To All The Tory Voters

Do you believe the assessment is around whether someone has a health condition or not?

I believe it's based on whether that health condition restricts their abilities.

His abilities had been restricted and he was considered unable to work from his 30s until his late 50s, then hey presto, pops to see you boys and he's made a miraculous recovery. According to the assesment.

So what of the previous two decades of assesments?
 
I believe it's based on whether that health condition restricts their abilities.

His abilities had been restricted and he was considered unable to work from his 30s until his late 50s, then hey presto, pops to see you boys and he's made a miraculous recovery. According to the assesment.

So what of the previous two decades of assesments?

It’s an assessment of someone’s function ability on a day to day business. You would have the person describe a typical day and answer questions based on what descriptors they state they have issues with. Each descriptor has points (mostly 6,9,15).

Example someone may say they have upper limb issues and in their questionnaire state they can not lift either arm above head height. They may thrn he asked do they shower and if so can they wash their hair. If they state yes you have shown that you can lift at least one arm above head height therefore score zero points.

There a million and one things I could describe but that’s how it works in a nut shell.

Now in your friends case if he had been found unfit for work on many occasions and then fit for work all of a sudden that would seem abit iffy to me. Therefore I wouldn’t take that assessment at face value. Admittedly in the past too much emphasis was placed on the assessment alone, something which in the past year has changed a lot.
 
The change? Too much emphasis being placed on the assessment probably. Also the call to the customer stated to become less of a discussion to find out how their health condition affected them and more of this is the decision here’s how you challenge it and what benefit is available.

The approach now is to take everything into account, is the assessment consistent with medical information. Contact medical professional who may see thst person more often and gather that information too. Obviously this has lead to more decision disagreeing with the assessment when advised fit for work and finding people unfit. Above 30% in my office
 
Someone above a coach who sanctions or doesn’t sanction and decides upon the length. They can sanction for all sorts of trivial reasons- I know of one woman who had a 6 month sanction; no money whatsoever.

As stated a sanction has to be approved by an SEO a grade that is higher than a decision maker. There are various decision makers for all sorts of things. As stated I do WCA and HRT decisions (but of course I don’t work there remember 🤔)
 
Yes even after appeals, as I recall, let me find some links for you. It is harrowing to read in terms of how a civilized country can abandon people so completely.
 
Yes even after appeals, as I recall, let me find some links for you. It is harrowing to read in terms of how a civilized country can abandon people so completely.

Not at all. The case which I know you are going to post (as you did the other day) was a fail to attend. So the change in approach had zero to do with them cases (as it’s not an assessment)
 
Seriously, that just comes across as a rant.
And to rant back, if your reference about £350m is did I vote to leave the EU, then yes I did. And I did it because having lived on teesside all my life I have seen the decimation of shipbuilding, steel manufacture and mining in the area. The loss of well paid manufacturing jobs with decent pensions, replaced by service sector call centre jobs on minimum wages.
.....could you point me to which EU policy made the above happen, in spite of the UK government of the time? I'll wait....
 
Not at all. The case which I know you are going to post (as you did the other day) was a fail to attend. So the change in approach had zero to do with them cases (as it’s not an assessment)
You may be right Cooper, I am working from memory. I think Steven Smith was a fail to show which resulted in sanctions, Errol Graham, I can't remember of the top of my head why he was sanctioned. Both, as I recall starved to death, and the DWP was not at fault as they followed government policy. The policy is to blame. As I say, I think the judicial review is still ongoing.
 
Actually the first one is an assessment I know the other is failed to attend
 
The establishmen, which is why the tories are no worse than labour.
Surely the old etonian, Oxbridge, offshore account holding, old money, landed gentry, royalist, Tories ARE the establishment. Your statement above seems to indicate that you believe that the trade unions and Jeremy, beardy, Palestinian supporting, anti-royal, socialist, non-university educated Corbyn is more 'establishmen't than the Tories?! I think you need to learn to understand the history of the establishment, the battle for workers right from the unions, and Corbyn (love or loath him) a little more before making such silly comments.
 
Back
Top