To wish ATOS would leave me alone

I think it is known as being economical with the truth.

It suits the government to attack soft targets like the sick and disabled rather than chase the money being hidden by their buddies in the banking and business sectors.

Vamp all DLA is being reviewed and changed over to the dreaded PIP, however if you're over 65 it stays as it is for the moment, and the rate PIP is being dealt with I reckon 60+ years before they start on the 65s

I've now done my first PIP appeals and they are extremely difficult and take a long time. It took me a whole day to prepare one day's cases and a very long time to deal with them. We reversed the ATOS decision in 3 out of the 4 cases we delay with. I was knackered at the end.

So you were knackered at the end, Galen, but you are also annoyed that you have to be pensioned off at 72, I think you said on a different thread.
I can see the connection. Hope you can.

If they would stop changing the system and the organisations and shifting the goalposts around, people like Galen, who knows the process and the system inside out, could continue to deal with it fairly without being compulsorily retired and a new lot brought in to start learning from scratch.

The disability member who was only in her thirties was also knackered.
You try asking questions and listening attentively to the answers for 6+ hours.

I'm dreading the time when they decide to change me over. I'm only 55 so it will come sooner rather than later.

If you need help? You know where to come. The skill is in understanding how the questions work.

Thanks Galen x

I agree, Elegran. IDS has made a right pig's ear of anything he touches.
How come he's still in the job?
My grandson tires me out teaching him for six hours a day five days a week, and I'm only 65, Galen. Far too many questions!

I don't know if you intended to be unkind in your comment to Galen about seeing the connection between feeling knackered and 'pensioned off' at 72, Jen, but that's what it sounded like

In my experience, exhaustion after an intensive day's work is not uncommon in anyone who has given 100% of their intellectual energy and who has drawn on the wisdom and knowledge gained through years of experience. It matters not how old the person is, but on the amount of effort needed and the demands of the task.

What is ridiculous about this entire process, is a government trying to make those who are incapacitated by illness, work, and preventing those who are willing and able from doing so.

What I remember from my days as a Benefit Advisor with Age Concern (as was) was that when filling these forms in it wasn't what you said but the way that you said it!

Precisely, and what corobative evidence you can include. Unfortunately GPs saying this patient is not fit for work is not helpful. The test is not a fit to work exam but what points you score. 15 to qualify.

I'm so relieved it went ok for you vampirequeen. It sounds as though the Atos doctor is a human being. I imagine he may well have gone home feeling knackered.

JenD, did you mean to sound so unpleasant towards Galen? 07.11.14 13.40) Galen often appears on threads like this one with helpful suggestions and offers of support. She doesn't defend unfair processes and seems to be on the side of people with health problems. The point about her age seemed particularly unkind, I well remember being totally knackered in my 30's after a day at work.

Didn't mean to be unkind to Galen. Would a smiley face have been better? I don't do those.

When I had a business I used to hate being a tax collector for the government, having to fill in all those forms for VAT, NI and income tax for my employees. When I retired, the best bit was no longer being a government lackey. Because I had a business I still get tax returns every year. This year when I filled it in, I found I actually owed them £1.10, and had to pay it. How silly is that?
There are threads on here where people are complaining about no longer being able to retire at 60. There's Galen complaining about being tired and having to retire at 72. Just saying that she probably deserves to retire and enjoy herself, rather than kowtow to the government's hotchpotch of ideas.
I agree with what MiceElf said about the ridiculousness of the situation.
What's wrong is that Galen should have to take hours to go through a review for one person who should not have had her benefits stopped in the first place.

Latest statistics on benefit fraud.

blog.whobenefits.org.uk/post/101918301863/benefit-fraud-stats-vast-majority-of-benefits-go-to

Total agreement from me and I suspect most people, with durhamjen's comment that "what's wrong is that Galen should have to take hours to go through a review for one person who should not have had her benefits stopped in the first place"

I don't read Galen's posts as indicating she is "kowtowing" to the government's hotchpotch of ideas. It sounds to me as though she's standing up for all of us

Have you met Galen, Durhamjen? I can't see her kowtowing to anyone.

Whatever the system of awards, an "appeal court" is needed for the cases that slip through the net. Miscarriages of justice have to be sorted out, whichever direction they are in. The benefits that go to fraudsters may be proportionately small, but discovering them means that the money wasted on them is available for more genuine claimants.

The evidence put forward can be detailed and esoteric, those sifting it need to be experienced in both the medical and the legal aspects. When they are still able and willing to do it, making them retire compulsorily at a set age seems draconian. The brain does not switch off suddenly when the body gets a little battered, and regular checks ensure that senility is not setting in.

More power to Galen that she prefers to use her abilities for the public good than to sit at home "enjoying herself" - and going stir crazy with enforced incarceration. I suspect she could keep on until she is 90, not 70. At least.

No, I haven't met Galen, Elegran. We live in different parts of the country, so am hardly likely to.
However, only about 0.7% of benefits go to fraud, so discovering fraudsters is not going to save that much money to be spent on hard-working families.
The appeal courts probably cost more than they save.

dwpunspun.org.uk/

This is the man who changed the system to PIP, and ought to be being attacked.

Galen's job is to examine the decisions of Atos (or whichever company is to take over from them) which are subject to appeal. I simply don't know what you mean, durhamjen by your statement about appeal courts costing more than they save. In fact, the appeals heard by Galen and her colleagues have another purpose which is to consider the Atos decisions and, if necessary, to reverse them. If they manage also to detect potential frauds, that is also all to the good. Do you mean that appeals should not be heard and that unfair decision-making should be perpetuated?

Maybe all appeal courts cost more than they save, in you go only by the numbers whose convictions are upheld or overturned. That does not mean that decisions should never be questioned and changed (unless we are to live under a dictatorship, or a totalitarian regime where the Party line and officialdom are always right) Checks and balances make for fairness.

I agree on the ATOS/PIP changes. They seem to think that new must be better, instead of improving existing systems. It will still be the same people applying for the new jobs, just a whole new lot of procedures and rules, and time and money spent setting it all up.

Over 50% of those whose benefits are stopped have them reinstated on appeal. That shows the system is at fault.

This is benefit fraud. By the DWP.

www.disabledgo.com/blog/2014/09/benefit-claimants-missing-out-on-thousands-in-transfer-from-dla-to-pip/

It is just as well that they had a right of appeal to an unkowtowing tribunal then, isn't it?

I would expect that an average of somewhere around 50% (between 40% and 60% ?) would be reinstated on appeal. If it were much higher or lower than that, it would imply a lack of impartiality on the part of those judging the appeal - either turning everyone down to conform to the status quo or finding for everyone who seemed to be "nice people", against the result of the second assessment criteria.

The reasessment still follows the same rules as the original judgment. It does not have extra powers any more than a criminal appeal uses legalities that were not available at the original trial. What they both do is consider evidence that was not presented the first time round, or not available, as well as reconsidering the original evidence.

I agree about IDS. He seems to be 'bullet-proof' whereas other unpopular 'reformers' such as Landsley and Gove have been replaced. It's probably because he has the approval of the Daily Wail.