Login FormClose

Free, fortnightly PIP, ESA and UC Updates

Our fortnightly bulletin, with over 80,000 subscribers, is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Find out what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare. Our mailing list is securely managed by icontact in the US.

A welfare rights worker has posted an extract from a DWP submission to a PIP tribunal in which the decision maker refers to the claimant as a ‘lying bitch’.

The two pages from an appeal submission have been posted by a professional welfare rights worker on the Rightsnet website, where they are a regular contributor.

The extract states that the claimant is able to drive her two children to school and therefore, in the opinion of the decision maker, does not require guidance or supervision.

The submission then goes on to argue that if the claimant’s function was as poor as she claims then “she would not be fit to drive as she would be a severe danger on the road and there is no evidence to suggest that DVLA have been informed of such”.

The decision maker looks at other benefits received by the claimant, arguing that ESA is assessed on different criteria and so not relevant, before turning to carers allowance and stating:

“Although Miss [redacted] has identified a high level of personal restriction, she is entitled to Carer’s. To be entitled to Carer’s Allowance a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another disabled person each week. In this lying bitches case she is receiving the middle rate carers allowance component for providing day-time supervision to another disabled person. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.”

Quite apart from the vicious expletive, which is utterly unpardonable whatever the explanation, the submission raises other concerns.

Not least the fact that there is no such thing as ‘middle rate carers allowance component’ and you would hope that a decision maker would have at least a beginner’s level of benefits knowledge.

The submission is badly constructed, suggests a large amount of copy and pasting has taken place from standard DWP appeal templates, is grammatically poor and contains basic spelling errors, such as using a foot pedal for “breaking” a car.

It is no surprise that the DWP is currently losing 73% of its PIP appeals if the hate-filled prejudice and ignorance on display here is a reflection of the professionalism of the staff it now employs.

You can read the full thread on the Rightsnet website.

Comments  

#4 Lima6 2019-03-28 14:38
I know that the fact that I was able to drive short journeys a couple of times a week was held against me when it came to Daily Living Component. It seems that the DWP considers driving, even an automatic car with various bells and whistles to help make driving easier, turns you into a superman/wonder woman. Wishful thinking. Mind you, the lasso of truth would come in handy when dealing with the so called healthcare professionals employed by the minions of the DWP.
#3 VOR_Stally 2019-03-27 14:48
This is taken from an appeal:

The medical report makes conclusions non sequitur e.g.
‘The CQ indicates he cannot plan to pay monthly bills. The AR1 indicates no change. He requires prompting and cannot manage his own finances. The FH indicates his wife does the bills as he spends in excess. The MSE indicates his mood only appeared mildly low...The HOC indicates he has no specialist input at present for the depression...he will tend to his roses...he will go on his ipad... he is able to drive an automatic car...It is therefore likely that he would be able to make basic and complex budgeting decisions unaided to an acceptable standard for the majority of days.’

To describe DM’s as wholly incompetent would be a gross underestimate!
#2 snowbird 2019-03-27 12:37
When i received a reply from the DWP for the ESA back pay fiasco,
it was on A4 paper, all the writing was in the left hand corner of the page and the font used must have been about 5 in size and i needed a magnifying glass to read it.
#1 Victoria Priestley 2019-03-27 09:11
I had a PIP claim refused at original submission and mandatory reconsideration . The standard of DWP reports, correspondence is really poor, cut and pasting is a generous description. Try to rise above it and focus on the actual facts - as in the unbelievable misnomer middle rate carers allowance.

You need to be logged in to comment