[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Many (those on IB and ESA) are bricking themselves because they will be called to another degrading capability assessment (which are notorious for recording inaccurate information) and a needless application for Income Support only to win back their ESA/IB at the end of the appeal period. Others (those on DLA) because they will have mountains of paperwork to look forward to and an automatic cut to their benefit.

Whatever bogus claimants of disability benefit cost the taxpayer is dwarfed by the cost of these mandatory capability assessments (13 weeks after the initial claim) which treat genuine clients like benefit fraudsters. Plus those who fiddle the system get by by claiming provisional payments of their ESA up until their appeal. What do they do once the appeal is over and they've lost? Take it to appeal again and again and again. An immensely wasteful and unfair system.

As a matter of fact my workplace deals with people who have problems with the DWP on a daily basis. The tribunals worker is usually saddled with ESA and Incapacity spongers (as his clients are those who failed the appeal stage). Not one bogus claimant I observed has claimed IB or ESA on grounds of mental health problems. All were physical complaints such as arthritis or hypoglycaemia.

I know of a family whose Father started to get Dementia,he was aged 54,He had to go to one these assessments and fortunately someone went with him.

The questions overall were about what work he'd done and apparantly to one question he was asked did he use computers in his last job,he said Yes, he was asked did he get out,go for walks, he said Yes,he was asked if he went shopping,he said Yes.

The problem being he says Yes to almost everything,as I said fortunately someone was with him and eventually insisted on making their points which were, that this man always says Yes,and the friends fears were that the ?doctor?(I use the term doctor loosely) assessing him was merely ticking boxes based on his responses.
His friend pointed out that he did use a computer at work over 4 years ago but now would not be able to do anyhting much than look at the screen now,he did go out,yes he did go out, to the gate of his house and often stand there waiting ages for someone to come and take him back in the house,did he go shopping Yes with help and had to be stopped putting 4 cartons of 2litres of milk in the trolley and loads of other things he didn't need.

That's all I know of that scenario but had his friend not gone in with him for the assessment but waited outside I guess he would have likely from his answers been deemed fit for some work and had benefits stopped ( with the then process of an appeal to go though to try and get them back) without the expansion and further detail of his answers by someone who knew the real facts.

His friend said the interviewer was rather hostile to him and his presence there with him and really concentrated little on his health and only asked what medication he was on after his friends intervention.

That does not sound to me a correct or sensitive way to do these assessments.
It had taken a year to even get him to see his own Doctor due to his problems, the only thing is that because of his dementia the trauma of the assessment will be forgotten quickly by him but nonetheless it seems more sensitivity is needed but I would advise anyone going to these assessments to take someone with them and go in with them to the assessment too.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I know of a family whose Father started to get Dementia,he was aged 54,He had to go to one these assessments and fortunately someone went with him.

The questions overall were about what work he'd done and apparantly to one question he was asked did he use computers in his last job,he said Yes, he was asked did he get out,go for walks, he said Yes,he was asked if he went shopping,he said Yes.

The problem being he says Yes to almost everything,as I said fortunately someone was with him and eventually insisted on making their points which were, that this man always says Yes,and the friends fears were that the ?doctor?(I use the term doctor loosely) assessing him was merely ticking boxes based on his responses.
His friend pointed out that he did use a computer at work over 4 years ago but now would not be able to do anyhting much than look at the screen now,he did go out,yes he did go out, to the gate of his house and often stand there waiting ages for someone to come and take him back in the house,did he go shopping Yes with help and had to be stopped putting 4 cartons of 2litres of milk in the trolley and loads of other things he didn't need.

That's all I know of that scenario but had his friend not gone in with him for the assessment but waited outside I guess he would have likely from his answers been deemed fit for some work and had benefits stopped ( with the then process of an appeal to go though to try and get them back) without the expansion and further detail of his answers by someone who knew the real facts.

His friend said the interviewer was rather hostile to him and his presence there with him and really concentrated little on his health and only asked what medication he was on after his friends intervention.

That does not sound to me a correct or sensitive way to do these assessments.
It had taken a year to even get him to see his own Doctor due to his problems, the only thing is that because of his dementia the trauma of the assessment will be forgotten quickly by him but nonetheless it seems more sensitivity is needed but I would advise anyone going to these assessments to take someone with them and go in with them to the assessment too.

Unfortunate as this may have been...... and given that you weren't there personally and are hearing only a 'one sided version' (which of course could be very true, it could also have been exaggerated) - did the claimant qualify? If they did..... I'm not altogether convinced that 'one unpleasant assessment' is enough to complain about - if they passed and are in receipt of what they are entitled to. If the man in question has now qualified for his due rights -I'm not sure why this is deemed as such a problem.

Edit: to make my point: my mother underwent an assessment with me also being there. She too said yes to similar questions - going out / shopping...... and I pointed out that when she went grocery shopping: she thought nothing of placing 8 dozen eggs in her trolley - because in her mind, my father was still alive and was was stocking up for the Cafe he owned, as well as purchasing dog food for dogs that she hadn't had for over 8 years. I didn't find having to explain the full scenario as intrusive, my mother was answering 'truthfully' and my being there to quantify and explain - was part and parcel of the process.

Also: you mention that it took a year for this man you mention to attend his doctor due to his problems:- I'm not sure I'm in total acceptance of that..... again, years aso, my own mother was at one point suffering so badly that not only did she have her GP visiit her home, Psychiatriasts also came to her because the thought of her having to leave the house, quite literally (and I mean literally) had her overdosing due to the terror that thought brought her.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Unfortunate as this may have been...... and given that you weren't there personally and are hearing only a 'one sided version' (which of course could be very true, it could also have been exaggerated) - did the claimant qualify? If they did..... I'm not altogether convinced that 'one unpleasant assessment' is enough to complain about - if they passed and are in receipt of what they are entitled to. If the man in question has now qualified for his due rights -I'm not sure why this is deemed as such a problem.

Edit: to make my point: my mother underwent an assessment with me also being there. She too said yes to similar questions - going out / shopping...... and I pointed out that when she went grocery shopping: she thought nothing of placing 8 dozen eggs in her trolley - because in her mind, my father was still alive and was was stocking up for the Cafe he owned, as well as purchasing dog food for dogs that she hadn't had for over 8 years. I didn't find having to explain the full scenario as intrusive, my mother was answering 'truthfully' and my being there to quantify and explain - was part and parcel of the process.

Also: you mention that it took a year for this man you mention to attend his doctor due to his problems:- I'm not sure I'm in total acceptance of that..... again, years aso, my own mother was at one point suffering so badly that not only did she have her GP visiit her home, Psychiatriasts also came to her because the thought of her having to leave the house, quite literally (and I mean literally) had her overdosing due to the terror that thought brought her.

The family are neighbours of my parents,he muddled on for over a year before his family could convince him to put some trust in his GP and mention the memory problems.

I would believe this goes on as a norm. I think as well as the stranger doctor there assessing the claimant that someone as an independent observer with some rough guide to the interviewees condition should be also.As a double check.

People with Dementia/early Alzheimers often know something is wrong but dismiss it themselves until it reaches the point where they need some help to function in their lives.Hence seeing the Doctor late on from the start.Many haven't a clue as to pinpointing when the problems did start

Your edit: however Pyramid, near confirms what I said, you on the other hand were received it appears better than my neighbours friend was, maybe that was because you were your Mothers Daughter while the person with my neighbour was just a friend,one of his old workmates.
I think in your edit:,you bear out my point in part that its wise to have someone with in any event,actually in the room for the assessment not just with you at wherever these things take place.

[Vicky.]

Many people play up on it. Though I know a few people(unfortunately) on IB/ESA who are not ill, but they tend to use other reasons apart from mental health to claim. Their reason being, its harder to act than to take a walking stick for your assessment for the day. Which is true. If you have never actually had a mental illness, how would you know how to 'fake' one?

As for the assessments, gotta agree with BB eye here. The ATOS assessments are ridiculous and designed only to force genuinely sick people(and a few who might be faking) off ESA/IB. Force them to go through tribunals, which a huge percentage of people win...if this doesnt tell you something about the ATOS medicals then nothing will. If they find so many genuinely ill people fit for work, but then they are examined/questioned by a REAL doctor and are found unfit...

I think the assessments are a total waste of money. Basically what they are doing is ignoring what your qualified GP says, you know, someone who actually has training and experience in whatever your illness may be...and taking someone who usually doesnt know what they are talking abouts advice instead. Most(I say this as there *might* actually be a couple of qualified doctors..but not many) of the people who carry out the medicals arent actually qualified to recognise symptoms of mental illness. Many are ex midwives etc

Basically, from what I know of people...mental illness is not the main thing people use to play the system. As the people who have been through it all before know that it is easier to be 'passed' by using physical disability.

I think I still have my forms somewhere(though it was a few years ago now)...the ones they send back scoring you. And tbh if I was playing the system I would just take a walking stick with me and say I couldnt walk up stairs and that, because you would get the full 15 points pretty easily that way.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The family are neighbours of my parents,he muddled on for over a year before his family could convince him to put some trust in his GP and mention the memory problems.

I would believe this goes on as a norm. I think as well as the stranger doctor there assessing the claimant that someone as an independent observer with some rough guide to the interviewees condition should be also.As a double check.

People with Dementia/early Alzheimers often know something is wrong but dismiss it themselves until it reaches the point where they need some help to function in their lives.Hence seeing the Doctor late on from the start.Many haven't a clue as to pinpointing when the problems did start

Your edit: however Pyramid, near confirms what I said, you on the other hand were received it appears better than my neighbours friend was, maybe that was because you were your Mothers Daughter while the person with my neighbour was just a friend,one of his old workmates.
I think in your edit:,you bear out my point in part that its wise to have someone with in any event,actually in the room for the assessment not just with you at wherever these things take place.

I'd like to ask how you seem to be so certain that 'I was received better than anyone else'. I didn't intimate that - I said that I personally didn't find it intrusive - neither did I find it intrusive when asked about very and intimate personal matters - I didn't find it intrusive because I knew they had to ask - in order to ascertain.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'd like to ask how you seem to be so certain that 'I was received better than anyone else'. I didn't intimate that - I said that I personally didn't find it intrusive - neither did I find it intrusive when asked about very and intimate personal matters - I didn't find it intrusive because I knew they had to ask - in order to ascertain.

Pyramid,I didn't say I was certain, I said it appeared you had been received better with your knowledge as opposed to the point I made as to the mans friend not being able to easily give his knowledge of his former workmates plight. It's a very serious subject and you said yourself you didn't find it intrusive. Therefore since you were acknowledged and listened to at the assessment I then assumed you had been more involved in the assessment even in part as to just explaining your Mother's problems at the time.

What happened in the case I was on about was that my Mum's neighbours friend had felt he was intruding and that the interviewer made him feel that way,eventually after more than once trying to, he was listened to in the end thankfully.

However, your case and my case differ in that only from what I can see you were able to easily,(thankfully), relay your Mother's condition,in the case I posted that was not the case without some effort.

I don't find the idea of the questioning intrusive, of course they need to know what's going on, but most things need greater elaboration as an answer than just a yes or no,people with Dementia are likely to do just that,use a yes or no, thereby in that assessment,those yes answers given could have, for a time anyway, lost the man his benefits had he been alone for the assessment.

I think Vicky has clearly shown how bad these assessements are and the waste of time and money they are considering the high,indeed very high, number of their decisions which are overturned on appeal.

I believe checking on claimants is fine but it needs to be done sensitively,properly and not with an agenda of so many have to be declared fit for work. As Vicky pointed out, a huge percentage win their appeals against the assessments so something is clearly massively wrong with them.
There must be.