Up to 2001, I was a taxpayer but basically had a full breakdown

I almost feel sorry for my disability advisor/healthcare professional, Capita PiP and the Department of Work & Pensions, almost.

They had no idea what they were letting themselves in for when “pissing off” someone whose IQ tests at the lowest at 145 and has the detail version of Asperger syndrome, people like me are employed by the Israeli Army to look at aerial surveillance photos for example.

And wolf was of course released from his cage on a medium chain to deal with this problem.

I will repeat the procedure for the record:

I took the lift down to the dungeon of my psyche(Zevon’s Werewolves Of London is the lift music and Creedence Clearwater Revival – Bad Moon Rising), entered the 10 digit pin number, scanned my iris, scanned my fingerprint, said the passphrase and verified my voiceprint, finally the safe was opened which leads to the door behind which wolf(Mr Hyde)’s cell actually is the final locks was unlocked in my mind, the final safety checklist was run through and he was let loose on a medium chain, wolf potentially is a thermo nuclear weapon which can cause huge collaterall damage, I said to him: “go play, you are on a medium chain for now but only in sniper mode to deal with this problem”, wolf licked his lips and smiled at me then I allowed him to merge back into my psyche, sheep and sheepdog and blackdog fell into a resting state with one eye on wolf to make sure he didn’t go too far as wolf took some control.

From January 2013, my latest claim, I was awarded Employment & Support Allowance income related, I am in the support group, ongoing status.

Disability Living Allowance, my latest claim was awarded from June 2012, low rate care and high rate mobility, I received an indefinite award.

Up to 2001, I was a taxpayer but basically had a full breakdown that year and could not function as a human without help.

I see a bit of myself in Alastair Campbell for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/15/alastair-campbell-on-madness-and-power-i-dont-mind-that-im-psychologically-flawed

So under the old system, I am regarded as too ill to hold down a job and in their opinion due to physical and mental health difficulties, it is unlikely I ever will be “fit for work”.

So October 2017 I received the letter “Your Disability Living Allowance is ending” and I rang the DWP and requested to apply for “Personal Independence Payment”, I received and completed the form, “How your disability affects you.”  and submitted my evidence.

My details were passed from the DWP to Capita PiP and I was required to attend a face to face assessment in January 2018.

After the assessment, I requested my report PA4 V3 and duly received it before the decision maker at the DWP had looked at it.

Mad as hell is the only way I could describe my mood upon reading it.

I immediately completed a “reply and rebuttal” of the PA4 V3 and fired off the below letter(redacted version).


Capita PIP
PO Box 307
Darlington
DL98 1AB

Dear Sir/Madam

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Date of consultation: [REDACTED] Place of consultation: [REDACTED] Time consultation started: [REDACTED] Time consultation ended: [REDACTED] Name of professional carrying out consultation: [REDACTED] Type of professional: Disability Assessor – Nurse

I have received yesterday from the DWP my PIP Consultation Report Form PA4 V3 and I enclose:

Reply & Rebuttal Of PIP Consultation Report Form PA4 V3
Annexure 001: The client questionnaire.
Annexure 002: Scanned letter from DVLA.
Annexure 003: Picture of hearing aid kit.

I went into the meeting thinking, I’ll be polite and keep myself under control if I tell the truth then nothing will go wrong, all the stories about Capita PIP’s maladministration of PIP face to face assessments cannot be true, how wrong I was.

Next time I will be demanding recording even if I have to buy the double compact disk recorder myself if I cannot find anywhere to hire one.

I can honestly say I’m not sure where, to begin with the PA4 V3, after reading it several times I can honestly say [REDACTED] had some kind of bias against me, we had a disagreement about me referring to the client questionnaire and I believe [REDACTED] did not like me telling [REDACTED] the rules and this fabricated report is [REDACTED]’S revenge for having (to coin a phrase): “[REDACTED] nose put out of joint”.

Firstly it is almost completely wrong.

It is an unbalanced evaluation, I did not get 1 point, not 1, how can that be possible? I am in the support group for ESA and currently have an indefinite DLA award of low rate care and high rate mobility.

It would have been slightly more believable if I had got a few points here and there, but for someone with my range of disabilities for the length of time I have had them, how can a zero score be credible?

There are procedural and factual errors and omissions all over the report.

There are complete fabrications, [REDACTED] has lied in more than one place.

I would suggest Capita PiP never employs this [REDACTED] to do an assessment every again as [REDACTED] has brought your company into disrepute.

I will be making representations to the DWP for revocation of approval of this health professional.

I also will be referring [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] nurse governing body as I intend to bring a complaint against [REDACTED] directly and see her struck off.

[REDACTED] had a duty of care to me as a nurse which [REDACTED] has woefully not fulfilled and should never be allowed near patients of any type in the future.

I am also considering a direct action defamation case against [REDACTED].

I would suggest you read the attached documents carefully and I warn you should I not receive the level of PIP I am entitled to due to this fabricated document I will bring suit against Capita PIP, in the same manner, Vanessa Haley secured a £5000 payment order against ATOS from the court.

And I will continue to bring suit every month for the loss of the level of PiP I am entitled to until I would no longer have been able to claim it, 65 I believe.

I am completely disgusted by this maladministration and defamation by a representative of Capita PIP.

At the end of the report [REDACTED] affirms:

“I can confirm that there is no harmful information in the report.”

I would disagree, my own plan for myself was to start a business from home with a website to work around my disabilities, I have been studying law in my spare time also, if in the next year or two I can get an access to higher education certificate in law and criminology and in that time get myself well enough to attend [REDACTED] Law School but I may not be able to get myself well enough to attend and will have to do it via open university.

Now my thoughts are turning to, well maybe I should just give up and do what I had planned in 2001 buy the peaceful pill handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peaceful_Pill_Handbook and try to get the meds over the internet or get myself a suicide bag kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bag

Yours faithfully

[REDACTED] ”

So at the date of writing, I have an open complaint with the DWP, an open complaint with the NMC(Nursing & Midwifery Council) and Capita PiP have just sent their final response to my level 2 complaint so that is about to be forwarded to ICE(Independent Complaints Examiner)

Also, me being who I am, a person who can find out anything about anyone as long as it is on the Internet, decided to do an unusual tactic.

I found my DA/HCP’s Facebook and home address.

I on Facebook sent the following to the DA/HCP:

“Please forward me you solicitor name and business contact details”

No reply and I was blocked.

[REDACTED] has a business on Facebook so via the business messenger I sent:

“Please forward me you solicitor name and business contact details”

Reply:

“Thanks for messaging us. We’ll get back to you as soon as we can.

Why?”

My reply:

“I intend to begin litigation against you in person and I will need to begin by sending notice of intention to your solicitor”

Reply and I was blocked:

“Haha 😂 for what?”

So I sent the following to [REDACTED]’s partner:

“Please pass the following message to your [REDACTED] as [REDACTED] has blocked facebook a recorded delivery version will be forwarded to your home address next week:

Let us just check that I have the correct “[REDACTED]” first of all.

I am assuming this is you:


Date of consultation: [REDACTED] Place of consultation: [REDACTED] Time consultation started: [REDACTED] Time consultation ended: [REDACTED] Name of professional carrying out consultation: [REDACTED] Type of professional: Disability Assessor – Nurse

If this is you my claim against you relates to the contents of the PIP Consultation Report Form PA4 V3 under maladministration and defamation(libel) or the offence of misconduct in public office causing me to suffer a monthly loss of £320 from April 2018 ongoing until the matter is corrected via a mandatory reconsideration or/and an appeal.

As Capita PIP will only consider complaints concerning the conduct of the DA/HCP such as being late or rudeness, the content of the report where there are allegations of maladministration and defamation(libel) or the offence of misconduct in public office become the personal liability of the DA/HCP.

Before proceeding to a small claim against you as part of the pre-action protocol of any proposed litigation, I must first lay out my issue and make an offer to the proposed defendant to solve the dispute without recourse to the courts.

There is also a previous authority to point to:

A court has ruled that a disabled woman should be awarded £5,000 compensation by the government contractor Atos after a dishonest report by one of its assessors led to her being awarded the wrong level of benefits.

Vanessa Haley, from Huddersfield, told the county court in her written evidence that the assessor had tried to “impede her entitlement” to the enhanced rate of the daily living component of personal independence payment (PIP) by “falsifying” her assessment report.

This may be the first time an attempt has been made to hold personally responsible an assessor for their conduct but as Lord Denning once said: “What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both.”
Packer v. Packer [1954] P. 15 at 22.

No reply.

Two letters were then mailed by recorded delivery 7 days apart, both were signed for by [REDACTED].

Letter 1:

“Dear [REDACTED]

FORMAL COMPLAINT
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONDUCT LITIGATION.

Date of consultation: [REDACTED] Place of consultation: [REDACTED] Time consultation started: [REDACTED] Time consultation ended: [REDACTED] Name of professional carrying out consultation: [REDACTED] Type of professional: Disability Assessor – Nurse

I have received from the DWP my PIP Consultation Report Form PA4 V3 and on Friday the decision letter, I have been awarded 0 points even after sending the DWP a rebuttal as they have only seemingly considered the PA4.

I understand Capita PIP has some kind of clause in the contract alleging that disability assessors will not be held personally responsible for their actions but you cannot contract away the law. For example, if the individual who placed polonium in the tea of Alexander Litvinenko is ever found he or she will not be able to use the defence of a foreign government said I would be protected and not face any personal liability.

As Capita PIP will only consider complaints concerning the conduct of the DA/HCP such as being late or rudeness, the content of the report where there are allegations of maladministration and defamation(libel) or the offence of misconduct in public office become the personal liability of the DA/HCP.

Before proceeding to a small claim against you as part of the pre-action protocol of any proposed litigation, I must first lay out my issue and make an offer to the proposed defendant to solve the dispute without recourse to the courts.

There is also a previous case to point to:

A court has ruled that a disabled woman should be awarded £5,000 compensation by the government contractor Atos after a dishonest report by one of its assessors led to her being awarded the wrong level of benefits.

Vanessa Haley, from Huddersfield, told the county court in her written evidence that the assessor had tried to “impede her entitlement” to the enhanced rate of the daily living component of personal independence payment (PIP) by “falsifying” her assessment report.

I allege that you personally are responsible for a loss beginning April 2018 of £320 per month and therefore I will be seeking to test the personal culpability of disability assessors using the small claims court system.

You have until the end of April 2018 to forward me sums of £320 and thereafter the sum of £320 at the end of each month until such time as the DWP corrects the issue either with a mandatory reconsideration or/and an appeal, I understand this process can take up to 2 to 3 years that is the period of time I will be continually bringing cases against you should I prevail in the first test case.

This may be the first time an attempt has been made to hold personally responsible an assessor for their conduct but as Lord Denning once said: “What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both.”
Packer v. Packer [1954] P. 15 at 22.

Yours Sincerely

[REDACTED] ”

Letter 2:

“Dear [REDACTED]

It has now been seven days since you collected my last letter from the post office and you have not engaged in the process of litigation.

I would advise you with all urgency to seek legal advice as the court system has no sympathy for individuals who do not engage in pre-action protocols with regard to litigation.

You cannot avoid this process, I am going to name you on court documents as the defendant in person, not Capita PIP as I hold you personally responsible for your failure in either ex contractu or ex delicto.

As it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action may be necessary, I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

After considering the matter, I have decided the cause of action I will bring against you is nonfeasance and/or misfeasance and/or malfeasance.

Nonfeasance is the failure to act where an action is required — wilfully or in neglect.

Misfeasance is the wilful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.

Malfeasance is the wilful and intentional action that injures a party.

The Facts:

I was granted by the DWP an indefinite award of low rate care and high rate mobility disability living allowance due to how my various health problems effect me on a day to day basis.

The R(M) 1/96 principle applies to DLA to PIP re-assessments and are covered by statute and regulation in how they are to be conducted. The Upper Tribunal made this decision(R(M) 1/96 principle) on 17 January 2018. As it applies a new legal principle, it only applies to claims decided by DWP after that date.

I had an appointment for a PIP face 2 face on [REDACTED] which began at [REDACTED] and ended at [REDACTED] conducted by [REDACTED] a nurse registered with the NMC.

The report produced from that face 2 face awarded 0 points for all descriptors, it is beyond the scope of this letter to list all the problems that will be more fully explored in the skeleton argument and evidence for the court but I will make 2 short points.

1) Hearing aids, I wear them in both ears, it was noticed on the right-hand side ear yet still awarded 0 points for the descriptor and the nurse was standing to my left when doing the physical so should have seen the left side or the nurse could have simply requested I take them out for examination.

2) Regulation 1.6.45 Prior to concluding face-to-face consultations, HPs should give claimants an overview of the findings they have taken from the consultation, including an indication of the fluctuation and variability of function they have recorded. Claimants should be invited to clarify any points and ask any questions they have about the assessment procedure and asked whether there is anything else they would like to include. The HP should always attempt to respond to any issues or concerns they express.

Regulation 1.6.45 was not complied with, had the nurse complied I would have corrected the failure(nonfeasance), mistakes(misfeasance) or purposeful and with malice attempt to impede my entitlement to PiP(malfeasance).

From you I will be claiming in the small claims court:

If the court determines upon judgement nonfeasance £5000 compensation in line with what Vanessa Haley won in her claim against ATOS also £320 for loss of DLA in April and an order of specific performance of payment of £320 per month until such time as the matter is corrected by the DWP.

If the court determines upon judgement misfeasance £7500 compensation in line with what Vanessa Haley won in her claim against ATOS plus a premium as misfeasance is more serious also £320 for loss of DLA in April and an order of specific performance of payment of £320 per month until such time as the matter is corrected by the DWP.

If the court determines upon judgement malfeasance £9500 compensation in line with what Vanessa Haley won in her claim against ATOS plus a premium as malfeasance is more serious also £320 for loss of DLA in April and an order of specific performance of payment of £320 per month until such time as the matter is corrected by the DWP.

I have calculated these sums based on the previous case where a person has been awarded compensation by the courts and by the actual loss of DLA amounts from April 2018.

Listed below are the documents on which I intend to rely on in my claim against you:

The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377

Personal Independence Payment assessment guide for assessment providers: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers

Witness statement of [REDACTED]

Witness statement of [REDACTED]

PIP Consultation Report Form PA4 V3 that was produced from:

Date of consultation: [REDACTED] Place of consultation: [REDACTED] Time consultation started: [REDACTED] Time consultation ended: [REDACTED] Name of professional carrying out consultation: [REDACTED] Type of professional: Disability Assessor – Nurse

A reply and rebuttal of PA4 V3.

Various documentation from my GP and other medical professionals including a letter of support.

Your twitter feed at [REDACTED]

Your [REDACTED]’s twitter feed at [REDACTED]

Guardian news paper article written by Lucy Hawking https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/30/katie-hopkins-life-harder-disabled-people

In accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct I would request that you provide me with copies of the following documents:

A copy of your contract with Capita PIP, as this will bring into the light of the litigation your specific contractual obligations.

A diary of your engagements during the months of Jan and Feb 2018 including all shifts at [REDACTED]d, all business engagements for [REDACTED], all PIP face to face appointments and details of how you manage your household of [REDACTED].

The PIP face 2 face process is supposed to be done in a specific manner this diary will bring into the light of litigation if you are spreading yourself too thin to do the job with Capita PIP in line with statutory requirements.

I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts.

I would invite you to put forward any proposals in this regard.

In closing, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim.

I look forward to hearing from you by [REDACTED].

Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame, then I anticipate that court action will be commenced with no further reference to you.

Yours Sincerely

[REDACTED]”

This got me noticed by Capita PiP’s board of directors, I was expecting the “you’re harassing our employee letter” but this is what I wanted as part of my tactical plan, to circumvent the normal employees and talk directly to the power behind the phone(and yes I do mean phone, not throne, why talk to monkeys when you can give the organ grinder a piece of your mind).

So I received the following(which made me chuckle as I would do this if the situation were reversed):


Dear [REDACTED],

Complaint against [REDACTED]

I write further to your letter of [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] regarding your PIP consultation of [REDACTED].

Please note that [REDACTED] is an employee of Capita Business Services Ltd and as such any claim you may have in relation to such consultation should be addressed to Capita (the Atos case you quote was against Atos not an individual employee and has subsequently been set aside). [REDACTED] was acting firmly within the scope of [REDACTED] employment with Capita and was not acting in a dishonest or fraudulent manner.

We understand that following the consultation you have sought to contact [REDACTED] directly via social media; these approaches have caused [REDACTED] distress and [REDACTED] is currently off work as a direct result. Given you are aware of the correct process to follow in relation to any complaints or concerns (following our letter to you of 12 March 2018) we believe your approaches may amount to harassment and we will not hesitate to contact the police or take other appropriate legal action if you make any further attempts to contact [REDACTED] or any of our employees directly via social media or otherwise.

You have been informed that a full review of your case determined your assessment report failed to fully explore your health conditions and functional restrictions and that a paper-based review (PBR) can be completed using all of the supporting evidence available with your original application. Once the PBR has been completed, the report will be sent to DWP who will be in contact with you should there be any change to your award decision. I trust this addresses your concerns with the original assessment

Please, could you therefore immediately desist in any further communications directly with [REDACTED] failing which we will have no option but to consider taking appropriate legal action.

We did inform you by email of 12 March 2018 with the process that should be followed regarding claims against Capita and we provided you with a postal address for serving any claims or correspondence: Capita Group Insurance, Business unit: DWP PIP, 71 Victoria Street, Westminster, LONDON SW1H OXA.

Yours sincerely,
[REDACTED] ”

I replied as follows and to date have received no answer:


Dear [REDACTED],

I write in response to your letter of [REDACTED].

Firstly you have no standing to act for [REDACTED] with agency so I cannot discus any matter with you and [REDACTED] should not have done so with you.

The sharing of my letter with a third party not employed under the rules of agency may be a breach of the data protection act.

You claim [REDACTED] is an employee rather than a sub contractor, perhaps you could provide evidence of the exact relationship for me to consider such as a copy of an uncompleted contract.

I would also be interested in how Capita PiP vets the personal views of DA/HCPs in regard to benefits claimants in general as I believe this may be another “Sarah Goldstein” type situation where a Disability benefits assessor was sacked for vile Facebook posts saying she wanted to ‘catapult claimant back to s***hole he came from’.

You need to look at [REDACTED] twitter where she says she is aware of [REDACTED] tweets then look at [REDACTED] twitter feed, the reposts are somewhat disturbing and may indicate the views of the [REDACTED] household against whole groups of people based on the actions of a minority.

https://twitter.com/[REDACTED]

https://twitter.com/[REDACTED]

I agree the claim may have to be addressed to Capita depending on the exact contractual relationship, but it is a question of law more properly to be answered by the courts.

Essentially can a DA/HCP be held responsible in their own name when there is a valid cause of action?

I am not aware the ATOS judgement has been set aside and doubt it as there has been no news of ATOS appealing, but I am aware it was a default judgment as no defence was entered. Perhaps you could provide evidence of such setting aside.

It is however useful in determining levels of compensation as a matter of horizontal stare decisis in the small claims track.

With respect, how [REDACTED] was or was not acting is a matter of a test of evidence again for a hearing should it come to that.

As you do not act with agency as [REDACTED] personal solicitor would, I will not be discussing my actions.

I will make some general observations, however, firstly for Capita to report me to the police, I would have to be allegedly harassing Capita, I am not so you have no valid reason to report me, therefore, would be in danger of a charge at the minimum of wasting police time.

[REDACTED] could, in theory, report me for alleged harassment, I will not be discussing anything with the police unless I am arrested and then only in the presence of counsel.

Furthermore, any such report would open [REDACTED] the danger of a charge at the minimum of wasting police time.

Also, there is no history, I have never even had a parking or speeding ticket.

But I would allude to you this also, my record of interaction with law enforcement in both this country and abroad is not only whiter than white it is shining and when my record is called up on the PNC any allegations will be processed with some scepticism by [REDACTED] police’s force arbiter, if they even get as far as his desk.

Remember due to modern technology a person does not have to physically be in an organisations location to do work for an organisation.

Remember DLA which I was on is an in-work benefit and even people with a major disability meaning they are in the ESA support group are allowed permitted work.

Remember, a PiP face 2 face does not ask about the upsides of a condition, my combination of Aspergers which is more accurately described as High functioning/Gifted with special circumstances of IQ, lowest tested at 145 and an eidetic memory.

Which makes my ability to look at vast amounts of data at multiple times the speed of a neurotypical, make connections other people might miss and think and advise asymmetrically highly valued by people and organisations that quite bluntly you would not believe me even if I was permitted to elaborate.

I have explained all the downsides of my conditions, such as the inability to remain conscious after midday lunch for example in a reply and rebuttal and other documents Capita PiP have.

For example, if you read this story:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/animal-instinct-how-cat-loving-sleuths-found-an-accused-killer-sadist-20140319

Where it says: “ John Green’s iPhone is buzzing with an incoming Facebook message.”, that message was caused by my research, below is the public post I made 4 days later.

I was the first person the planet to link Magnotta with his crime and his subsequent actions when everyone else missed it and the intuitive leap did not go unnoticed.

I also enclose an anonymised version of a thank you from a trading standards department who received my assistance.

I have acted entirely appropriately within the pre-action protocol for conducting litigation and any allegation of harassment will be strongly rebuffed.

I enclose a copy of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the thresholds.

With regard to civil legal action against me by Capita, I ask what possibly could be your cause of action?

I would say there is none as I have acted entirely within the law.

I have sent a final letter before action complying with the civil procedure rules.

The next contact [REDACTED] receives will not be from me it will be a notice of claim from [REDACTED] County Court in the small claims track.

[REDACTED] will then have the opportunity to enter a defence.

With respect the direction to the insurance company is a Capita procedure, it is not law, in England & Wales if a person has a valid cause of action against another person they have every right to test the cause of action in civil court.

I believe I have a valid cause of action, 1 of 3 possibilities to be decided by a court.

I admit to my knowledge it has not yet been attempted to hold a DA/HCP personally responsible but I am aware of many people who are considering this route, so I may not be the first to get into a court with this proposition, one of my favourite quotes is as follows:

“What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both.”

Lord Denning, Packer v. Packer [1954] P. 15 at 22.

So like any new concept in law someone has to go first, for example, the first case concerning computer hacking was in the 80s: Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold were convicted of accessing the Telecom Gold account belonging to the Duke of Edinburgh under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in the United Kingdom, the first conviction for illegally accessing a computer system. On appeal, the conviction is overturned as hacking is not within the legal definition of forgery.

The theory of the case is this, let’s assume a full-time DA/HCP earns 35k a year.

They work for 48 weeks a year, 5 days a week doing 4 assessments a day.

Therefore 960 assessment a year.

Let’s assume 5% of those assessments are done incorrectly in some way.

So 48 go to court against the DA/HCP in their own name, let’s assume half of the claimants win.

24 x £5000 = £120,000

So a DA/HCP would have to have insurance in their own name and it would weed out the bad assessors as the more cases against an assessor the higher their insurance costs. So as much as my actions are a matter of personal justice, it is an attempt to pivot a failing system(ESA & PiP assessments) into compliance with the law of England & Wales.

While I have the attention of a Capita PiP board member, I would say this, the incentive and penalty system for DA/HCPs should work on accuracy of reports as follows, whereas at the moment it seems to be lets churn out as many reports as possible and not care as it will be sorted at MR or LT/UT.

1) DA/HCP produces a report.
2) DWP does not return for a re-work.
3) Report passes MR where no extra information was provided by the claimant.

DA/HCP gets paid for that report if it fails DA/HCP gets a financial consequence.

4) Report passes lower & upper tribunal with or without extra info from the claimant. DA/HCP gets a bonus for that report.

Also, Capita PiP should just grasp the nettle and record all PiP assessments, I suspect this is why Capita has invested in https://www.evidence-works.com/our-solutions/evidenceworks-irs/

I would also say Capita should incorporate the advice from the guide to judicial conduct into its advice to DA/HCPs, I have enclosed the page where it says: “Social networking, blogging and Twitter” and the  Judicial Technology Committee was advised by an expert when formulating this advice.

The short facts of my case:

I was granted by the DWP an indefinite award of low rate care and high rate mobility disability living allowance due to how my various health problems effect me on a day to day basis.

The R(M) 1/96 principle applies to DLA to PIP re-assessments and are covered by statute and regulation in how they are to be conducted. The Upper Tribunal made this decision(R(M) 1/96 principle) on 17 January 2018. As it applies a new legal principle, it only applies to claims decided by DWP after that date.

I had an appointment for a PIP face 2 face on [REDACTED] which began at [REDACTED] and ended at [REDACTED] conducted by [REDACTED] a nurse registered with the NMC. The report produced from that face 2 face awarded 0 points for all descriptors, it is beyond the scope of this letter to list all the problems that will be more fully explored in the skeleton argument and evidence for the court but I will make 2 short points.

1) Hearing aids, I wear them in both ears, it was noticed on the right-hand side ear yet still awarded 0 points for the descriptor and the nurse was standing to my left when doing the physical so should have seen the left side or the nurse could have simply requested I take them out for examination.

2) Regulation 1.6.45 Prior to concluding face-to-face consultations, HPs should give claimants an overview of the findings they have taken from the consultation, including an indication of the fluctuation and variability of function they have recorded. Claimants should be invited to clarify any points and ask any questions they have about the assessment procedure and asked whether there is anything else they would like to include. The HP should always attempt to respond to any issues or concerns they express.

Regulation 1.6.45 was not complied with, had the nurse complied I would have corrected the failure(nonfeasance), mistakes(misfeasance) or purposeful and with malice attempt to impede my entitlement to PiP(malfeasance).

With regard to [REDACTED] being off work, if [REDACTED] is a full-time employee and if [REDACTED] is on paid leave, I would suggest [REDACTED] is having a lovely paid holiday by hoodwinking Capita PiP and using the time to obtain double income by spending time on [REDACTED]’s personal business, as you can see from the enclosed [REDACTED] made a business post on [REDACTED].

So I am not dissuaded by your communication and will proceed as I see fit within the law, which includes alternative dispute resolution as per the pre-action protocols.

Yours Sincerely

[REDACTED] ”

So at the time of writing at mandatory reconsideration stage, I have gone from 0 points to standard/standard but I am still fighting for standard & enhanced mobility.

So I have requested a second look at my file at MR level and have an envelope ready to go to appeal should I not hear back from the DWP today.

I have a solicitor and I will be looking at legal action against my DA/HCP, Capita PiP or the DWP or some combination, possibly all 3 will be dragged into court.

Share this Voice
  • 7
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    7
    Shares

One thought on “Up to 2001, I was a taxpayer but basically had a full breakdown

  1. How far did you go with this. My disabled wife is awaiting the outcome of a mandatory review. She was on DLA high rate mobility and low rate care. Nil points on all following the face to face! I was angry but as they say don’t get angry get even. As my wife has not been able to walk more than twenty metres for about 6 years ((she is arthritic). I thought the way forward after the tribunal hearing is successful would be to make a police complaint under the Fraud Act 2006 in so far as a representation had been made to cause another loss. I also intend to suggest it is a “hate crime” as the victim was a disabled person. This will leave the local Crown Prosecution Service with a bit of a dichotomy. Hate crimes should always be prosecuted – but can or should they prosecute someone who “was just following orders” when it comes to following the perceived instructions to make claiming PIP as difficult and problematical as possible so as to keep the costs of benefits down.
    Yours Ian G – a retired Solicitor.

Leave a Reply