The DWP has sought to defend a number of my complaints cases by saying it can't investigate due to documents having been destroyed. Anyone who runs any service involving personal information knows that it's essential to keep records for at least 6 years. The ICE Annual Report highlights the issue,

"Complaints with document retention issues as an underpinning factor have also emerged as a theme this year. Despite there being clear guidance about the timescales for retaining information, failure to follow this guidance has led to evidence being destroyed prematurely,which in turn has on occasion severely hindered our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. In the absence of all the information that should be available, it falls to the Independent Case Examiner to determine what is most likely to have happened in a particular scenario".

A cover-up?

This shocking letter (Discriminatory ESA appointment letter) was sent to a severely disabled man demanding his attendance at an unsuitable venue at short notice.  The DWP was in full possession of the facts of his circumstances when instructing the agent ("Maximus" acting under the banner of "Health Assessment Advisory Service") to call him in.  You'll note the threat "If you don't attend, your benefit may be affected". 

Nowhere in this letter does it say how the claimant can request a reasonable adjustment, or even that any alternatives are available.  In fact they shouldn't even have to request one as the DWP, and any agents acting on its behalf, has an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.  This means, as the DWP is already in full possession of the facts that this claimant has long-term chronic health conditions and severe disability, they shouldn't be even considering a face-to-face appointment anyway.  They can simply review the file and have now been told that.

Thousands of claimants get these ridiculous letters every day - being set-up for benefits removal when appointments cannot be reached.  You'll see from the instructions that the venue is clearly not accessible to many claimants.

Where claimants have their benefits removed because of being set up in this way - i.e. being given an appointment they cannot reasonably be expected to get to and then having their money stopped when they don't go - there is a case for a disability discrimination claim for breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Lawyers at Leigh Day attended a group I was a founder member of called the Strategic Casework Group and are doing this - UC challenge .

The judicial review is against the government's use of the Universal Credit (UC) regime to remove a means-tested allowance called the severe disability premium.

Many people are not getting the severe disability premium (SDP) who are entitled to it.  SDP is available in ESA, JSA and income support, but not UC. 

If the following applies to you then you are entitled to SDP

• Getting Disability Living Allowance (DLA) middle or higher rate care component, or
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP) standard or enhanced rate daily living component, and

 Live without any other non-dependent adults in your household, and

 Have nobody claiming carers' allowance for looking after you.

It's just a call to the DWP department paying your means-tested benefits to get it sorted out.

Am dealing with a case where the DWP has obviously used standard paragraphs that had nothing to do with the claimant.  Throughout the decision there is the pattern <Title><Surname> - and I mean literally that - not the actual name of the person at all!  This reveals the shocking "hatchet job" approach of the DWP to ESA - a formula of reports with standard phrases with the decision makers having the same standard phrases that are then copied and pasted into decision letters with names merged in (or not in this case).  An unlawful approach that completely fails to accurately take individual circumstances into account.  It's decisions like this that kill people.

Here's a copy of some of the offending decision, which the DWP apologised for, although the matter is ongoing as that doesn't put it right in this case: A Dodgy DWP letter

Just got a gambling refund of money deposited to release "bonus offers".  These are unlawful under Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Unfair Terms.  If you deposited money into an "on-line cashier" or similar to release a "bonus" and then found you couldn't withdraw your money due to ridiculous "wagering requirements" you're due a refund.   Contact me with your email if you want letter templates in Word format.  This is a free service.

I get increasingly worried by the number of people who are given the impression that they must attend tribunals as if somehow the whole tribunal system is outside the scope of reasonable adjustments.  I have even heard of claimants withdrawing appeals believing that because they couldn't do it there was no point in carrying on.  It doesn't help that many advisers insist on referring to social security appeals as "court", presumably because appeal hearings are more and more held in court buildings to save money.  And the whole business of referring to tribunal chairs as "Judges" doesn't help - that change in the appeals system was a blatant intimidatory tactic.

Here are my tips to make the system work for you:

• Make sure you, or your adviser, makes every effort to overturn the decision before a tribunal becomes necessary.  The DWP frequently makes the excuse that so many cases are overturned at appeal because new evidence is produced that hasn't been seen before.  There should be no new evidence at a tribunal - it's better to present it earlier on - be it by a witness statement, letter from GP etc.
• Be honest with yourself and your adviser about whether you can actually manage a tribunal hearing.  There's no point in dragging yourself to a hearing only to be overwhelmed and say the shortest answers possible to get out of there!  If you can't face it there are a number of options: paper witness statements instead of oral evidence, a tribunal at home, a tribunal using video-link, or better still a robust attack of the offending decision directly with the DWP so as to head off the tribunal in the first place. 
• Remember the tribunal must make reasonable adjustments for you and has a range of procedures designed to ensure it can meet its obligations.  These can sometimes appear disguised for administrative convenience, but they are there to be used!