But you do not need to sign up and pay a single penny to view the post, as viewing the forum on that site is entirely free?

This is a suggestion for a campaign to get the software for LIMA released, please read more here, and please vote as you see fit.

Doctors on tribunals do not actually have to be licenced to practice medicine. Whether that is right or wrong, would probably depend on a court case to decide....

Is there not any welfare rights advisors in your area? Try ringing the council and asking them if there are any welfare rights advisors in the area that can help with an appeal, or look in yellow pages, use google etc. They should be free, if you can find one. Plus a welfare rights advisor is probably better than a lawyer, as most laywers dont specialise, or know much about, benefits.

You can appeal an appeal, but only if the first tribunal made an error in law. I would suggest finding a welfare rights advisor (quickly) to discuss the issue, as you must file the appeal within the time limit (not sure what the time limit is, I would guess it may be the same 30 days as for a normal appeal, but cant say for sure)

I would not hold out much hope of getting anywhere with someone that works for the dwp.... Try though, you never know....

My last post in this thread where I posted a link to benefits and work to back up the 70% figure was 'moved' by cagbot But both benefitsandwork, and the disability alliance state up to 70 percent where the claimaint and representative attend are won. source

All I know is what you know, they have decision makers at each jobcentre who make the decisions on claims. They are not required to be medically qualified, and it is annoying they do not have to put their name to the decision,as it makes accountability much harder.

The percentage of wins rises quite a bit for claimaints that go to tribunal with a representative, I think its around 70 percent for IB where the claimaint is represented at oral hearing. Paper only hearing have a very low success rate, so avoid those.

Appeals president slams DWP and ATOS

they have to assess the details of any request for a home visit, it costs them more for a home visit so they wont like doing them, but they have to look at every request and examine the evidence to see if it is required. It really is not illegal to tape record a converstation by 2 people without the other persons consent. You can also request that it be used as evidence in a tribunal, but it is up to the tribunal if they accept if, and what weight the will give to the evidence. ATOS/DWP try to scare people into thinking it is illegal, but its has been debated many times on many forums, and so far, no one is able to prove it is illegal...

Recording is good, but DONT TELL THEM, or you will not get the medical and will lose your benefits. If you do it, do it without their knowledge. The only way ATOS will do a home medical btw, is if you can provide 'compelling' medical evidence, ie your gp or specialist etc has to provide atos with good proof that one is absolutely required, otherwise they wont do a home visit.

As has been pointed out by someone else you can complain to atos, the dwp and the GMC. However, I also wonder if their is a way to take direct action, ie sue the people responsible.... You should remember as well, to go after not only the ASSESSOR who did the medical but also the DECISION MAKER at the DWP who read the report (Im assuming the report will be full of inconsistencies and will contradict itself) AND the second decision maker who reconsidered the case before it went to appeal...

Physical exams are done by a doctor (who does not examine as a normal doctor would, but follows dwp procedure instead) Mental exams do not have to be done by a doctor, a nurse can do those. Many,many people report bad medical reports.

Even if it got sent to the decision maker, would they bother reading the note... They dont seem to read medical reports properly, well not mine anyway!

Why cant people report the ATOS assessors who did a dodgy medical, that the claimaint had to appeal (and then win) to a benefit fraud line? Surely its fraud also - to get wages basically in effect paid by DWP (they would be paid via atos who is paid 500 million by the dwp to do the medicals) when its clear they were sitting making answers up, or not listening to the claimaint (in cases where that may have occurred). And if its happening on a fairly large scale, why cant people report the company that is hiring the assessors? Why no benefit fraud line for that sort of thing? Also what about all these courses like people watched on benefit busters where they private companies get loads of money to get claimaints sitting around drawing and playing with sellotape? Surely there should be a benefit fraud line to report those, for claimaints who had their time, and tax payers money wasted, why cant they have a simple web page or tel no to report it? Or to report job centre staff not answering questions properly, or fobbing you off, they are getting paid - and should be doing their job... If they are not they are taking money without fulfilling their part of the contract, and that is also fraud - fraud that comes out of the money allocated to the welfare system - benefit fraud in other words. And of course, if they ever do get a scheme like that, to make it fair - the press would have to splatter each and every one of them found guilty all over the web, the printed press and tv, just like they do with claimaints who are guilty....

No idea re I.S but people have won IB ones. You can search all commissioners decisions here

If you lose the first appeal, then you can appeal about the appeal, but only if there was an error of law. If you lose that, bye bye IB.

Other than the fact its unlikely a claimaint would be able to afford to take them to court (not sure if legal aid is available for persuing justice, ie where your not yourself being investigated/prosecuted)... I wonder why no one has taken the dwp to court (that I know of) over incorrect decisions based on medical reports that contained a pack of untruthes, that were provable... Or for negligence through bad reports etc.. I would have thought by now, if it were possible some welfare rights people/organisation would have had them up in court by now? Surely solicitors would be jumping at the chance to take on easy to win claims against the dwp on a no-win no-fee basis?

How come the dwp can prosecute a claimaint for not telling them a material fact,or giving them wrong info - yet when the DWP do that to a claimaint, the claimaint isnt able to take them to court?

They put you on esa without you asking first? Or did you have to find out your options (yourself) then apply?

Not sure if you already are, but I would seriously consider complaining to the SIA who licence the security guards, and seeing if you can have her licence revoked....

The daily mail refused to publish my comment (it would have been the very first one) where I asked why the DWP had not mentioned customers can request a call back. Its a sensationalist newspaper, that is never interested in facts in my opinion.

Its in a leaflet 'Our Service Standards', printed and published as it has a international standard book number, ISBN 978-1-84763-056-8 http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/stellent/groups/jcp/documents/websitecontent/dev_011795.pdf

Hi, I have had several tribunals now, and so far, thankfully all of them have been ok, although its only a matter of time before I get one with some people on the board who have already made their minds up before I go in. But to be fair, all mine so far have went well, they put me at ease, and listened, and were easy going with the questions, unlike a medical by atos. There is usually, from my experience 3 people present, you sit at a table, you on one side, them on the other. One is a doctor, one a laywer/solicitor/legal type person and the other the chairman. They will ask you questions, but all my previous ones have tried their best to allow me to answer properly, with no pressure or intimidation to date. If you read the link I gave earlier to the benchbook that will give you a good understanding of what they can do with regards to medicals/questions etc, even though its a little old, not much should have changed. The worst part of the tribunal I have found so far is the wait for it, the nerves and anticipation, but so far, I have always left the actual trbunal thinking, that was not as bad as I imagined it would be, and have always been given the decision on the day (but that does not always happen, sometimes they need further investigation and will tell you later what they decide).