Atos & The Law

Hi

There was an interesting post on Sue Marsh's blog regarding this. In this blog, Sue, after consultation with Tom Greatrex MP, mentions:


"By introducing a totally new benefit, ESA (Employment and Support Allowance, the replacement for the old Incapacity Benefit) ministers hoped that they were able to wipe all precedent from the decision process. What does this mean? It means that if you qualified before, you need not qualify under a totally new benefit. Not that you are a fraud in 2012 where you were not a fraud in 2005, simply that governments moved the goalposts. Or hoped they had.

However, if it was dangerous to employ someone in 2005 (due to medication, inability to mobilise etc) it is still dangerous to employ them in 2012. Under the law. If someone's condition clearly limits their ability to work in 2005, it still limits their ability to work in 2012. Under the law. If someone's disability made them a danger to themselves or others in 2005, nothing has changed in 2012. Under the law. "

What implications does this have for those of us not yet migrated from Incapacity Benefit? Does it mean we have the law on our side? Could we argue this then in law? Is it in fact 'illegal' what they are trying to do? I do fully appreciate you can't give legal advice but at least I would be grateful if you are able to throw some light onto the matter if possible.

Many thanks.

Asbo wrote:

Hi

There was an interesting post on Sue Marsh's blog regarding this. In this blog, Sue, after consultation with Tom Greatrex MP, mentions:


"By introducing a totally new benefit, ESA (Employment and Support Allowance, the replacement for the old Incapacity Benefit) ministers hoped that they were able to wipe all precedent from the decision process. What does this mean? It means that if you qualified before, you need not qualify under a totally new benefit. Not that you are a fraud in 2012 where you were not a fraud in 2005, simply that governments moved the goalposts. Or hoped they had.

However, if it was dangerous to employ someone in 2005 (due to medication, inability to mobilise etc) it is still dangerous to employ them in 2012. Under the law. If someone's condition clearly limits their ability to work in 2005, it still limits their ability to work in 2012. Under the law. If someone's disability made them a danger to themselves or others in 2005, nothing has changed in 2012. Under the law. "

What implications does this have for those of us not yet migrated from Incapacity Benefit? Does it mean we have the law on our side? Could we argue this then in law? Is it in fact 'illegal' what they are trying to do? I do fully appreciate you can't give legal advice but at least I would be grateful if you are able to throw some light onto the matter if possible.

Many thanks.

Hi A,

I believe that this argument is being discussed on rightsnet by the WRO's.

See also Crazydiamond's post on this, here :

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?func=vie...id=10&id=82487#82487

As far as I am aware, a case has not been won on this argument, and as you will note from CD's advice above, one should not rely on this argument alone.

bro58

Many thanks, bro58, I will look at that thread.

Many thanks, Gordon. Yes I did know about the Exceptional Circumstances rule which helped my sister get into the Support group via the person who was representing her but I didn't know that the onus was on the claimant so thanks for that

I applied for dla at the end of February this year .i was refused it on the basis of a medical report for August last year
i appealed this it was changed before it went to appeal
this was a 3rd dm and granted it & HRM .i filled in forms based
on your guides .