Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
Yep.
Arbeit Macht Frei: Appeal And Your Benefits Could Be Stopped!
- Thread starter Bakunin
- Start date
Yep.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Do you really not see how posting up inaccurate, misleading advice could make it worse not better for people in similar situations?
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
Of course, and where have I said you can't correct people's errors of fact? I'm just telling people to calm down. stick to the facts and not make it personal. We really don't need any of that s*** in a thread like this one.
StraighhtOuttaQ put it best above.
I'd hate to reference Godwin's law, but there is an anlogy which the original poster may not be aware of. I think Article 33 (though it might be article 28) of The NSDAP manifesto of 1933 specifically advocates the "abolition of incomes unearned by work". See Volume's 1 and 2 of "Nazism 1919-1945: A Documentary Reader" by J.Noakes And G.Pridham.
past caring
The Cathars were right
You think I've never had to bump on?
And maybe you should re-read the thread - I only got the arse with Libertad after he advised me to "take it somewhere else" after I corrected him for repeating something as fact that I'd already pointed out was incorrect. Now I know that it's a standard thing on the boards to tell people to read the sodding thread rather than just jumping in and that sometimes it doesn't really matter, but this kind of thread it does. To be honest, I have had it up to my fucking neck dealing with incompetent benefits departments, obstructive DWP officers and officials who are wilfully ignorant of the law by the time I get home from work without having to play Groundhog Day on here - fuck it, talk all the nonsense you want to each other.
past caring
The Cathars were right
I can accept that might have been your intention - but your e2a doesn't read that way, I'm afraid. The post reads as if you are repeating the mistake that a JSA claim will scupper any chance of an ESA appeal succeeding because of the requirement to be "available for work" - and the e2a reads as if you are simply acknowleding that someone had already made that same point, not that the same point had been made and corrected.
past caring
The Cathars were right
I'm with you - don't delete, but more because it can break up the flow for other readers. Just make another post or a second e2a.
i'm a bit rusty on this so apologies if i'm wrong but won't they still have to fill out a job seekers agreement which effectively self-certifies them as agreeing to be available for work. couldnt this along with any mandatory jobsearch activity that happens be used against them in an appeal - or used to sanction a JSA claim if they fail to carry out mandatory job search activity?
past caring
The Cathars were right
No - read earlier posts. I have been running succesful appeals for claimants for years (15?) who have been refused IB or IS on the basis of incapacity because the DWP have found them fit for work. There is no legal contradiction between a claimant then "accepting" that decision and claiming JSA whilst making an appeal against the decision they are fit for work.
_angel_
.
Iain Duncan Smith actually did say "work sets you free" some time ago.
Vote labour!
The real reason they want to get rid of human rights act I think??
I'm not saying there is. but surely if a claimant agrees to work for up to 40 hours per week, to travel 60 (or 90) minutes to and from work and identify employment sectors they could work in then couldnt that be used against them in the appeal.
more importantly, how much does job seeking activity demonstrate fitness for work - and what if someone's referred to work programme (dont forget under the new plans personal advisors will be able to refer people to work programme at their discretion immediately they begin a claim) - this is where the catch 22 will really come, if they attend work programme they are fit for work, if they fail to attend theyll be sanctioned
past caring
The Cathars were right
No. Absolutely wrong.
For one thing, an appeal tribunal is prohibited by law from looking at circumstances that did not pertain at the time of the decision under appeal. So for instance, if you are refused DLA mobility component and then appeal in March, the fact that you are hit by a bus and have to have both legs amputated in August will not win you the appeal hearing when the tribunal is held in the December - the tribunal is only considering whether the decision made in March was correct at the time it was made. The loss of your legs in August would have necessitated a new claim if it was only that which began to qualify you. This works both ways - i.e. it applies the DWP too, so they cannot use the fact that you claimed JSA after you failed the WCA to demonstrate that decision was correct. So once the tribunal changes the decision that you do not have limited capability for work to one that you do have limited capability, that then becomes the last (or operative) decision on your capability - and you're thus entitled to ESA. Your award of JSA is superseded so that ESA is reinstated and any additional work-related activity or support component in ESA that you missed out on from the date of the decision that was appealed is paid to you in arrears. This is what currently happens for those who, for one reason or another, might decide to claim JSA rather than ESA whilst appealing. And it was happened in IB/IS cases too.
Do you need me to give you the regs/caselaw on this, or something? Not that I have time at the moment....it's fucking basic stuff for anyone at all familair with social security decision making.
For one thing, an appeal tribunal is prohibited by law from looking at circumstances that did not pertain at the time of the decision under appeal. So for instance, if you are refused DLA mobility component and then appeal in March, the fact that you are hit by a bus and have to have both legs amputated in August will not win you the appeal hearing when the tribunal is held in the December - the tribunal is only considering whether the decision made in March was correct at the time it was made. The loss of your legs in August would have necessitated a new claim if it was only that which began to qualify you. This works both ways - i.e. it applies the DWP too, so they cannot use the fact that you claimed JSA after you failed the WCA to demonstrate that decision was correct. So once the tribunal changes the decision that you do not have limited capability for work to one that you do have limited capability, that then becomes the last (or operative) decision on your capability - and you're thus entitled to ESA. Your award of JSA is superseded so that ESA is reinstated and any additional work-related activity or support component in ESA that you missed out on from the date of the decision that was appealed is paid to you in arrears. This is what currently happens for those who, for one reason or another, might decide to claim JSA rather than ESA whilst appealing. And it was happened in IB/IS cases too.
Do you need me to give you the regs/caselaw on this, or something? Not that I have time at the moment....it's fucking basic stuff for anyone at all familair with social security decision making.
ffs wind your fucking neck in, Im only asking a question
from what youve said, if they were to win the appeal, then what is to stop them being reassessed, and the fact they were able to maintain a job seekers agreement, attend workfare etc be used as part of that to deny them continued ESA
(lots of people have won appeals and then been called in for re-assessment a short time later)
from what youve said, if they were to win the appeal, then what is to stop them being reassessed, and the fact they were able to maintain a job seekers agreement, attend workfare etc be used as part of that to deny them continued ESA
(lots of people have won appeals and then been called in for re-assessment a short time later)
Yes, IDS did say that.
Vote Labour? Done that. Under Blair they turned into the bluest shade of red you can imagine. Free market, right wing policies masquerading under a psuedo-socialist.i've a lot more respect for Millband.
The real reson they want to get rid of the Human rights act? I don't think so. Not at all. Their reasons for this are IMHO, based upon defence and terrorism policy. Can't have them nasty little terrorists having human rights, can we?
_angel_
.
You kidding, he's even weaker than Cameron and Clegg combined!
Added bonus if benefit claimants and employees lose any rights they have as well, though?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's not disrespectful, it's a translation into the German of a phrase Iain Duncan Smith uttered last year, so it's actually apposite.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
...while generating a spiral of erroneous/bad claims, for which they'll doubtless cane the claimants rather than their fuckwad automated system.
Given that we have a history of absolutely no government-commissioned IT system actually working as per specification, we're going to see a clusterfuck of astronomic proportions developing, especially given the increase in unemployment.
It also depends on what the "automated system" actually is. If you're looking at a "for option A, press button one"-type multiple-choice system, then the longer the procedure is, and the more options there are, then the more likely human error is to creep in.
Feeling is okay, PROVING would be better.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Indeed. It's not hyperbole, but a comparison that was invited. Furthermore, the Nazis did go for disabled people too.
_angel_
.
Just read this.. is this true? Royal Mail opening and sorting confidential information of claimants personal details...?
http://www.aboutaccess.co.uk/articl...ive+benefits+forms+opened+by+Royal+Mail+staff
http://www.aboutaccess.co.uk/articl...ive+benefits+forms+opened+by+Royal+Mail+staff
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Given that Royal Mail have done "pre-sorting" for commerical businesses for decades (all those privatisations in the '80s and '90s? Guess who pre-sorted the share purchase forms!), I'd say this is true.
As for the RM spokesman saying that no employee would ever communicate private information to a third party, he's talking bollocks. RM have no mechanisms in place to prevent it, so it's just wishful thinking on his part.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
My considered decision is this. If the worst comes to the worst and I have to resort to crime to survive, my crime will be smashing the kneecaps of government ministers with a heavy object until such time as Mr Plod takes me away to face a nice judge who will ensure that HMG feeds me and houses me at their expense and at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i think what you mean is that ids used an english translation of an auld german phrase.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
When I was wrongly declared fit to work a couple of years ago the DWP initially told me I had the choice of signing for JSA or getting nothing at all. This was a flat out lie of course, as a little investigation of my own showed me that I could get reduced rate income support whilst waiting for the appeal. JSA would have been more money, but to get it I would have had to sign a declaration that I was fit to work and seeking work. No way was I going to lie on a benefits claim, especially not when waiting for a tribunal to happen. The simple fact is that the proposals don't really change much. The current situation is that the DWP are given targets of how many sick and disabled people they are to declare fit to work, the DWP routinely lie in order to persuade claimants to forego their rights of appeal, and the government (regardless of party) will continue to pursue a policy of effectively killing the sick and disabled wherever they don't have friends or family to support them. New proposals are irrelevant, the situation is already one where ministers treat us as a disposable inconvenience.
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
OK, point taken.
Similar threads
- Poll
