Hello Forum. Three weeks ago or so, when I was busy downloading the latest ESA Guides, I came across a headline in the PIP area of the Benefits and Work Website that Maximus has constructed 8 arguments for the idea that a claimant with pronounced incontinence is still capable of working, along with a statement that Benefits and work had worked out the counter arguments against their reasoning. Because I was in a hurry, I did not look at this matter at the time, but intended to come back to it later (because, of course, no matter my benefit is ESA not PIP, Maximus will use the arguments against any claimant with incontinence). Unfortunately, when I came to look the matter up again, I couldn't find it. Can anyone tell me what these arguments and their counter arguments are please?
