Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Atos Medicals - Questions, Answers and Support

I was in wrag for a year and had to attend two interviews at the job centre. (then they told me there wouldn't be any more as I was moving to NI stamps only so basically couldn't be coerced :hmm:)


So if you're in the wrag and worried, you may not need to be.
 
as I was moving to NI stamps only so basically couldn't be coerced

Eh? You went from income-related ESA to contributions-related ESA?

I didn't realise that was possible. How does that work then?

My understanding was that they used up your NI contributions first (for a year) then stuck you on IR ESA.
 
OK, I'm obviously missing something here. In my defence, I'm quite tired and slightly stoned.

How did you move from IR ESA to CR ESA? CR usually becomes IR after one year, and you never move from IR to CR, only the reverse.
 
I am also tired and stoned and drunk. :thumbs:

I was on contributions - for a year during which I was known wrag and attended work focused interviews. After that I would be moved to IR except my dear poor boyfriend earns money so I'm now on stamps only.

Does that make it clear? :)
 
I did not move from IR to CR. I'm not entirely sure how I gave the impression that I did but hey, we're both stoned. I can't be arsed to look back a page and check what I said. :oops::D


Edit: check back a page. It's the same page. :D main. And I still haven't checked. I'm watching the voice... :hmm:
 
I was in wrag for a year and had to attend two interviews at the job centre. (then they told me there wouldn't be any more as I was moving to NI stamps only so basically couldn't be coerced :hmm:)

(My emphases)

So you were in WRAG for a year but not on IR-ESA? Have I got that right?

(Apologies for tugging at this, it's confusing me).
 
Support group - money without being income assessed and no wrag.
CR - for one year if in wrag then
IR - and wrag but if above income level and stamps only then no wrag activity.

Does that make sense?
 
It makes sense in its own way, but doesn't appear to be answering the question I asked!

I give up -- more a reflection on my dwindling energy than on you.
 
I suspect that you were put in the W-RA group because the decision-maker is ambivalent about your brain injury, so they've put you in the group where they can reassess you the easiest. :(

Quite probably. When I asked for decision maker's letter, absolutely nothing was noted down about his brain injury, despite all those pages I typed about it:mad: , only his pain with walking
 
It makes sense in its own way, but doesn't appear to be answering the question I asked!

I give up -- more a reflection on my dwindling energy than on you.

I did not go from IR to CR.

I'll stop now. We can resume (if you like) when sober.
 
It makes sense in its own way, but doesn't appear to be answering the question I asked!

I give up -- more a reflection on my dwindling energy than on you.

What wtfftw meant, if I've got it right is that once her year of Contributions Related ESA was up, she now finds herself unable to claim Income Related coz of her partners income. However, she's still registered as a claimant in order to make sure she gets her National Insurance credits even though she isn't entitled to any actual money. It's to avoid gaps in your NI which could fuck you up when you hit 65.
 
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “Our sympathy goes out to Mrs Wootton’s family. A decision on whether someone is well enough to work is taken following a thorough assessment and after consideration of all supporting medical evidence.”

I can't work out whether this is a confession of brutality or incompetence. And I'm not even sure that there's a difference as far as the DWP goes.
 
Linda also appealed but was rejected despite her history.

:mad:

Linda’s was at a test centre in Southend, eight miles from her home in Rayleigh, Essex, on January 3. “She couldn’t even drive herself because she kept feeling faint,” said Peter, who was not allowed in to support her.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “Our sympathy goes out to Mrs Wootton’s family. A decision on whether someone is well enough to work is taken following a thorough assessment and after consideration of all supporting medical evidence.”
The normal shite. Suppose she didn't supply enough letters from doctors/consultants :rolleyes::mad:
 
<snip>The normal shite. Suppose she didn't support enough letters from doctors/consultants :rolleyes::mad:

It doesn't help that the DWP seldom contacts doctors etc even if you give them permission, and any letters from those doctors etc tend to list what you've got instead of how it impairs or hinders you.
 
I had a look at the FAQ and it didn't seem to specify whether "attend the programme" means "go to pointless interviews" or "stack shelves in Poundland" :confused:

All the better to keep you worried. :mad:
 
I think we've seen enough evidence that even when you supply whatever you can the DWP ignores it anyway.

Yeah, but that's the DWP's official line to the public. Blame everyone for not supplying enough information (even if they did)

Can't understand why she didn't win appeal though :(

What a sad end to her life, fighting those fuckers :mad:
 
Just got an email from 38 degrees say the conservascum are floating an idea to limit the amount of times we can see our gp.
If we have long term health conditions or sick kids we could run out of visits and have to pay to go elsewhere :(

How true is this? How viable?
It made me cry thinking about how fucked up that is.
 
How true is this? How viable?
It made me cry thinking about how fucked up that is.

Don't stress just yet -- it's a Tory thinktank proposal that has already annoyed the healthcare pros. I sincerely doubt it has a chance of making it as far as policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10081220/Conservatives-consider-limit-on-GP-visits.html

[limiting GP appointments] is one of a number of options grassroots members were asked to look at in a consultation document, Local Health Discussion Brief, posted on the Conservative Policy Forum (CPF) website last night.

Among them were whether GPs should take greater responsibility for out of hours care in their area - something Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt addressed earlier this week - and if seeing a GP for a routine appointment in the evening or at the weekend is a luxury the country cannot afford.

The CPF describes itself as a national party group that gives members the opportunity to discuss the major policy challenges facing Britain and is chaired by Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin.

Health experts reacted angrily to the suggestions, according to the Independent on Sunday. [...more]
 
Don't stress just yet -- it's a Tory thinktank proposal that has already annoyed the healthcare pros. I sincerely doubt it has a chance of making it as far as policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10081220/Conservatives-consider-limit-on-GP-visits.html

Among them were whether GPs should take greater responsibility for out of hours care in their area - something Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt addressed earlier this week - and if seeing a GP for a routine appointment in the evening or at the weekend is a luxury the country cannot afford.

I don't understand how that's a luxury :confused:

Why don't surgeries just have flexible hours or rather than work Mondays to Fridays, have some do Tuesdays to Saturdays or Wednesdays to Sundays? I'm sure there's plenty of people that would prefer those hours/days rather than have your normal Saturday/Sunday off when the rest of the country is.

Alright, you might have to pay for an extra receptionist if you only have one, but...
 
Quite agree -- will sign the petition in a moment.

ETA: Duly signed.

Strikes me as this is the same 'liontamer's whip' crap that NuLab tried -- float a really wankerish idea, then slip through something slightly less offensive once all the original fuss has died down.

Yes this really is probably the main worry :(
 
Back
Top Bottom