I agree entirely with your comment, but it is what the patient does with those letters that causes the problem. Yes the patient does have the right to copies of those documents, but does not have the automatic right to pass around those letters to 3rd parties viz ATOS/DWP/Tribunal without permission having been sought. No one is saying that a patient can't see the files. What a patient/claimant cannot do, without authority, is to pass that evidence over to someone else who does not hold the authority to accept them - ie from the author. Hence why DWP/ATOS?Tribunals have to be very careful in accepting 3rd party reports or letters given to them by the claimant. They have to be absolutely sure that they have permission to receive that evidence. The patient/claimant, not being the author, does not have the right or power to give that authority no matter how they came to be in possession of them - only the original author does. See what happens the next time you hand over 3rd party evidence given to you by a claimant and advise that authority has not been obtained from the originating author. Legally the evidence would be handed straight back to you advising that it cannot be used. It will be ruled as inadmissable. It could even be argued that should a decision go in the favour of the claimant, after the evidence had been handed over but returned, that the matter should be reheard on appeal as whilst the evidence had not actually been used, the contents would have remained in the mind of the person. That would have been my argument to set aside an unfavourable decision so that I could have another bite at it. This situation has arisen many times in my working life. It is a very simple way of possibly getting evidence thrown out that could have helped the other side.

I think you will find that having any illness does not entitle you to ESA. It's the inability to carry out some or all of the descriptors that counts as long as the points those descriptors give add up to 15 or more. Likewise medical evidence of an illness is not relevant. Medical evidence of the inabilities caused by that illness is more important. I have various conditions that together, including the side effects of the drugs I take make it impossible to barely function, never mind work. There is no argument about that. However, I have yet to find any descriptor that I could genuinely, without telling some white lies, gain points that would add up to more than 15. Yes I have got used to being this way and make the best that is available. And yes, my pain threshold is such, now that I can cope, because I have had years of coping, is far higher than the average person plus you tend not to feel that much anyhow on the daily intake of Morphine. What I am trying to say is that medical practitioners would assume that people with just some of my problems would have major difficulties, their major difficulties are minor to me. Who then should be granted ESA if they were totally honest from the outset? Those that just couldn't handle the pain or those that had the same pain but considered it just a nuisance? It is readilly accepted that with just one of my conditions, all sufferers should automatically be given Support Group status. However that would include those that felt very poorly and those that felt very poorly, but put a brave face on and persevered beyond. There are degrees to be considered

Buses & trains from now!!

Yes you are right!! it was a Yamaha and not a Suzuki. Blue & White with a racing type fairing. I knew it was Japanese!!! I should have realised when I saw that the tacho didn't even start to register until 3000rpm. Anyhow it put the fear of God into me. I don't know what the actual acceleration figures are but it felt fast and I had no control, the front just came up!!

The point in principle is the unauthorised contact by the GP with the DWP in attempting to discuss matters relating to my wife's claim. If you think that that is OK, then we might all as well get involved in each others dealings with the DWP. The fact that the GP may be trying to 'cover up' a mistake is here nor there. The correct procedure is for the GP to tell the patient/claimant what has happened and it is then that the patient/claimant has the choice to refuse the GP or not. Whether it means a change of decision is of no consequence. The mistake should never have happened in the first place. To be honest there is no 'goodwill' between our GP and us. There is no trust or belief that our healthcare needs are taken into account. This is just another example of our GP, who appears to be trying to 'cover up' a mistake. We have had eight years of this and quite honestly gave up asking for help from them, other than to obtain prescriptions on repeat, 5 years ago. Whatever we tell the GP as to our abilities or non abilities is never recorded. In my case I was dismissed as a 'moaning' patient on the 4 occasions over an 18 month period when I mentioned that walking was impossible and I was having constant pain in my right leg. Early onset of Arthritis she said. 18 months later - arriving at A&E at 3am, they found the reason for the pain - very little blood was getting to my knee and there was no blood supply from the knee downwards - 60min later I was in theatre!!

In your dealings you may have got away with it basically because no one realised that the evidence is unauthorised. Civil law dictates that any evidence that is obtained that was not originally intended for your use (ie getting copies of letters from the GP that were sent to them by a consultant) cannot and should never be accepted as evidence that is unless both the author and the original recipent give their express permission for them to be used by a 3rd party - in this case the patient. Yes a patient can see, handle and view their records, but what actually matters is what the patient does with that evidence. In this particular case both the DWP or ATOS (Medical Services) should refuse to look at it that evidence if they are not given an assurance that the author and original recipient give their permissions. In writing to the DWP it was pointed out that there is evidence available but permission had not been given to use it. In any further dealings you have I would suggest that you ensure that (a) you have permission from the author and the original recipient to enter their property as 3rd party evidence and (b) inform the DWP/ATOS/Tribunal where the permissions have not been obtained but you are intending to hand over the evidence. You may find that the use of the evidence you say you hand over should quite rightly be more restricted. I only want to do what is right and not play on somebody else's ignorance of the law. This has been taken from the handbook that ATOS use: 4.2.3 Unauthorised information Unauthorised information comprises letters written from one healthcare professional to another and forwarded to a third party without the express permission of the author of the letter. Hospital discharge letters for example are often sent along with factual reports from general practitioners. Unless the General Practitioner has first sought the permission of the author of the letter it should be regarded as unauthorised. If you encounter such information, and you are unsure how it should be dealt with, you should seek advice from an experienced practitioner. If the unauthorised information is removed from the file it may be necessary to refer the claimant for assessment by a different practitioner as your opinion may be influenced by evidence which would not be available to the Decision Maker.

Hi, I've just seen your reply - thanks for confirming my view on this. It's not ATOS or the DWP you have to worry about, it would be the Consultant and GP in my wife's case if they became aware of what had happened.

Yes she does. Yes it is part of her medical records and yes she has a right to see it. But she does not have the right to pass that letter on to a third party. Yes she can keep it but she can't legally use it, not without permission. The recipient is the person the author sent it to. Good grief, you cannot go round willy nilly handing out copy letters that you don't actually have the right to distribute. From memory, both the DWP and ATOS are warned that if they receive any letter or report that is a 3rd party document, they must not read or use the evidence contained within it. I'll see if I can dig out the relevant authority for you.

According to the DVLA website and what they have told me today, with what is wrong with me and the drugs that I am taking, I'm not even allowed to ride a moped!!! Last time I rode a bike was 19 years ago. I thought I was a born again rocker. Bought myself a second hand Suzuki RD 250 twin 2 stroke. Took it out of the village pottering at 28mph, then on to an open derestricted open road, opened the throttle, the tacho started to register and the bloody front wheel came up!!!! That was it, first farm gate I came to pulled up switched off and smoked 2 fags with shaking hands. Managed to get back home at 25mph, put it in the garage never for it to see the light of day again. Eventually gave it away.

Yes, the DVLA told me that today!!! I have a motability car and I'm the only driver. My wife can't drive, and we have no family close by. So it looks like the worry about trying to keep the HRM - into PIP is something of the past - the car will now have to go back. Damn!!!

Thanks - it's still as clear as mud! So we have an organ grinder that grinds his organ whilst the monkey does a little dance, but next door it is quite possible to find that the monkey is now grinding the organ and the newly redundant organ grinder gives a little jig? No wonder I am seeing my psychiatrist, I must be the only sane one around!

Sorry I may have confused you. I confuse myself all of the time as it is. The letter/report was sent to her GP specifically by the consultant. The GP gave her (my wife) a copy of it taken from the GP's computer. The letter/report was not intended to be sent to my wife, just the GP. Consequently the only two people that can use that letter for any reason is the GP (the recipient) and the Consultant (the author). If the letter had been addressed by the Consultant as 'copy to Mrs ******' then there will be no problem. To be able to use that letter/report as evidence by my wife and pass it on to another 3rd party (DWP) she will have to obtain permission from the author and the recipient. You just cannot pass letters etc on that weren't intended to be sent to you to others with express permission. That is why those comments generally appear at the bottom of emails and faxes restricting the use of the information.

Hey yes my wife too! Her claim for Attendance Allowance was refused only on the basis that aids or adaptions could be used which would mitigate the needs. OK I go along with that, but at what expense, time and trouble. Her needs were recognised to the extent that I claimed they were. Medical evidence proved that. They did say that with aids and adaptions her needs would not be frequent enough throughout the day and would not amount to 1 hour a day. During an interchange of views that I had with the DWP over this it was suggested that a walk in bath, stair lift, an easy chair that automatically lifted when you wanted to get out of it and an adjustable bed with riser could be used. Who is going to pay for that lot? I could, but why should I? Surely this benefit isn't geared to someone's means. The official answer was to 'contact social services who will no doubt help'. I gave up after that - there was no point in arguing any further. They had their opinion and I had mine. Unfortunately their opinion carries more weight!

Of course it is hit and miss if it does happen. But I have been around enough to hear of cases where the DLA award has been triggered for an early review because of the result of an ESA assessment. I can fully understand and accept that it is done. If you are in receipt of DLA HRM because you have said, and it was proven, that 12 months earlier you had great difficulty in walking 10 metres never mind 25 metres, then the ESA assessment throws up that you have no difficulty in walking, of course it will start to ring alarm bells!!

Being in receipt of DLA, HRM due to arterial disease/spinal/hips and MRC due to intense psychiatric illness, made absolutely no difference to my last ESA decision - 0 points - ATOS confirmed that there was a history of mental illness but it wasn't a relevant mental illness, plus, I had the ability to walk 200 metres with no problem. I acted quickly and supplied evidence that disproved the statements made by the ATOS assessor as regards the descriptors only. Once I proved what the assessor had said were not true I was uplifted into the Support Group for 3 years. When I applied for an uplift last year of my DLA award, they considered the ESA report as well as the evidence I submitted. If I had not bothered to appeal against the ESA decision or had lost the appeal, it would have had serious ramifications to my DLA review application!

"If a patient with a severe illness or disability makes a claim for Employment and Support Allowance, they will become members of the Support Group in Employment and Support Allowance." And the definition of that, is what? If it is designed around the descriptors, how on earth is asking someone if they can reach for a pen out of their breast pocket supposed to identify that? On the other hand, is it a decision that is made on the basis of what is put in the ESA50? I can't see that working as I have evidence going back to 2009/10 when the ESA50 wasn't even looked at by the assessor or even the DM in making the decision! How? because I didn't post, didn't have to - still within the time allowed, the ESA50 until the date the decison was made! I have to go along with the previous posters thoughts on this one. Severe illness - is ??????? Should there not be in fact, a list of severe illnesses that do qualify for automatic inclusion on the Support Group?

I feel that Motability have it right. Only those in the enhanced rate group will be entitled to a motability car and have an automatic entitlement to a BB. Those on the standard rate, and which as you state does represent the old DLA HRM, will be downgraded. Doing away with the current LRM is a cert, What the government have done is to make the new PIP - Enhanced Rate of mobility a completely new category which bears no relationship to the old HRM. It will be a lot harder to qualify for, with only a few making it there. Those currently receiving HRM will probably see their award under PIP become the standard rate. No one has really admitted what the numbers will be like, but for those that cannot walk or virtually cannot walk the 50 metres it may well be upwards of 60%.

I too read it that way. Those with a review date of their DLA that sits somewhere between 2013 and 2016 will be assessed for PIP on that review date. Those that have an indefinite DLA award will be called for assessment at any time during the period 2013 - 2016, those that are close to their 65th birthday after April 2013 will be called asap and those that have a review date beyond 2016 will be called for review towards the latter end, probably 2016.

Thanks for clearing that up. The original poster, I feel, was asking if there were any specific conditions/illnesses that would mean automatic Support Group status. The only one that I am aware of is if someone presents a form DS1500 (terminal illness not likely to be alive in 6 months time). All of the other cases are subject to decision by the DM based on evidence.

Thanks and sorry. Can I play with them just a little bit longer?

Hang on, don't throw your toys at me! I never identified or even suggested that you were one of those that have played the system. I was quite clear in what I said - in that those that have played the system, meaning the ones that have used the system for their own ends, and not meaning everyone that finds themselves in that situation! Yes you have had a raw deal, I know that, but there are many others that are in the same situation as you are in out of choice, knowing that they will never succeed with their ESA claim. I never intended to offend you at all, and my comments were only directed in respect of those that I know personally that do play the system. That is the point - you are being tarred by the same brush as those which is most unfortunate and wrong.

Thanks, but I still don't know if I have a right to a recorded assessment. If the DWP say I have does that over rule any decision made by ATOS that says I haven't? Who is the monkey and who organ grinder?

Yes only those with a terminal illness not expecting to see the other side of Christmas.

Most people claim under that category. Proving it is another matter requiring you to produce the same level of evidence that you would have to submit for a HRM award as well as to pass a face to face assessment. is unfit to drive for medical reasons I've just noticed that condition - rather strange - being able to walk with no problem yet someone who for medical reasons (be it the drugs they are taking or a condition that doesn't create any care or mobility needs) would get a BB!! Why if they can walk anyhow? That just doesn't make any sense to me unless I am missing something. According to the list on the DVLA website, I shouldn't be driving due to (a) long term Morphine medication, (b) difficult to control Type 1 diabetes and © long term medication for a psychiatric conditon. I never knew that, a job for tomorrow - must ring DVLA!!!! I wonder how many others aer driving illegally but not realising it? Shocked!!

And I would add that those that get HRM on the basis of not or virtually not able to walk more than 50 metres without discomfort will only qualify for the same enhanced rate under PIP if they additionally suffer from a mental illness that makes it difficult or impossible for them to understand how to get from point A to point B on their own and without help from another person to guide them.