Per ATOS/DWP: Able to Leave Home, Fit to Travel Anywhere

Those poor folk at ATOS appear to be working the bank holiday as I have just received a response to the complaint I did not make!

On 24th May ATOS issued the following letter in respect to my last email to them, outlined in my previous blog-post, ATOS & DWP question whether disabled can go abroad.

Dear Mr Hunter

Thank you for your recent communication, in which you expressed concerns regarding your application for Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

An investigation will now take place into the issues you have raised and we aim to complete our investigation within 20 working days. However, if the investigation takes longer than anticipated I will continue to update you of our progress.

Should you have any queries in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact our customer service team on the above telephone number or myself at the address below.

Yours sincerely

Annmarie Cowley

Client Relations Officer
Atos Healthcare
PIP Customer Relations
PO Box 1006
Stockton-on-Tees
TS19 1UL

Today's response is:

Dear Mr Hunter

Thank you for your email, in which you express your concerns with regard to your application for Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

As part of Atos Healthcare’s commitment to provide a service of the highest standard, it is important that we continue to be open and receptive to the views of those whose lives are affected by the service that we provide. I am, therefore, grateful for your feedback.

I understand from your correspondence that after you received a letter for a face to face assessment you contacted the Customer Service Centre and the Agent requested a Home Consultation (HC) which unfortunately was denied.

Home Consultations (HC) are reserved for claimants who do not leave their properties for any reason due to their conditions. In some instances, exceptions can be made to this rule providing that certain criteria can been met. Upon review of your questionnaire, it was established that you were able to travel abroad therefore could attend an Assessment Centre (AC), however you have explained the circumstances behind this and a Paper Based Review (PBR) has been completed after Atos Healthcare spoke with health professionals involved in your care.

I am pleased to tell you that the report has now been completed and returned to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), for a decision to be made. For any further update the DWP can be contacted on 0345 850 33 22.

This concludes the investigation carried out in regards to your complaint. I understand you feel we have not met your expectations during this time and I would like to apologise for
any distress or upset caused; I can assure you this is never our intention. I do hope that any future dealings you may have with our service will not cause you any further concern.

Yours sincerely,

Annmarie Cowley

Apparently: "Home Consultations (HC) are reserved for claimants who do not leave their properties for any reason due to their conditions."

What an absurd position!

You can get to a hospital appointment - no HC

You can get to your GP's - no HC
 
You can get to the dentist - no HC
 
You can get to the optician - no HC
 
You can get to the podiatrist - no HC
 
You can get to the physiotherapist - no HC
 
You can be wheeled out for a breath of fresh air - no HC

Such absolutist stances are disablist and contrary to common-sense. No account is taken of fluctuating conditions; the need for medication prior to, during and post appointments, nor their effects on one's mental capabilities; the ability or not to travel over distance; the amount of stress, whether physical &/or emotional; the need for support to attend appointments; the ability to travel on public-transport; and so on.

And note: I only got somewhere because I had the gumption to stand up for myself and wrote back to ATOS pointing out the stupidity of their position. Most folk would probably have done as instructed, i.e. refer back to the DWP. At the point where I raised the possibility that attending a medical examination centre would not be possible, ATOS ought then to have acted pro-actively and contacted my medics for their medical opinions. I had to press them to do so.

Health is not black and white: if x then y. It is innumerable shades of grey: if a then b or c or d or…

ATOS' standard of healthcare is illogical, unreasonable and contrary to common-sense and additionally costs the tax-payers of the country each time they carry out a review. As I stated previously, if ATOS returns cases to the DWP, they can then claim a further payment for a further review.

Scotland is getting rid of private contractors from the social security system. It's about time England followed suite!

 

 

Billions removed from local economies - due to Government folly

The UK ConDem coalition government in its economic stupidity and arrogance is part-way through slashing social security payments to those in need - the vast majority of the British population benefits from such payments, now euphemistically termed 'welfare' by the spinning propagandists amongst the neo-liberal élite.

For those unfamiliar with UK taxation: inter alia, all employees, self-employed and carers pay (or have paid on their behalf in the case of the latter) national insurance contributions. These monies are supposed to be used to fund social security payments: for those who find themselves in straitened circumstances (the unemployed, the underemployed & the working-poor); for those with disabilities (to help towards the extra costs they face residing in a disablist society); for those with illnesses which mean they cannot work; for the terminally ill; for parents to help raise children. It is a type of insurance scheme. As such, not everyone will need to claim; but most do at some point in their lives, even if for example only child benefit.

The ConDems have cut billions of pounds from benefits whilst they have in practice turned a blind-eye to tax avoidance & evasion by international conglomerates and wealthy individuals. In April they gave millionaires a whopping tax-break whilst at the same time cutting benefits to tens of thousands causing misery through penury, hunger (hence the concomitant rise in the use of food-banks) and increased homelessness. The ConDems in their rhetoric call this "fairness" to taxpayers. However, every adult is a taxpayer, paying a least one of the innumerable taxes in the UK: from income tax, duties, television licence fees to VAT and car tax.

[Image description: Cameron transmogrified into a Ferengi]

A week ago I reported that the BBC chose to ignore the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion's (CESI) report commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents all English and Welsh local authorities whatever their respective political colours.

I have taken details from pages twenty and twenty-one of the report and list below the effects in roughly ten percent of these local authorities. The reader will note that local economies are losing millions of pounds. The knock-on effect is that local businesses have less custom and end up closing. This results in even more money lost to local authorities, not taken into account in the figures listed, due to loss of business rates and so forth. Furthermore, the Exchequer loses out on corporation taxes from once profitable companies. And so on. This is economic madness all done in the name of austerity, a policy adopted in the early part of the twentieth century and which led to the length of the Great Depression.

Everybody, including the middle classes, is losing out. Only the ultra-rich continue to prosper. And this is "fairness"…

The Stats

Woking Local Authority’s economy loses c. £14,400,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,735.30 to 8,287 claimant households.

Burnley Local Authority’s economy loses c. £29,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,736.49 to 16,874 claimant households.

Waltham Forest Local Authority’s economy loses c. £70,400,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,739.64 to 40,487 claimant households.

West Somerset Local Authority’s economy loses c. £8,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,757.22 to 4,526 claimant households.

Hounslow Local Authority’s economy loses c. £57,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,758.32 to 32,597 claimant households.

Islington Local Authority’s economy loses c. £55,900,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,761.23 to 31,735 claimant households.

Tower Hamlets Local Authority’s economy loses c. £71,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,761.64 to 40,621 claimant households.

Luton Local Authority’s economy loses c. £55,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,770.39 to 31,448 claimant households.

Rossendale Local Authority’s economy loses c. £19,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,771.81 to 10,892 claimant households.

Blackpool Local Authority’s economy loses c. £57,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,778.63 to 32,365 claimant households.

Oldham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £72,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,788.95 to 40,652 claimant households.

Croydon Local Authority’s economy loses c. £91,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,792.01 to 51,171 claimant households.

Hyndburn Local Authority’s economy loses c. £27,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,819.52 to 15,222 claimant households.

Blackburn with Darwen Local Authority’s economy loses c. £53,500,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,826.31 to 29,276 claimant households.

Brighton & Hove Local Authority’s economy loses c. £67,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,830.55 to 36,591 claimant households.

Hammersmith & Fulham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £38,800,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,832.17 to 21,204 claimant households.

Pendle Local Authority’s economy loses c. £28,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,835.59 to 15,406 claimant households.

Lewisham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £81,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,835.65 to 44,511 claimant households.

Newham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £98,500,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,869.03 to 52,682 claimant households.

Slough Unitary Authority’s economy loses c. £37,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,873.91 to 19,925 claimant households.

Kingston-upon-Thames Local Authority’s economy loses c. £25,100,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,874.66 to 13,400 claimant households.

Redbridge Local Authority’s economy loses c. £65,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,881.08 to 34,695 claimant households.

Haringey Local Authority’s economy loses c. £81,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,019.10 to 40,487 claimant households.

Enfield Local Authority’s economy loses c. £97,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,019.26 to 48,315 claimant households.

Harrow Local Authority’s economy loses c. £51,800,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,046.22 to 25,320 claimant households.

Ealing Local Authority’s economy loses c. £91,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,076.59 to 44,181 claimant households.

Barnet Local Authority’s economy loses c. £81,400,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,105.62 to 38,664 claimant households.

Hackney Local Authority’s economy loses c. £89,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,132.97 to 41,863 claimant households.

Camden Local Authority’s economy loses c. £58,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,194.93 to 26,677 claimant households.

Wandsworth Local Authority’s economy loses c. £66,200,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of 2,242.61 to 29,257 claimant households.

Brent Local Authority’s economy loses c. £124,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,774.80 to 44,688 claimant households.

Kensington & Chelsea Local Authority’s economy loses c. £57,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £4,068.80 to 14,048 claimant households.

Westminster Local Authority’s economy loses c. £129,200,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £5,161.14 to 25,038 claimant households.


WoWpetition

If the reader is a UK resident or a UK passport-holder resident outside the UK, you may wish to support the campaign against the War on Welfare, known as WOW. The link to the official petition and more information can be found at wowpetition.com .