as to outline the wall dressings that would appear on Hilmer's office walls. The concept of gassing people didn't come in for a while and let's not forget the disabled, homosexuals, gyspies and political prisoners who died at the hands of the Nazis.

 

[past caring]

What do you want, a fucking apology or something? Take it somewhere else.

Yeah, you should just be able to post up shit without anyone pulling you. Great.

 

[purenarcotic]

*Himler. Apologies.

 

[Libertad]

Yeah, you should just be able to post up shit without anyone pulling you. Great.

I'm glad to have been disabused of my misconceptions but I had a mug of steaming hot tea in my lap.

 

[StraightOuttaQ]

And the patience to be able to wait for more than 20 minutes trying to get through to a permanently engaged line. I'm afraid I gave up

They are trying to move it to "online only", which means they can close the BDCs (Benefit Delivery Centre's).PCS have written considerably about this. The idea then is to automate claims, reducing staff and back end costs.

The reality is, people are far more likely to lie to a computer than a human being. It also works on the assumption that everyone tells the truth. they don't. (Levels of fraud, rather than official error, are steady at about 0.8% of welfare payments though. Official error and mistakes is about 1.5%)

Of course, if they then get rid of the people who decide on claims, the waiting time goes up. JSA claims seem to average about 3 weeks to be decided at the moment.

By the way, don't blame the tories for this. Blame Labour. They commissioned Lord Freud to perform the 2007 Freud report, which has been implemented to the letter. 3 months after he wrote it for Labour, Lord Freud (a commerical banker, by the way) defected to the Tories and has stayed ever since. I looked at it when it was published, and said it was the end of the welfare system as we know it. So far, that prediction has turned out to be true.

Of course, if someone decides to challenge this is court as proof that the govt is in violation of article 25 of the declaration of Human rights which states, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." That could prove VERY interesting. At the moment I see a large number of things going on which I feel are in violation of this.

 

[Meltingpot]

Yeah, you should just be able to post up shit without anyone pulling you. Great.

Piece of unasked for advice? Focus that anger where it belongs - on the c***s who are doing this and don't care about the consequences

 

[Jackobi]

How accurate is this story? I've just seen this on the benefits and work site, news story dated 18th October.
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/benefits-news/story/172

Today, the Lords Committee for the Welfare Reform Bill met for the 5th reading. The first question asked of Lord Freud was about the restriction of benefits whilst appealing being found '​fit for work'​. He said that there are no plans to do this and anyone appealing will continue to be paid at the assessment rate.

That link seems to require a subscription, as does the Times article that the New Statesmen article refers to. It appears that the quote from the Benefits and Work site is based on this Hansard text (which discusses the Times article):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/111018-gc0001.htm

Lord McKenzie: "At present, where there is an appeal against a decision not to include somebody in the work-related activity group, that causes benefit to be paid at the assessment period rate only, which is the JSA rate. Is this the type of arrangement which the Government are seeking to replicate, or are they proposing to go further and to deny benefit altogether? This raises wider issues which we shall come on to in subsequent clauses, but what conditionality would apply during the period when the appeal is outstanding"

Lord Freud: "My Lords, the amendment is slightly different from the question posed, and I shall deal with the question posed. The changes to the current appeal system are being taken forward in this Bill, as expressed in Clauses 99 and 100, so we will have an opportunity to discuss those in that consideration. We are, in those clauses, looking to introduce a period of reconsideration, or a reconsideration process, prior to a full appeal. We can have further discussion at that point, but regardless of what an article in a newspaper might say, clearly the practical difference, if one was to be extended in the way described, is purely a difference of conditionality, because as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, the actual payment rate of the assessment phase of ESA is the same as JSA. That article has put out a lot of misinformation."

It doesn't indicate that ESA appellants will have JSA conditionality imposed, but it doesn't indicate that they won't have JSA conditionality imposed either.

 

[Meltingpot]

They are trying to move it to "online only", which means they can close the BDCs (Benefit Delivery Centre's).PCS have written considerably about this. The idea then is to automate claims, reducing staff and back end costs.

The reality is, people are far more likely to lie to a computer than a human being. It also works on the assumption that everyone tells the truth. they don't. (Levels of fraud, rather than official error, are steady at about 0.8% of welfare payments though. Official error and mistakes is about 1.5%)

Of course, if they then get rid of the people who decide on claims, the waiting time goes up. JSA claims seem to average about 3 weeks to be decided at the moment.

By the way, don't blame the tories for this. Blame Labour. They commissioned Lord Freud to perform the 2007 Freud report, which has been implemented to the letter. 3 months after he wrote it for Labour, Lord Freud (a commerical banker, by the way) defected to the Tories and has stayed ever since. I looked at it when it was published, and said it was the end of the welfare system as we know it. So far, that prediction has turned out to be true.

Of course, if someone decides to challenge this is court as proof that the govt is in violation of article 25 of the declaration of Human rights which states, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." That could prove VERY interesting. At the moment I see a large number of things going on which I feel are in violation of this.

Good post. I thought Nullarbor's attitude towards claimants was a sick joke as soon as they appointed James Purnell.

 

[past caring]

Piece of unasked for advice? Focus that anger where it belongs - on the c***s who are doing this and don't care about the consequences

Piece of unasked for advice in return? Keep your fucking trunk out.

 

[Meltingpot]

Piece of unasked for advice in return? Keep your fucking trunk out.

Yep, comments like that are REALLY going to help this discussion

 

[Meltingpot]

Piece of unasked for advice in return? Keep your fucking trunk out.

When you've been 4 weeks with no money coming in at all in the depths of winter, as I have, then you can tell me whether or not I should keep my f***ing trunk out. Until then, I'm saying you need to calm down and stick to the facts without the insults and smart-aleck comments.

I mightn't have your level of knowledge and experience but I do know what it's like to be up against an impersonal and robotic system, and that's my qualification for contributing here.

 

[StraightOuttaQ]

Yep, comments like that are REALLY going to help this discussion

This sort of debate needs to be like Dragnet - just the facts. Anything else is a waste of energy which is best focused on the task in hand