ESA - Lost Tribunal - Upper Tribunal Awarded...UT Postponed!!!!

[Max1968]

Thanks Bazooka,

 

As in a previous post I stated that my MP says he can't interfere in a Judges decision which I accept

but he apparently is writing to the Minister of State of Work and Pensions with regard to the "unregistered GP on a Tribunal" query.

 

I am sure that the MSWP will give some cock and bull story quoting a clause that we know nothing about to cover that situation.

 

The press are no better either preferring to concentrate on whether Carol Vorderman ate a kangaroos testicle on "I'm a Celebrity" rather than publishing the real stories that affect real people.

 

I know some on here may feel that I am going over the top on this "unregistered GP" scenario but I find it bizarre how that when you have sick notes from your GP a Judge can side with an unregistered retired doctor rather than a doctor who is registered, with a licence to practice and still practices, plus having an unregistered doctor on a tribunal is from what I can find illegal or unethical at the very least.

[Bazooka Boo]

I feel your frustration Max, I really do.

 

It took me three years to show them the error of their ways, and it almost cost me my life TBH.....

 

I did a ton of research, learnt a heck of a lot, and embarrassed them in the process, stick with it, expose them, then name and shame them and all those, including your MP, who failed to act and simply acted with impunity in their haste to hit government targets.

[fletch70]

Getting your MP involved is well worth it.

 

They paid me ESA for 10 weeks after I told them I was a student and also asked for clarification. As this was paid over the summer I used it to live on. My MP intervened and got it sorted for me

[Max1968]

I feel your frustration Max, I really do.

 

It took me three years to show them the error of their ways, and it almost cost me my life TBH.....

 

I did a ton of research, learnt a heck of a lot, and embarrassed them in the process, stick with it, expose them, then name and shame them and all those, including your MP, who failed to act and simply acted with impunity in their haste to hit government targets.

 

 

Good for you Bazooka but who did you name and shame them too?

 

 

At least my Work Coach at the JC seems to be getting bewildered. I apply for 3 to 4 jobs a week and got one interview. Once they asked what I had been doing for a year and I replied honestly I never heard from them again!! Even doing a computer course which I thoroughly enjoy I am a month behind schedule due to not being able to go in several times,. At the moment the course is being accommodating to my absences but how many employers would be?! This is the "reality" in whether you are fit and able for work - not lifting empty cardboard boxes and being able to make myself a sandwich!!!

 

 

My GP was horrified but not surprised by all this but not at all surprised,. He has a patient who has suffered several strokes in the last year and the last one put the poor fella in a wheelchair but surprise surprise he was found fit for work!

[Max1968]

Getting your MP involved is well worth it.

 

They paid me ESA for 10 weeks after I told them I was a student and also asked for clarification. As this was paid over the summer I used it to live on. My MP intervened and got it sorted for me

 

 

 

That's great. Unfortunately my MP couldn't get involved in the Judges decision which I could understand.

[fletch70]

That's great. Unfortunately my MP couldn't get involved in the Judges decision which I could understand.

 

I fully understand that and believe it to be absolutely correct.

 

I am glad however that he is taking the unregisteredDr to the minister.

[Max1968]

Well I finally got the Judges Statement of Reasons through

although considering she hadn't signed it I am sure it was put together by some busybody who just cut and paste most of it from my Mandatory Reconsideration decision and fluffed out some of the contents because it was that familiar.

 

Having said that there were some gems of once again inaccuracies

like stating that I told them my hearing is ok because I wear an aid in my right ear.

It's my left ear I wear one actually and whilst not a major error in the grand scheme of things I am sure if a murder trial stated the defendant was right handed when in reality he was left handed I suspect it could make quite a difference in someone's defence!

 

 

They then claimed that my GP had been inconsistent with some of his findings

but yet the quotes they used were in fact from a different GP explaining different symptoms many months later.

 

 

They blabbed on about that my arthritic hips were not limiting and I failed to mention them on an original claim form but yet I never was claiming that I was unfit for work for any other reason than vertigo and insomnia.

 

 

They also continued this line of evidence claiming that I have difficulties with incontinence but had not mentioned this on the original form and stated that my GP never mentioned incontinence.

 

 

Actually I never mentioned incontinence at any time bar the tribunal when they were the ones who brought up my other conditions. All I said is that due to IBS I preferred to know where the restrooms were at all times. I never mentioned it majorly affected me or made it part of my claim for benefit.

 

However the paragraph that has really made my blood boil is this :

 

Dr ****** had written on ***** in support of the mandatory review request confirming that Mr ****** had been

"suffering greatly with ongoing severe attacks of vertigo, often of a rotational nature, with unsteadiness for the past 18 months".

 

 

We found the report that the attacks were of a rotational basis not consistent with his earlier letter or Mr ****** own evidence.

 

 

The Dr also confirmed bilateral tinnitus and significant bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, but this was not entirely consistent with the letter from the ENT service confirming he had a right sided problem.

 

 

The GP also mentioned his Type 2 Diabetes, osteoarthritis of hips and knees, IBS but did not indicate any functional limitations from these conditions, We found this letter indicative of Mr ******* GP seeking to assist Mr ****** in his benefit claim and we gave it less weight than his earlier referral to ENT".

 

Well of course my GP was helping me with my benefit claim, why else would I be asking him for a letter outlining my conditions, after all that's what the DWP insisted on.

 

 

However how the Judge has phrased that is almost an accusation. My GP made one minor error and that was to suggest I had tinnitus in both ears whereas I only have it in one usually although in October for a period it affected both.

 

 

The ENT stated that "Mr ***** hearing has always been poor, particularly on the right side".

 

 

So my GP didn't get it wrong on the hearing loss the tribunal just didn't read it right.

 

 

My GP did mention my other conditions but was just mentioning past medical history in fact his last paragraph read

"As a result of his severe vertigo and insomnia, he has been unable to work".

 

 

He never claims my other conditions stopped me from working, neither have I, it seems the tribunal service however seem to think differently.

 

 

Plus they accepted that my vertigo was "spinning",. Spinning is rotational so why they think I am inconsistent with my description I have no idea.

 

Their final comment made me laugh where they stated

"We are satisfied that if reasonable adjustments were put in place , enabling Mr ***** to sit down and rest if he were to have a major attack at work, then he would be able to work or look for work with a reasonable degree of reliability".

 

 

These people live in cloud cuckoo land and I can prove it by evidence of not getting one interview in 30 odd attempts since I started on JSA. It's an absolute disgrace,.

[Bazooka Boo]

Well if they are highlighting 'inaccuracies' then you do exactly the same.

 

Is this the first tier tribunal??

 

Although your MP didn't want to help you previously, I would hammer them again, and outline exactly what you have done above.

Again demanding they account for the way they treat sick & disabled in this country, and are more than happy to allow their department to do so.

[Max1968]

Was First Tier Tribunal Bazooka. I will indeed be sending a copy to my MP stating that whilst I understand that he cannot overturn any Judges decision the fact that the system from the DWP to the Tribunal Service is littered with inaccuracies and incorrect statements is an absolute disgrace.

[Bazooka Boo]

OK now you appeal to the upper tier tribunal.

 

Although you will have to show where they erred in law.

[Max1968]

Well I don't expect to get anywhere and am not too bothered about an upper tribunal to be honest but I will appeal for the sake of it just to highlight the Judges inaccuracies in hr SOR. Lies or inaccuracies whatever you want to call them don't get me 15 points so that alone wouldn't do it so the only possible error of law will be the below links (plus others) suggesting the error of law by using an unregistered GP as an advisor (as I have mentioned many times before). Doubt it will get me anywhere but it at least means I have exhausted all avenues and I will be forwarding it all to my MP just to outline what a disgraceful, dishonest shambles the system is from top to bottom.

 

 

http://legislation.data.gov.uk/cy/uksi/2009/1592/made/data.htm?wrap=true#f00003

 

 

https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/guide-eligibility-non-legally-qualified-candidates

 

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hesc-composition-statement-incl-send-pilot-oct-13.pdf

[tommy456]

If you are able to demonstrate a factual error or error of law, that would be likely to affect their decision, then take it to the ut, and a procedural error medical panel member not being registered, If they deemed this justified At best the outcome would be for case to be re heard by a different panel and the current decision set aside

 

As for them taking a long time to write the SOR &ROP this is quite normal for panel members who don't work for HMCTS on a full-time basis,

iirc i waited 3 months for the SOR ect for my pip tribunal

[Max1968]

Well fascinatingly whilst researching for the possibility of an upper tribunal appeal I was trying to find the list of Privileges for Registered GP's on the General Medical Website but the "pages had been removed". Emailed the GMC and received this back:

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately much of our privileges and duties of a doctor page has been amended at the beginning of December. As such, we now don't provide specific links to different legal schedules. This is because as a medical regulator, we are not in a position to provide definitive advice about the law. It is also difficult to maintain these pages as the law is often changing.

We advise doctors in these cases that they should speak to their employer. However the information in Section 47 of the Medical Act (1983) remains the same.

If you would like to discuss this further, please reply to my email or call me on the number below.

So once again the goalposts are moved and it now seems as ambiguous as ever as to what roles unregistered doctors can or can't do. Seems like it now entirely depends on the employer who employs them!! All a bit odd considering I only questioned my MP about this around a month go!! Anyway IMO it's still what the regulations were at the time of my tribunal not what they are now that matters.

[Bazooka Boo]

IMO it's still what the regulations were at the time of my tribunal not what they are now that matters.

 

Agree, ask them if these regs are reciprocal?

[rdm2006]

sorry to jump the thread but can anyone help with this

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?473017-Taken-off-ESA-due-to-medical-Refused-JSA&p=4981097#post4981097

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Max

 

First of all I hope your silence for the past month or so doesn't mean that your health has deteriorated significantly or that your perspicacity and indefatigability over the past year or so has been in any way diminished by your most recent setback. Your tenacity should be, if it hasn't already, an example and an inspiration to us all.

 

I have been reading through your thread "Employment Support Allowance Advice Appreciated .... Lost Tribunal" and I have to say it's quite an epic. Some thoughts occurred to me that I would like to run by you.

 

1...... The commonly used term "Employment Support Allowance" or it's abbreviated version "ESA", used in the thread title and throughout, is not, strictly speaking, what you are claiming entitlement to.

 

That term was adopted early on by the Department of Work and Pensions, it's use encouraged, and is now almost universally spewed out at every opportunity.

The law that introduced it, The Welfare Reform Act 2007, Section 1, Part 1, defines it as an 'allowance':

 

The Welfare Reform Act 2007 introduced a welfare benefit to be called "The Employment and Support Allowance". It defines it as:

 

"An allowance, to be known as an employment and support allowance.........."

 

Notice the addition of the conjunction "and" between the noun "employment" and the verb "support". The conjunction is used here .....' as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type ; used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function'. In other words both 'employment' and 'support' carry equal weight in the definition highlighted above. I believe that it was the intent of the Act to give equal weight to both words in the definition.

 

It is evident that throughout your thread the emphasis is almost entirely placed on the 'employment' element of the sentence and little or none on the 'support' element. Indeed, noises off, waste no time, whenever you attempt to address the 'support' element, in dragging the discussion back to the 'employment' element. This is particularly apparent in most, if not all, the documentation emanating from 'official' sources.

 

It is an affront to humanity to witness the lengths to which they are prepared to go to guarantee that potential employers do not suffer or lose out by offering you employment and getting as much as they can out of you in terms of work, yet not a word about any support when the worst excesses of your illness leave you at serious risk of injury, or even death. Surely the Act did not envisage that this would be its purpose.

 

I hold my hand up, I have been as guilty as everyone else who fell into this, what I now believe to be deliberately misleading, usage. I shall thenceforth endeavour to use the correct title of the benefit, "The Employment and Support Allowance". abbreviated to "E&SA" and if I revert to habit it will be because of forgetfulness and not any deliberate attempt to deceive.

 

2...... Still on the theme of legal definitions and the Act's intent: I have looked up the Work Capability Assessment form ESA50 on the Government's own website at:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421191/esa-50-capability-for-work-questionnaire.pdf

 

I draw your attention to a highlighted block at the beginning of the assessment questionnaire part of the form (Page 7). It says in that block:

 

To answer Yes to any of the following questions, you must be able to do the activity safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as you need to and in a reasonable length of time.

 

This would appear to be an instruction on how to address and answer the questions being asked. I see no mention here of employment, in fact, all the emphasis is on answering the questions from the point of view of the welfare of the claimant.

 

Now, your condition, you have referred to it yourself as an 'illness' has been diagnosed by a qualified doctor and you have been examined and tested by recognised specialists in that field. As far as I can gather you were not diagnosed and examined and tested whilst you were suffering the worst excesses of your condition but during periods of relative relief. This must mean, therefore, that the condition must be present to some degree all the time. Otherwise the condition could not have been diagnosable, examinable or testable during the times when they were carried out and when you were fully capable of using your faculties and aware of what was going on.

 

You have explained at length the effect of the worst excesses of your condition as well as the time it takes to recover from such 'fits' as you have had them described. You have also said that you are unable to predict the frequency, duration, severity or impact of those fits. Surely one thing that you do not have to predict, because you have to live with it constantly, is the anxiety, dread and fear that a fit, or fits, of unknown frequency, duration and severity are a certainty and could be only as far off as your next breath, which might be your last. (Sorry for being so graphic here but it hopefully aids impact and effect).

 

For those reasons, then, I beg to suggest that you have erred from the start in the approach you took when you completed this questionnaire by being overly reliant on the answer 'It varies'

 

It is my contention that the condition from which you suffer, and for which you seek support, does not vary, it is the frequency, duration and severity of its excesses that varies. The physical manifestation of your condition is there for all to see. The mental maelstrom, which is constant, one has to bear alone, unnoticed and ignored by those whom we laughingly refer to as humanity. In all honesty, from that point of view, you can't move an inch.

 

Looking at the questions from that perspective and answering them as the DWP itself advises, you could score 15 on the very first question. Remember, " .......you must be able to do the activity safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as you need to and in a reasonable length of time."

 

As often as you need to does not mean as often as you feel like it, of as often as the time you have between fits allows. In employment, as often as you need to is immaterial, it's as often as your employer needs or requires you to that counts, and officialdom, by their remarks, have confirmed that for you.

 

3...... Your success in sorting out your entitlement to E&SA pending your appeal so swiftly was a joy to behold. Regrettably, here again, you allowed voices off to influence your initial impulse to make an issue of this and take those responsible to task. You were told in no uncertain terms by JCP employees at several levels, even to your face, that you were wrong in claiming your entitlement. This turns out to have been wrong. Nobody is going to convince me that of all the desks over which your correspondence passed nobody was aware of the law regarding this issue.

 

You were informed, in terms, by certain individuals that they never permitted claimants this right in over two years. How many of the equivalent of 13 disabled people in England who died or committed suicide every day last year were as a direct result of this heinous oversight?

Through maladministration and sheer incompetence those JCP employees have blood on their hands. In legal terms, where government departments are concerned...

....."Maladministration is the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice. The law in the United Kingdom says Ombudsman must investigate 'maladministration'".

 

It may not be easy to prove criminal negligence but it is certainly maladministration and a blatant breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct.

I have aired my own views of JCP staff and employees, based on experience, on this site before, in fact it would have been about this time last year. The combined forces of well established voices on this site rose as one against me, so excuse me if I don't elaborate here.

Suffice to say, if the press could be got to show an interest in this issue and use their investigative resources to weed out the rot, it would make the case of the couple who made such a big story of the work placement cases a couple of years back pale into insignificance.

 

4...... Another brilliant piece of investigative detective work worthy of admiration is the issue of the doctor and the Appeals Tribunal. From what you have managed to unearth so far this stinks and further investigation could definitely be a worthwhile proposition. Here again, if only the press could be got to show an interest.

 

Well, those were a few of my observations. The first two could be argued as points of law and the second two, if not law. at least maladministration. I don't claim that adopting them would have made any difference to the outcome of your case. One thing's for sure, we know that so far the course taken did not elicit the desired effect.

 

Thank you for your forbearance.

[tommy456]

@Lapsed Workaholic: As you have touched on a related subject , that being how these Medically qualified /trained people DR's and Nurses that work for companies like Maximus and Atos and are employed as DISABILITY ANALYSTS, Many of them have said because they are not acting in the capacity of DR or nurse they are not bound by the Hippocratic oath , and the wording used by these companies and DWP is that we are not patients , but claimants , Now i thought this is how they haven't been successfully sued in the courts by now, for ignoring peoples conditions and evidence from better qualified HCP's than them, as well as the fake examination they carry out, But reading an article from the BMA iirc, the oath that they all took still applies regardless of itf they are assessing benefit claimants or workers for companies or athletes ,

If this is correct

1, why has no one sued them yet? and why hasn't the BMA acted and struck them off the register?

[Lapsed Workaholic]

That's a good question Tommy. I don't know whether or not anybody has sued or tried to sue any of those so-called assessors, or why the so-called assessors are not struck off. I can't answer your question because only those who have grounds to sue and don't can answer that.

 

Even if you total up everyone on here who have been through the ordeal you would still only be scratching the surface. There are thousands out there suffering in silence and, sad to reflect, many die, some at their own hand.

 

There is a small but significant number of members on here who have given accounts of their experiences and are adamant that they were blatantly lied to and/or lied about. Perhaps they might supply an answer as to why they didn't take legal action before we wander into the realms of speculation. Is it the hassle, the cost, the lack of admissible evidence, who can say?

 

If there is a law that says those charlatans may not be sued or struck of then let's examine it and see if it not being bent and twisted in some instance.

 

On the other hand there are laws that can be used to bring those people to book, it's just a question working out which they are, how to use them, and how to build and present a case with teeth enough to win. We only need one example, it's that close.

 

Unfortunately as the laws to crush the vulnerable were being spewed out on the pretext that the country could no longer afford the pittance they had to survive on anyway, other laws were enacted to deny the self same vulnerable access to, or the protection of, the law.

 

I was once told by a JCP flunky who knew full well that he was lying to me that I could not say such a thing about him and get away with it (whilst tearing into him in my own defence I used several uncomplimentary Anglo-Saxon expletives). I told him in no uncertain terms to do his worst, that I couldn't afford to take him to court, but I would have my day in court if he took me, so bring it on.

 

You see, those flunkies are guaranteed a certain degree of legal protection by claiming that they are civil servants, or in the employ of the civil service, or that some law or other protects them. Now the trick is to coax them to step a fraction outside the bounds set by laws that they believe protects them, then BINGO, you've got them like rats in a trap. Some are harder to coax than others but there are ways to trap them too. The issue at stake is then usually resolved amicably with you not even needing to have your day in court.

Edited January 12, 2017 by honeybee13
Pejorative sentence removed.

[tommy456]

Well i have been thinking a lot about my next WCA farce, I'm thinking of asking who ever is playing the part of assessor (Disability analyst)about their ethics and duties of care , and also give a commentary of any activity that the audio recording can't give, such as saying for the benefit of the recording the Disability analyst is sat or stood at their desk i'm some 5-10mtrs away on the examination couch i am unable to move my limb as they have asked due to the pain , ect ect, cut down on their ability to write bs & lies even further

 

I was reading that they may be introducing body worn cctv for them to ware, this on the face of it is a good thing, but it won't record what is going on if they are not looking at you , but i guess it has to be better than just audio records

[Lapsed Workaholic]

When you say that you are thinking about your next WCA farce it would suggest that you have had one or more already.

 

Out of respect to Max and so as not to take over his thread, it may be appropriate to start a new thread if you wish to start and continue a discussion on your issues. I would be happy to continue the discussion there. If you have already had a thread where you discussed your case perhaps you could redirect us to that one. It would save you repeating anything you have already posted.

[tommy456]

No, i haven't added it to the existing thread i already have about loosing my appeal /s and yes i have endured several of the ESA F2F farces, with the same end result a score of zero, But back on topic re the Hippocratic oath , I have found through further research that DR's and Nurses who have more recently qualified to register & practice, they don't as a rule all swear on the oath any-more , but they do have to adhere to the rules of their governing bodies such as the GMC and midwifery council, for registered nurses , and even physio therapists have their own regulations and practices to follow https://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/

[Lapsed Workaholic]

OK Tommy. The issues you raise follows on from the research undertaken by MAX re doctors on Appeals Tribunal Panels. Like Max, you have exposed a subject here that definitely needs further scrutiny.

 

The Work Capability Assessment Handbook published by DWP states in its Foreword:

 

"All Healthcare Professionals undertaking medical assessments must be registered practitioners, who in addition, have undergone training in disability assessment medicine and specific training in the relevant benefit areas. The training includes theory training in a classroom setting, supervised practical training, and a demonstration of understanding as assessed by quality audit".

 

This Handbook can be viewed at:

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535065/wca-handbook-july-2016.pdf

 

 

 

 

General Medical Council (GMC)

 

From the GMC website at:

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/medical_register.asp

 

" Doctors must be registered with a license to practice with the General Medical Council (GMC), to practice medicine in the UK".

 

and

 

" All doctors must be familiar with and follow Good medical practice and the explanatory guidance".

 

More details on what they mean by "Good Medical Practice" at:

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice.asp

 

and

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance.asp

 

Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC)

 

Nurses who are registered with the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) must adhere to the NMC Code.

 

"The Code contains the professional standards that registered nurses and midwives must uphold. UK nurses and midwives must act in line with the Code, whether they are providing direct care to individuals, groups or communities or bringing their professional knowledge to bear on nursing and midwifery practice in other roles, such as leadership, education or research. While you can interpret the values and principles set out in the Code in a range of different practice settings, they are not negotiable or discretionary".

 

The NMC Code can be viewed at:

 

https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf

 

Health & Care Professionals Council (HCPC)

 

The Health & Care Professionals Council, which cater for higher categories of medical practitioners, also has Rules that medical practitioners registered with it must adhere to. Those Rules are referred to as Standards. Anyone registering with this Council must keep to the Rules and keep up the Standards .

 

Those Rules may be viewed at:

 

https://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10004EE2Ourrulesforhowhealthandcareprofessionalsbehave.pdf

I don't know if there any other Councils or bodies that the DWP find it acceptable for the medical practitioners that they use for assessments to be registered with but I would be very surprised if they did not all have some codes or standards similar to the ones for the Councils already alluded to.

 

From all the above one can only presume that any medical practitioner registered with those bodies must abide by the rules, codes, standards of those bodies. Failure to do so will result in being struck off the register.

 

Getting struck off the register, upon which the assessor's authority to assess rests, must mean that the assessor may no longer assess for the DWP since being registered is a pre-condition of becoming an assessor in the first place.

 

Reading some of the experiences of claimants who have been through the assessment process it is obvious that many of those assessors are putting the guidance and instruction given them by the DWP for its own ends before their duty of care and the honest discharge of their skills as medical practitioners.

 

The question now is: What do we do about it?

[tommy456]

OK Tommy. The issues you raise follows on from the research undertaken by MAX re doctors on Appeals Tribunal Panels. Like Max, you have exposed a subject here that definitely needs further scrutiny.

 

The Work Capability Assessment Handbook published by DWP states in its Foreword:

 

"All Healthcare Professionals undertaking medical assessments must be registered practitioners, who in addition, have undergone training in disability assessment medicine and specific training in the relevant benefit areas. The training includes theory training in a classroom setting, supervised practical training, and a demonstration of understanding as assessed by quality audit".

 

This Handbook can be viewed at:

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535065/wca-handbook-july-2016.pdf

 

 

 

 

General Medical Council (GMC)

 

From the GMC website at:

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/medical_register.asp

 

" Doctors must be registered with a license to practice with the General Medical Council (GMC), to practice medicine in the UK".

 

and

 

" All doctors must be familiar with and follow Good medical practice and the explanatory guidance".

 

More details on what they mean by "Good Medical Practice" at:

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice.asp

 

and

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance.asp

 

Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC)

 

Nurses who are registered with the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) must adhere to the NMC Code.

 

"The Code contains the professional standards that registered nurses and midwives must uphold. UK nurses and midwives must act in line with the Code, whether they are providing direct care to individuals, groups or communities or bringing their professional knowledge to bear on nursing and midwifery practice in other roles, such as leadership, education or research. While you can interpret the values and principles set out in the Code in a range of different practice settings, they are not negotiable or discretionary".

 

The NMC Code can be viewed at:

 

https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf

 

Health & Care Professionals Council (HCPC)

 

The Health & Care Professionals Council, which cater for higher categories of medical practitioners, also has Rules that medical practitioners registered with it must adhere to. Those Rules are referred to as Standards. Anyone registering with this Council must keep to the Rules and keep up the Standards .

 

Those Rules may be viewed at:

 

https://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10004EE2Ourrulesforhowhealthandcareprofessionalsbehave.pdf

I don't know if there any other Councils or bodies that the DWP find it acceptable for the medical practitioners that they use for assessments to be registered with but I would be very surprised if they did not all have some codes or standards similar to the ones for the Councils already alluded to.

 

From all the above one can only presume that any medical practitioner registered with those bodies must abide by the rules, codes, standards of those bodies. Failure to do so will result in being struck off the register.

 

Getting struck off the register, upon which the assessor's authority to assess rests, must mean that the assessor may no longer assess for the DWP since being registered is a pre-condition of becoming an assessor in the first place.

 

Reading some of the experiences of claimants who have been through the assessment process it is obvious that many of those assessors are putting the guidance and instruction given them by the DWP for its own ends before their duty of care and the honest discharge of their skills as medical practitioners.

 

The question now is: What do we do about it?

would complaining to the organisation that they are registered with with an explanation of the issues, possibly backed up with clinical evidence from Your Doctor or specialist that you may have seen, would be a starting place i would imagine ,

 

But where the average claimant could go from their i don't know, Is it the HCP or their employer you are best gunning for , it could be this lack of readily available info why they have likely gotten away with this sort of thing so far, they cannot be untouchable their masters maybe though

 

I imagine complaints to the likes of Maximums are laughed at and not taken seriously by them ,so would be akin to them banging their heads repeatedly against a brick wall

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I have been reading up on the history of your case, hard to credit that you have been fighting this thing for over 4 years. I haven't got past 2013 yet and I'm feeling suicidal already, God knows how you must be feeling.

 

Each of the bodies alluded to earlier has its own website and amongst all the other information they give details of how to make a complaint to them about anyone registered with them. Of course you will need to check that the person you intend to complain about is on their register. How to do this is also explained.

Each of the medical practitioners involved in your case from start to finish could be the subject of a separate complaint to the body with which they are registered. That doctor you saw early on who refused to help you appears to have acted totally out of order.

 

Obviously a description of your condition along with the GP's or specialist's diagnosis would be helpful to start with. Then a description of how the assessor ignored, dismissed or distorted everything both your doctors and yourself provided for, and/or said at, the assessment.

 

Administrative oversights, delays, ignored, misdirected, lost or misleading communications, calls etc. could be the subject of separate maladministration complaints to Atos, Maximus, DWP and JCP. God knows you have enough ammunition for that.

 

This way you would be gunning for both the HCPs and those who employ them, each for the part they played and can't avoid taking responsibility for.

 

Recordings of your meeting, appointments, assessments, etc. would greatly assist but if you haven't got them you have to hope that your word is just as good, better in fact, than theirs'.

Edited January 13, 2017 by honeybee13
Pejorative comment about doctor removed.

[tommy456]

Yeah, the fist appeal took over 12mths iirc from the first tribunal hearing date ,that i was unable to attend due to not having the cash to buy a train ticket thanks to the JC+ and it's sanction targets

As for the two HCP's i take it you mean the previous two GP's ? both are now retired