Claimants in that group may have a “limited capability” to work but this does not mean they cannot work at all and so they should be helped out of the “benefits trap”, Ms Patel said.
Date uploaded: October 02, 2014 Access to Work is a scheme “managed” by Jobcentre Plus. Its has a simple aim “assist disabled people into work”
this aim is the layered in hundreds of layers of Bureaucracy
A Fantastic example of this is eligibilit
Eligibility should be “Are you disabled?”
As a disabled “young” man I like to state this man does not in anyway represent me.
So in Parliament we’ve had… Esther McVey, Mike Penning, Mark Harper and now Justin Tomlinson
Voted very stronglyagainst raising welfare benefits at least in line with price
Voted strongly for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (“bedroom tax”)
Voted very stronglyagainst paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
While an employer can IGNORE this the whole system has been built on quicksand.
I was found fit twice once by by GP and once by a occupational therapist found by my employer.
Until employers see the person not the disability nothing will change.
Equality Act & Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
The equality act states “reasonable adjustments” must be made to accommodate an individual’s disability.
“Reasonable” is never defined, so an employer can say the changes are unreasonable.
My former employer (A Hospital) said there was no need to invoke “reasonable adjustments” as I was unfit to work. Having the “adjustment” may have made it practical but as the did not produce a list they could not assess me against them.
My former employer (A Hospital) produced a risk assessment of the ‘area’ I’d be expected to work in. The only thing this assessment proved is the failed to accommodate any disability.
TwoTick
A PR Stunt by JobCentre Plus its unmanaged and completely pointless.
The scheme has no way to compare to business with Two Tick.
Once awarded there is no mechanism for it to be removed, allowing a business to portray disability awareness.
It Would be lovely to believe noting ever goes wrong, but back in reality an Employment Tribunal (ET) offered a small window of hope. An independent body would examine the dispute and make a finial statement.
This now has been removed as a FEE has been introduced for making an ET Claim & The Hearing. Employment tribunal fees
TUC have written a report about Disability & Employment…
Having spent 3 years fighting for my job here’s my take…
Access To Work
Having had the misfortune of talking with these people I can honestly say they don’t have a clue.
It was recommended to me to get a taxi or use Public Transport!
The also had an undocumented requirement of a start date.
That lead to a catch 22. As my former employer wanted the involvement of AtW before giving a start date.
AtW would do nothing without start date.
Fit Note
While an employer can IGNORE this the whole system has been built on quicksand.
I was found fit twice once by by GP and once by a occupational therapist found by my employer.
Until employers see the person not the disability nothing will change.
Equality Act & PSED
There are official ‘checks’ so until a complaint is made nothing is done.
My former employer (A Hospital) produced a risk assessment of the ‘area’ iid be expected to work in. The only thing this assessment proved is the failed to accommodate any disability.
TwoTick
A PR Stunt by JobCentre Plus its unmanaged and completely pointless.
The scheme has no way to compare to business with Two Tick.
Once awarded there is no mechanism for it to be removed, allowing a business to portray disability awareness.
I don’t like name calling but David Cameron is an arse, and is clearly undergoing some kind of mental breakdown no doubt brought on by his endless lies.
NHS established
The NHS is born on July 5 1948 out of a long-held ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth.
When health secretary Aneurin Bevan opens Park Hospital in Manchester it is the climax of a hugely ambitious plan to bring good healthcare to all. For the first time hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, opticians and dentists are brought together under one umbrella organisation that is free for all at the point of delivery. The central principles are clear: the health service will be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which means that people pay into it according to their means.
Let’s be clear Mr Cameron is privatising OUR NHS
The legislation also fulfils the definition of privatisation proposed by Minister of State for Policy, Oliver Letwin, MP, as laid out in his book, “Privatising the World”:
“It typically takes one of three forms: contracting out of government, deregulation of activities previously dominated by the public sector, and sales of public assets to existent private sector companies…these are important and powerful tools, each of which is particularly suited to the privatisation of a particular aspect of the public sector: contracting out for public services, deregulation for statutory monopolies, and trade sales for companies in poor financial condition
The legislation the above refers to is the Health & Social Care Act
The biggest change in the Act, is….
It removed from the Secretary of Health responsibility for the health of citizens, which the post had carried since the inception of the NHS in 1948.
Perhaps most infamously, the Conservatives repeatedly promised before the general election that there would be no more “top-down reorganisations” of the NHS (Andrew Lansley, Conservative Party press release, ). In a speech at the Royal College of Pathologists on , Cameron said: “With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS. Here
They are now downgrading (not closing) several A&E Departments. By ‘downgrading’ read closing. The idea is to limit what these A&E Units are equipped to treat, so a heart attack is no longer treatable at these A&E units.
This clearly will impact on getting timely care for a time seventies illness.
Whatever you think of these proposals, Imperial does not want to know. There will be no public consultation on the plans for Charing Cross and St Mary’s. Nor do they care about adequately informing you. Public information on the closure of Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A&E has not started, six weeks before closure, but £300,000 has been paid to PR consultants, including £55,000 to M&C Saatchi.
So the democratic system no longer applies to YOUR health care.
It’s local people who will be put at risk, NOT Mr Cameron or Mr Hunt. I’m not a political or economist. If anything I’m a pragmatist, I fully agree with the idea…
You can’t please all of the people…
People have a right to decide what happens to their local services, taking away this right (for whatever reason) is wrong.
KEVIN MEAGHER, The author of the above article is having a mental break down or it’s an audition for a new career in comedy
I am however a BIG fan of debunking lies…so lets have a quick look
The BEST Lie
In a speech at the Royal College of Pathologists on In a speech at the Royal College of Pathologists on
Cameron said: “With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS. Here
Their has been an endless stream of high profile people getting aways with crimes I refer to maria miller, mark harper &Gary Barlow
they are not defensible in the way they were placed within a Budget that benefits higher earning taxpayers. They should have instead been part of a wider process to engage others in finding the best way to better focus resources on those most in need. In full: Iain Duncan Smith resignation letter
The PMs response to the letter is an insult.
As a government, we have done a huge amount to get people into work, reduce unemployment and promote social justice PM’s letter in reply to Duncan Smith
Now I had job, I loved my job. I became disabled and was not allowed back.I asked my Local MP for help. I asked The Minister for Disabled People – Got nothing. Ok not true got a fantastic letter saying ministers are busy.
Having read his They ‘WORK’ for You profile I feel safe knowing he’ll soon be as loved as IDS.
UPDATE
I understand PMs have a very low moral inner voice, however the Tory voice is stuck on mute. The recent Twitter display by Nadine Books over IDS registration, was an utter disgrace she basicly addmits to “selling” her vote. Her constituents voted for her to represent them not the intrestes of fellow MPs.
Her voting record. They ‘WORK’ for You tells a diffrent story, shes looking for scapegoat and IDS was their.
so from this letter we’re told a start date is needed. We’re then told… Help is available at an interview. Do you get a start date before an interview?
We also told I’m not eligible because I get ESA (Employment Support Allowance) witch would stop if I went back to work, without it I can not survive.
We also told about AtW Guidance
It has a nice little section called “Enquiries and Complaints”
51. You must have an appropriate and effective complaints process across
your whole supply chain to resolve customers’ complaints. You must
explain your complaints process to the participant in your first contact
with them.
The said they would respond 3 working days from my complaint. This would have been 22nd July 2014 after chasing I got this response 28th July 2014.In writing today 31st July 2014.
54. After following all steps in your process you must include in your final
response to the participant a standard text which signposts the customer
to contact ICE should they wish to pursue their complaint. The text can
be found in Annex G of this Provider Guidance.
Is their anything in the letter about ICE? Who are ICE? What do they do? How do I contact them?
UPDATE
ICE are pointless I’ve to write to Director General of Operations of DWP
UPDATE
After asking work not to make an offer and the employment tribunal would decide work made an offer Letter 26-08-2014
So again we are back to stage 1 fighting with Access to Work.
UPDATE
So AtW suck! Firstly I need to use Public Transport to get to work, then Taxi – but that’s to expensive! – it would be cheaper to keep me on benefits.
so please they can see how working is of a real benefit to me not just money.
I need to find a driver! Again nice to see they have a list of qualified support workers.
UPDATE
Email…
I must say even by DWP standards the lack of support I’m getting is amazing.
3. Weeks ago! I asked if the letter from work was enough to get your help, so far this question remains unanswered !
My work have given me a date of 16th September 2014. To return to work it’s taken me 3 years to get this date – if I miss it I my well explode and I can be sure it will be your fault.
On Friday a woman called and after a very unhelpful conversation she said she needed to talk with work – I’d like to know the outcome of that discussion.
I would also like the email / address of the Director General – who I believe I need to complain to before I can involve the independent case examiner (ICE)
not be in receipt of Incapacity Benefits/ESA and/or NI credits only (or will cease to claim whilst in work) unless the customer is about to start a Work Trial. This includes Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support (where paid as a result of incapacity for work). The only other exception to this is where the customer is on Permitted Work Higher Level, Permitted Work (PCA exempt) or Supported Permitted Work
Have I ever stated I’ll continue to claim ESA while at work? So dose this claim render their entire letter pointless?
They also talk about my GP. “Fit Note” my GP has given me a fit note! She also agreed I was fit in 2012. But again work chose to disregard this.
Part of my ET claim is about work choosing which bits of advice they will accept.
So AtW published https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448218/access-to-work-statistics-march-2015.pdf access-to-work-statistics-march-2015.pdf This paints a picture of a helpful, caring department…It’s a lie.
36,760 individuals were helped through Access to Work between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015.
Dear DWP Strategy Freedom of Information,
I’m very confused by your request to clarify!
Your question “whether part A above relates to additional documentation provided in support of an Access to Work application;” In section a I clearly state “additional information”
Your question “whether part B above relates to the number of people whose disabilities were physically assessed as part of the Access to Work application process; and” as being disabled is a requirement of Access to Work funding this would appear a mute point. However i use “physically” as where they examined / consulted or questioned not physically disabled.
Your question “please clarify what is being requested in parts C and D above.”
C. How many “review” case where launched ?
This again seams like a simple question, however for example in my case I had to ask for a “review” of your first descision – I would like to know how many reviews where done between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015 ?
D. How many requests did AtW receive between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015 ?
How can this question need clarifying ?
I have forwarded your rather bizarre request to the ICO.
The reason for the clarification request was because Parts A, B, C and D of your request are based on the premise that “36.760 applications [were] received by AtW (Access To Work)”.
However, this is not the case. The 36,760 figure that you initially quoted relates to the number of people who were helped by Access to Work in 2014/15 and not the number of Access to Work applications.
I’m confused, by AtW definition of helped.
UPDATE
So
Dear Daniel McMorrow
Thanks you for your latest reply in relation to your request.
Information on the definitions used in the Access to Work: Official Statistics publication are provided in Annex B of the publication. It is not possible to identify the proportion of applicants who are successfully awarded Access to Work. This is explained in section 1.1.5 of the Access to Work: Official Statistics publication. The latest publication can be found at the following
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448218/access-to-work-statistics-march-2015.pdf
I hope this is helpful in assisting you to clarify the information you seek.
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely,
DWP Central FoI Team
So Annex B dose not define “help” and we learn It is not possible to identify the proportion of applicants who are successfully awarded Access to Work.
So
36,760 individuals were helped through Access to Work between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015.
Is made up? For illustration purposes? Not to think of the possiable waste of public money.
UPDATE
Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
On 20th August 2015 you said “To help us provide the most appropriate response to your request, please can you clarify whether parts A, B, C and D relate to: (i) the number of people helped by Access to Work; or (ii) the number of Access to Work applications?”
On 20th August 2015 I asked to clarify the definition of help.
On 26th August 2015 you said “Information on the definitions used in the Access to Work: Official Statistics publication are provided in Annex B of the publication”
However Annex B has not definition of “help”
On 26th August 2015 you said “It is not possible to identify the proportion of applicants who are successfully awarded Access to Work. This is explained in section 1.1.5 of the Access to Work: Official Statistics publication”
Section 1.1.5 says “There are some limitations to the data. It cannot be used to identify the proportion of applicants who are successfully awarded Access to Work. Information relating to a person’s employer or the amount their employer contributes towards an Access to Work award is also not of a publishable standard.”
This would be a major flaw in any system. If you can’t identify applicants who are successfully awarded AtW how was the figure of 36.760 reached? How are you able to account for use of public money if you can’t identify people getting AtW awards?
Re:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy…
In the above document you claim…
“36,760 individuals were helped through Access to Work between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015.”
From the 36.760 individuals were helped through AtW (Access To Work)
A. How many had to defend their requirement for assistance, by providing additional documentation? This is form the 36,760 above.
As no definition of “help” has been given I’m taking this to mean people who received any support for AtW.
B. How many where physically assessed? i use “physically” as where they examined / consulted or questioned not physically disabled.
C. How many “review” case where launched?
I would like to know how many reviews where done between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015? By review I mean the applicant asking AtW to reconsider the original answer – not matter of the reason.
D. How many applications did AtW receive between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015?
For clarification I’m after figures not percentages. You’ve made a public claim I’m speaking clarification of that claim its in the public interest.
UPDATE
So I got a response to my FoI request (questions as above)
The Department does not record the total number of Access to Work applications received.
So first were told…
There are some limitations to the data. It cannot be used to identify the proportion of applicants who are successfully awarded Access to Work….
then….
The Department does not record the total number of Access to Work applications received
“36,760 individuals were helped through Access to Work between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015.”
Yet no explanation of 36,760 people who where helped through Access to Work. 36,760 must have made an application to AtW, but AtW don’t record this very basic statistics. Therefor the claim of. 36,760 is pointless.
After battling with AtW I was awarded £100.00 / day.
Lets look at that… 100.00*5*36,760 = £18,380,00 (a year) Of public money with no record!
The above figure are EXAMPLES only. Some AtW awards would be for more than £100.00 some would be for less.
People don’t work Monday-Friday ever week, it also dont account for hoilday.
Having a reliable statistics like Successful Applications helps with other stats like predicting possible growth in service requirements. Without a baseline you can’t make an assessment. This impacts budgets, staffing levels.
The Department does not record the number of Access to Work applications which include additional supporting documentation. Any additional supporting documentation that is provided is given due consideration by specialist advisor’s as part of the application process.
The Access to Work application process does not involve physical or medical examinations.
The Department does not record the total number of reviews or requests for reconsideration associated with Access to Work applications.
UPDATE
It would appear the DWP think if the ignore me I’ll go away… good luck!
ICO Case FSXXXXXXXX
Two out of date internal review requests with DWP.
On you said
“Before accepting complaints, the Commissioner requires public authorities to be allowed the opportunity to respond to any complaints the requester may have about the way in which their request was dealt with. “
On I asked DWP for a review Here
The Access To Work (a scheme managed by DWP) published stats claiming a number of people have been helped by AtW.
However the AtW/DWP say these my questions can’t be answered as they don’t have the data. But have not explained where the original number comes from.
Request 2. Appeals
On I asked DWP for a review Here There was a recent high profile case between the DWP, Disability News Service & DWP. The DWP posed many legal challenges to the ICOs original ruling. This use of public money has to be accounted for. Along with other legal challenges launched by the DWP.
UPDATE
So it will come as no suprise that my “review” of the DWP FoI over AtW found nothing wrong.
As a result of this review I am satisfied that the original response was handled properly and that the outcome of your request was correct.
The 36,760 figure referred to in your request shows the number of individuals who received help from Access to Work in 2014-15. This includes individuals who have been assessed within the year or for whom there is an element where approval has been made (including nil cost) and the element has been made available within the year. While the Department does record the number of Access to Work applications which result in an applicant receiving help from the programme, it does not record the total number of Access to Work applications and therefore it is not possible to identify the proportion of applicants who are successfully awarded Access to Work.
Dear DWP Strategy Freedom of Information,
Hello firstly this matter have been passed to the ICO as your response was late. On 23rd Sepember. 2015 you quotes 20 working days. This was repeated on 1st October 2015.
On 23rd October 2015 I sent a reminded with my intention of seeaking help from the ICO.
The response you’ve given has no explanation or apology for these delays.
You’ve failed to understand my request you published a figure of 36,700 applications where awarded help. You have failed to quantify this with an negative figure of how many applications where rejected…For example if AtW recived 38,000 applications then AtW is extreamly beneficial, however if you recived 100,000 you’ve rejected more than half.
On 24 Jun 2014, at 14:33, Daniel McMorrow <dmcmorrow@mage-net.net> to HEALTHCOM@parliament.uk
after having to chase I today (Sunday 20 July 2014) got a confusing response. I have put my email (removed dropbox links), their response and my reply.
Dear Sir / Madam
I having to contact you as I’m being passed from pillar to post, by excuses and uninterested parties.
A little background on 17th December 2010 I contracted meningitis after a wonderful 9 month stay at Royal Hospital for Neuro Disability (RHN) I was sent for further rehab at Blackheath. From day one Blackheath was an afual place.
After I made several complaints Blackheath discharge me.
On 7th August 2012 Dr Miah (North Middlesex University Hospital’s OT/My Employer) Wrote a letter to Alexandra Hitchcock (My OT at Blackheath), asking follow up questions from my MDT. Which I freely gave them. (REMOVED)
This letter is factually wrong mobility is not a big part of my job I’m mostly in my office.
On 3rd September 2012 I was informed by A. Hitchcock that she forwarded the letter to Dr Luff.
On 4th September 2012 at 09:43 I told A. Hitchcock to ignore the letter.
(REMOVED)
On 20th September 2012 I was informed by letter from North Middlesex University Hospital that Dr Luff had responded on 13th September 2012.
There are several mistake and omissions in this letter!
The letter from Dr Luff dose not say “I’m unfit”
I didn’t get to see the letter before it was sent and I had not given my consent, so it should never have been written, let alone sent. (REMOVED) (The Letter from Dr Luff)
Comment made by my employer (also a hospital) “2. The Respondent reached those decisions on the basis of medical advice. A critical piece of that medical advice was the report in question from Dr Luff (copy enclosed as not sent to the Tribunal with the Claimant’s application). It represents a central, contemporaneous piece of the evidence on which decisions were taken. Dr Luff’s report advised that the Claimant was not fit to return to work. This advice was reviewed by the Respondent’s Occupational Health team and was then communicated to the Respondent, in an Occupational Health report dated 9 October 2012. Cumulatively, this informed the Respondent’s decision to escalate the Claimant’s sickness absence management to stage 3 (a sickness absence hearing that could result in termination of employment).”
http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-17272-f0.cfm “All doctors must ensure that a patient gives consent to a report being sent to the employer. In addition an employee has a right to see any medical report. However the legal right to see it in advance and withhold consent only applies to reports from a doctor who is treating them, but the GMC guidance makes it clear that this should apply to all medical reports. The doctor should also advise the employee in advance what the report says and discuss any concerns the employee has before it is sent. If an employer is seeking information from a doctor who has been treating an employee they should get written consent from the employee beforehand and the doctor should not disclose any information to a third party without ensuring that the employee has been given the opportunity of stating whether they wish to see such a report before it is sent.”
I also note
“57. A person cannot ask a patient’s medical practitioner for a medical report on him/her for insurance or employment reasons without the patient’s knowledge and consent. Patients have the option of declining to give consent for a report about them to be written.”
Additionally
“59. Once the patient has had access to the report, it should not be supplied to the employer/insurer until the patient has given their consent. Before giving consent, the patient can ask for any part of the report that they think is incorrect to be amended. If an amendment is requested, the medical practitioner should either amend the report accordingly, or, at the patient’s request, attach to the report a note of the patient’s views on the part of the report which the doctor is declining to amend. Patients should request amendments in writing. If no agreement can be reached, patients also have the right to refuse supply of the report.”
I believe this was retribution for my complaints? Alexandra and myself had many talks about my return to work, she would have understood how important it is to me.
Dr Luff saw me for maybe 30 minutes in total during my 14 week stay, how does this provide him with an insight into my cognitive well being?
I feel this was malicious on Blackheath’s part for the complaints I made whilst at Blackheath
I have complained to
Care Quality Commission (CQC) who say it’s not their “remit” despite finding errors a Blackheath
General Medical Council (GMC) who dismissed my complaint as something they will not take “action” on – without further explanation
Lewisham Adult Safe Guarding Team who rush the investigation as there cars may get a ticket
Minister for Disabled people & my local MP – both a total waste of time
Please can you acknowledge receipt of this letter via email to dmcmorrow@mage-net.net
I would like a direct answer of who should deal with my complainant. If you can not open the Dropbox links
Please let me know and I’ll be happy to send these in the mail.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel McMorrow
Their response…
Dear Mr McMorrow –
Thank you for your e-mail. I am sorry it has taken some time to respond.
The Health Committee’s remit is to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of the Department of Health and associated public bodies. It cannot examine individual cases, since it is not within its power to act as an ombudsman and it is not resourced to do so.
It appears from the correspondence that you have supplied that you disagree with the assessment of your fitness to work supplied by the service provider at Blackheath which was treating you. You believe that you have suffered detriment as a result of an assessment of your fitness to work which you consider inaccurate.
You quote from a Department of Health policy document which includes guidance on the Access to Medical Records Act 1998. That document (at paragraph 63) contains a detailed step by step complaints procedure, including local resolution via the provider’s complaints procedure and then the involvement of the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998. You give no indication in your e-mail that you have followed these procedures. I would advise you to examine these options if you have not already done so.
I am copying this e-mail to Bob Neill MP as a copy recipient of your latest e-mail: I assume he is your constituency MP.
Yours sincerely –
Martyn Atkins
My reply…
Hello,
I’m abit puzzled by your response.
You say…
“You quote from a Department of Health policy document which includes guidance on the Access to Medical Records Act 1998. That document (at paragraph 63) contains a detailed step by step complaints procedure, including local resolution via the provider’s complaints procedure and then the involvement of the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998. You give no indication in your e-mail that you have followed these procedures. I would advise you to examine these options if you have not already done so.”
My email says.
“I have complaind to
Care Quality Commission (CQC) who say it’s not their “remit” despit find errors a Blackheath
General Medical Council (GMC) who dismissed my complaint as something they will not take “action” on – without further explanation
Lewisham Adult Safe Guarding Team who rush the investigation as there cars may get a ticket Minister for Disabled people & my local MP – both a total waste of time”
What part of this is unclear? My email asks a direct question..
“I would like a direct answer of who should deal with my complainant. If you can not open the Dropbox links Please let me know and I’ll be happy to send these in the mail.”
I note you ignore this, and despite my email assume I’ve not been turned anyway by every government department, , Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Care Quality Commission (CQC) and General Medical Council (GMC)
I’m asking for clarification as to who has a duty to look at this issue.
I hope this clarifies my email.
Daniel McMorrow
Is this rude or in some way confusing or is it a direct question they are refusing to answer?
