Please think before complaining.

I just saw this posted on one of the benefits groups.

Feel Free to let Atos know how you feel about them .
They have a Freepost address it will cost them to hear your opinion :

Letters , Postcards ,Parcels , should be sent to the following address

Please keep all mailing polite and legal .

Atos
Wyman Dillon Research
Freepost (B57607)
Bristol
B535 3YA

Please share the address.

My ONLY gripe with Atos is that their receptionists were too slow, therefore claiming that we arrived late when we didn't, and that they (Atos) tried to fob me off on my own GP for the WCA. Hardly what the benefits group are expecting people to complain about, is it. 

What they really need to be doing is complaining to the DWP!!! Atos aren't responsible for the things people have problems with. It's our flipping government!

By all means,  write to Atos at the above address IF you have a problem with them, but PLEASE check first that your gripe is with them, and not with the DWP.

• It is the DWP, not Atos, who determine how frequently you are assessed.
• It is the government, not Atos, who chose the ridiculous computerised system that is used (by Atos) to perform the assessments.
• It is that computerised system, that makes the assumptions based on the boxes ticked, that usually piss people off - assumed to be "lies told  by the assessor".
• It is the DWP, not Atos, who decide whether or not to use the recommendation that comes from the Work Capability Assessment.
• etc.

Yes, I know there are times when the assessors do tell lies. But, before complaining to Atos about it, look carefully at the paperwork and try to determine whether it really is the assessor telling lies, or whether it is a tick box on a computer making assumptions. 

My own Atos assessor did include some blatant lies at my medical, so I did place an official complaint. These lies were mostly regarding the physical; she claimed that I was able to do things that I had not been able to do on the day, for example how far forward I was able to bend. She also claimed that I had no walking aids, when I had my stick, and that I walked with no problem to the assessment room, when I clearly fell against one of the doors. Most of what the assessor inputs manually (and therefore personally) is regarding your physical, and your personal appearance and behaviour at the assessment.

When reports contain incorrect things about these, it is fair to make a complaint to Atos, but when a report says, for example "Can fill a front loading washing machine", when the assessor has asked you no such thing, it is simply because the computer has made an assumption. By all means, go through the report and note where it is incorrect for your appeal, but there is no point in complaining about these to Atos; the government (the DWP I believe) picked that computer system, so it is their responsibility!

Similarly, if the report says "walks dog daily", when you did not tell the assessor this, consider whether you told the assessor that you have a pet dog. The computer assumes that you care for the pets you tell the assessor about; so if you are unable to walk the dog you need to specify this to the assessor. Incidentally, if you have a cat, or small animal, the computer assumes that you are capable of regular planning; you are able to feed and care for this animal in the appropriate manner every day (even if the animal is dead in it's cage, rotting, at home). You need to be specific with your assessor; that is your responsibility, not Atos, and not the DWP.

If in doubt, make a complaint to Atos, but also make a complaint to the DWP.

Incidentally, the Atos address isn't exactly secret information. If you phone them, telling them you wish to make a complaint they'll send you the GL24 form (which you can also find online), and a free post envelope.

Atos aren't a company with the primary aim of doing harm to people. They are an Information Technology Services Company. Computers!

ESA Descriptors

When you apply for Employment & Support Allowance (ESA), you receive a form called the ESA50. This form, and the Work Capability Assessment (WCA - the Atos medical assessment) are scored on a point system. The DWP / Atos use "descriptors" to award these points. The descriptors are below. The points are in blue after each descriptor. I have explained in my previous blog post the best way to use them.

You need at least 15 points to get ESA.

Limited Capability for Work Descriptors

Points are indicated in blue beneath the descriptor

Descriptors and scores for each physical activity

Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid can reasonably be used.

(a) Cannot either:

(i) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;

or

(ii) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.

15

(b) Cannot mount or descend two steps unaided by another person even with the support of a handrail.

9

(c) Cannot either:

(i) mobilise more than 100 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;

or

(ii) repeatedly mobilise 100 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.

9

(d) Cannot either:

(i) mobilise more than 200 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;

or

(ii) repeatedly mobilise 200 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.

6

(e) None of the above apply

2. Standing and sitting.

(a) Cannot move between one seated position and another seated position located next to one another without receiving physical assistance from another person.

15

(b) Cannot, for the majority of the time, remain at a work station, either:

(i) standing unassisted by another person (even if free to move around); or

(ii) sitting (even in an adjustable chair) for more than 30 minutes, before needing to move away in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion.

9

(c) Cannot, for the majority of the time, remain at a work station, either:

(i) standing unassisted by another person (even if free to move around); or

(ii) sitting (even in an adjustable chair) for more than an hour before needing to move away in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion.

6

(d) None of the above apply

3. Reaching.

(a) Cannot raise either arm as if to put something in the top pocket of a coat or jacket.

15

(b) Cannot raise either arm to top of head as if to put on a hat.

9

(c) Cannot raise either arm above head height as if to reach for something.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

4. Picking up and moving or transferring by the use of the upper body and arms.

(a) Cannot pick up and move a 0.5 litre carton full of liquid.

15

(b) Cannot pick up and move a one litre carton full of liquid.

9

(c) Cannot transfer a light but bulky object such as an empty cardboard box.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

5. Manual dexterity.

(a) Cannot either:

(i) press a button, such as a telephone keypad; or

(ii) turn the pages of a book with either hand.

15

(b) Cannot pick up a £1 coin or equivalent with either hand.

15

(c) Cannot use a pen or pencil to make a meaningful mark.

9

(d) Cannot use a suitable keyboard or mouse.

9

(e) None of the above apply.

6. Making self understood through speaking, writing, typing, or other means normally used, unaided by another person.

(a) Cannot convey a simple message, such as the presence of a hazard.

15

(b) Has significant difficulty conveying a simple message to strangers.

15

(c) Has some difficulty conveying a simple message to strangers.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

7. Understanding communication by both verbal means (such as hearing or lip reading) and nonverbal means (such as reading 16 point print) using any aid it is reasonable to expect them to use, unaided by another person.

(a) Cannot understand a simple message due to sensory impairment, such as the location of a fire escape.

15

(b) Has significant difficulty understanding a simple message from a stranger due to sensory impairment.

15

(c) Has some difficulty understanding a simple message from a stranger due to sensory impairment.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

8. Navigation and maintaining safety, using a guide dog or other aid if normally used.

(a) Unable to navigate around familiar surroundings, without being accompanied by another person, due to sensory impairment.

15

(b) Cannot safely complete a potentially hazardous task such as crossing the road, without being accompanied by another person, due to sensory impairment.

15

(c) Unable to navigate around unfamiliar surroundings, without being accompanied by another person, due to sensory impairment.

9

(d) None of the above apply.

9. Absence or loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or bladder, other than enuresis (bed-wetting) despite the presence of any aids or adaptations normally used.

(a) At least once a month experiences:

(i) loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder; or

(ii) substantial leakage of the contents of a collecting device sufficient to require cleaning and a change in clothing.

15

(b) At risk of loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder, sufficient to require cleaning and a change in clothing, if not able to reach a toilet quickly.

6

(c) None of the above apply.

10. Consciousness during waking moments.

(a) At least once a week, has an involuntary episode of lost or altered

15

Consciousness resulting in significantly disrupted awareness or concentration.

(b) At least once a month, has an involuntary episode of lost or altered consciousness resulting in significantly disrupted awareness or concentration.

6

(c) None of the above apply.

Descriptors and scores for each mental, cognitive and intellectual function assessment

11. Learning tasks.

(a) Cannot learn how to complete a simple task, such as setting an alarm clock.

15

(b) Cannot learn anything beyond a simple task, such as setting an alarm clock.

9

(c) Cannot learn anything beyond a moderately complex task, such as the steps involved in operating a washing machine to clean clothes.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

12. Awareness of 15 everyday hazards (such as boiling water or sharp objects).

(a) Reduced awareness of everyday hazards leads to a significant risk of:

(i) injury to self or others; or

(ii) damage to property or possessions such that they require supervision for the majority of the time to maintain safety.

15

(b) Reduced awareness of everyday hazards leads to a significant risk of:

(i) injury to self or others; or

(ii) damage to property or possessions such that they frequently require supervision to maintain safety.

9

(c) Reduced awareness of everyday hazards leads to a significant risk of:

(i) injury to self or others; or

(ii) damage to property or possessions such that they occasionally

6

(d) None of the above apply.

13. Initiating and completing personal action (which means planning, organisation, problem solving, prioritising or switching tasks).

(a) Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 sequential personal actions.

15

(b) Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 personal actions for the majority of the time.

9

(c) Frequently cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 personal actions.

6

(d) None of the above apply

14. Coping with change.

(a) Cannot cope with any change to the extent that day to day life cannot be managed.

15

(b) Cannot cope with minor planned change (such as a pre-arranged change to the routine time scheduled for a lunch break), to the extent that overall day to day life is made significantly more difficult.

9

(c) Cannot cope with minor unplanned change (such as the timing of an appointment on the day it is due to occur), to the extent that overall, day to day life is made significantly more difficult.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

15. Getting about.

(a) Cannot get to any specified place with which the claimant is familiar.

15

(b) Is unable to get to a specified place with which the claimant is familiar, without being accompanied by another person.

9

(c) Is unable to get to a specified place with which the claimant is unfamiliar without being accompanied by another person.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

16. Coping with social engagement due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.

(a) Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual.

15

(b) Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual.

9

(c) Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is not possible for the majority of the time due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual.

6

(d) None of the above apply.

17. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.

(a) Has, on a daily basis, uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.

15

(b) Frequently has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.

15

(c) Occasionally has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.

9

(d) None of the above apply.

Apology from an Atos Assessor

Please read the following article. I am going to cover it briefly, but it is a really nice piece.

Nurse Makes Heartfelt Apology After Atos Forced Her To Trick Disabled People Out Of Benefits

This is an article about a nurse who took a job with Atos, but felt compelled to leave the post after five months. She describes parts of the process and how much it upset her. She makes a heart felt apology to any claimants that she assessed, whom she may have prevented from receiving benefits through having her hands tied.

She explains that candidates were marked down if they looked well-presented, with neat hair and make-up, turned up with a toddler, or could sign the application form. She wasn't marking them down, she simply knew that by saying candidates were thus the computer marked them down. She had candidates sat in front of her whom she could see were unfit for work, yet the system would say that they were.

She says “We also had to assess their appearance. If a woman was wearing make-up and was nicely dressed, she was deemed as functioning and capable." I personally know that when I went for my medical that I was not nicely dressed; my hair was not neat, it was greasy, I wore no make up, and my clothes had holes in them (the perils of having pet rats). I was going through an extremely bad, stressful patch at the time, and finding it very difficult to keep on top of personal grooming. Yet the nurse who assessed me marked me down as being well presented. So, there are assessors who deliberately set out to make you fail.

It is nurses like Joyce Drummond, the lady in this article, who should be doing assessments. We should be assessed by people who genuinely care, and want to help, not vindictive cows who like to wave their power wands around. I believe she probably originally took the post thinking she could help the genuinely sick and disabled, naively thinking she would be weeding out those committing fraud, but then had expectations placed on her that in no way helped genuine candidates at all.

It is a shame that she felt compelled to leave the post, but I am grateful to her for speaking up.

Letter to the potential PM

Sonia's most recent letter to Edward Miliband. It speaks for itself.

Rt. Hon. Ed Miliband MP
September 24, 2012

Dear Ed,

As the Labour Party conference approaches, I ask that you consider the following.

I have now sent to you three letters via e-mail. I have appealed on behalf of thousands of sick and disabled people – and their loved ones – in our country.

You have responded to one letter but not the following two. This is troubling and, not least, because the last e-mail contained information that alarmed me. It was a reader's comment sent care of the Daily Mail website.

To the many who have now seen this comment, there was no doubt that here was a clear intention to commit suicide. And for the author, a mother, to kill her autistic child at the same time. Her desperation shrieked from the page. Many were left devastated by reading it - and, primarily, because we know this is far from an isolated case.

I understand that you are extremely busy, as indeed am I, but how does that not warrant a response from a future potential PM? I can't fathom that, I'm sorry.

I would more likely understand you not responding if I contacted you purely in my role as a journalist. But I am not. I am also appealing to you on behalf of over 6,000 people who counter-signed the original letter – as well as the millions in need of your help around our country.

I appreciate that you have suggested a meet with Minister for Disabled People, Anne McGuire – and I have contacted Anne's office about this and will do so again having not heard anything back – but how much can she really do if the Leader of the Labour Party is not fully in support of our most vulnerable citizens?

This is not an attack on you, Ed. This is an appeal for you to do what needs to be done and that is oppose, and very strongly, the Coalition's treatment of those who require our support.

The message is clear. The Working Capability Assessment (WCA) - administered by ATOS and sanctioned by the DWP - is a dangerous and costly exercise. I have a great deal of source material to back up these assertions and I will gladly share it all with you.

As it stands, I am in no doubt that the situation is now untenable regarding the well-being of sick and disabled people – and their carers – and must be addressed and rectified without further delay.

It's that serious, Ed. Some people don't have the luxury of time or money to ponder it. I can't say it more plainly than that.

Best wishes

Sonia Poulton
JOURNALIST/ BROADCASTER

Call to Ed Milliband to support the sick and disabled

"Please support Sonia Poulton's call to Ed Milliband to support the sick and disabled.

Read her letter, and sign if you agree with her. She will deliver the letter to Ed Milliband personally."

Sign here

It's a live document, which means people are signing it at the same time, so please be careful not to type in the middle of someone elses writing (like I did to start with).

The letter Sonia wishes you to read, and sign your support for is below:

"Dear Mr. Miliband,

I am a UK-based journalist and broadcaster. Here is a link to my website. http://www.soniapoulton.co.uk. On my site you will find all the media outlets that I contribute to across print, TV, radio and internet, nationally and internationally.

I am prompted to write to you having just watched these two programmes on the subject of ‘fit to work’ testing for sick and disabled people: Channel 4′s Dispatches (‘Britain On The Sick’) and BBC2′s Panorama (‘Disabled or Faking it’).

This year, as a writer, I have been made painfully aware of how distressing, unreliable and costly – both physically and emotionally – the Work Capability Assessment is for those undertaking it. The financial cost to the country is another concern altogether.

I am aware that Employment minister Chris Grayling has made much capital from blaming Labour for the introduction of this system, administered by ATOS. Equally, Mr. Grayling has made it clear that he views the Coalition’s implementation of the process as preferable, and less harsh, than that carried out under the Labour government.

WCA, clearly, is beset with problems. The ATOS assessor, captured undercover in C4′s programme, referred to it as ‘Toxic’. It was made clear that it was designed to reduce benefit recipients. Chris Grayling continues to deny there are targets. I am less inclined to believe him.

The test, at best, is unquestionably inadequate and not fit-for-purpose. Even the Government’s own adviser, before he resigned, described it as ‘patchy’. At worst, it is downright disadvantageous to those who are subject to it.

For many people the horror of the ATOS test has been the worst kept secret for years. Sadly, others have been less fortunate and are no longer here to register their misery. There currently exists a known demographic of people who have died after being found ‘fit to work’. Are you aware of this?

This year doctors at the British Medical Association have opposed WCA. Those who endure it have opposed it. Even the occasional newspaper and TV programme dares to oppose it. As a Social Commentator, I certainly have.

Why, then, has Labour – under your leadership – not opposed it? Should I assume that you support it? I am disturbed by what I view as a dangerous trend in our country. There is a clear demonisation of sick and disabled people, routinely labelled as ‘scroungers’ by the media, and driven by frequently skewed statistics issued by the DWP.

Meanwhile, the incidences of attacks on sick and disabled has risen. Disabled people are more in fear for their safety than at any other time in recent history. I believe that there is a direct correlation between the resentment whipped up about ‘spongers’ and the physical assaults taking place. Surely this is not acceptable to you. It certainly isn’t acceptable to me.

The names listed below this letter are from people who support the core message contained within it. Like me these are concerned citizens. Some are directly affected by issues of sickness and disability, others are not.

For my part, I am healthy, able-bodied and work full-time but I believe it is my duty to support those who need help. I believe that is a duty of us all. Including the Labour party.

Sickness and disability can happen at any time and to any one of us. I would like to think that others would also support me in my hour of need.

I believe what we need in this country is more compassion, not less. The WCA is unacceptable for a progressive country and it is a clear failure. The money spent on the appeals process confirms that, quite aside from the human misery it costs.

I have just heard that Tom Greatrex, MP, has secured a Westminster Hall debate on September 4 with regard ATOS and WCA. I ask you, Mr. Miliband, can we count on you to take a long overdue stance in support of our sick and disabled, too?

I do hope so. I look forward to your response.

Best wishes, Sonia Poulton"

Letter from Chris Grayling

My MP has forwarded to me the response he received from Chris Grayling, after he sent to him my own letter. I am really upset by this. I actually sat and cried after reading it.

It's a three page letter, very well written, covering a lot of ground. However, it does NOT cover even half the issues I mentioned in my letter, and it does cover a lot of things I did not even mention. Evidently therefore we have been sent a standardised letter. I find that disgusting. He has not only wasted my time, but wasted my MPs time. What is the point in pretending to be interested in what the public has to offer if he's not even going to read the letters sent to him?

Dear Ms Voljeti

I have now received a reply to my letter from the Department of Work & Pensions regarding the Work Capability Assessment.

I am enclosing the Minister's reply which, as you will see, sets out the current situation with regard to this issue.

My thanks, again, for having raised this important matter with me and I do hope this information is of help to you.

Yours sincerely

Your MP

---------------------------------------

Thank you for your letter of 27 July on behalf of Ms Olana Voljeti regarding the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).

Entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is based on an individual's functional ability rather than the condition itself. Anyone claiming ESA  will undergo the WCA which is based on the premise that eligibility should not be based on a person's condition, but rather on the way that condition limits their functional capability.

The assessment gives people with fluctuating conditions the opportunity to explain how their condition varies over time. The questionnaire that customers are sent has been re-designed so that people are directly asked if their mental or physical functions vary, and to give more details of how this affects them as an individual.

The health care professionals who carry out the WCA are trained to ask about and take account of fluctuation. The assessment is not a snap-shot - if a person cannot carry out a function repeatedly and reliably they will be treated as unable to carry out that function at all.

The activities and descriptors used in the assessment were developed in consultation with medical expert and representative groups in order to ensure that they are appropriate for all conditions. The consultation involved considerable discussion about the variability of some conditions. We are now making some changes to the WCA, including ensuring that it more fully accounts for the effects of exhaustion.

Turning now to the issue of healthcare professionals' integrity, I can confirm that the Medical Services Agreement between Atos Healthcare and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not include any provisions either from the Department or from Atos Healthcare to incentivise healthcare professionals to find claimants undergoing the WCA fit for work, and nor would we wish to do so.

It should be noted however that all decisions on benefit entitlement are made by DWP decision makers and not by Atos Healthcare professionals. Entitlement is determined by the Department's decision makers and is based on all available evidence, including that provided by the claimant. Decision makers are rightly impartial and also not incentivised to find claimants under going the WCA fit for work.

We recognise that attending any medical assessment can be a stressful experience, and these will not be carried out if there is enough existing evidence on the claimant's  current condition to decide entitlement to the particular benefit in question. The healthcare professionals who carry out the examinations are trained in assessing vulnerable customers, and when people are asked to come for an assessment they are encouraged to bring a friend or relative with them.

I turn now to the issue regarding the overturning of decisions at appeal. An appeal tribunal hears all evidence afresh, including any new evidence that was not available to the original Jobcentre Plus decision maker, in order to decide whether the original decision on benefit entitlement was correct. Thus when an appeal panel reaches a different decision this does not necessarily mean that the original decision lacked validity.

To try and improve the accuracy of initial decision-making and reduce the number of cases which proceed to appeal, a number of innovations have been trialled within Jobcentre Plus. These include encouraging benefit applicants to submit all the available evidence at the beginning of their claim rather than only producing it for the appeal hearing; and strengthening the reconsideration process so that more decisions are reconsidered, with additional information if available, by decision makers and healthcare professionals, before proceeding to appeal.

Both of these processes have produced very encouraging results. In addition, there are processes in place for the result of appeals to be sent to both decision makers and healthcare professionals in order to improve the accuracy of decision-making, and the Department continues to monitor the outcomes of appeals to continue to improve the assessment.

We are committed to continually improving the WCA to ensure that it is as fair and accurate as possible.

As part of this, we have a statutory commitment to independently review the WCA annually for the first five years of its operation. Professor Malcolm Harrington, a highly respected occupational physician, carried out the first review, reporting in November 1020. We fully endorsed his review and have implemented the vast majority of its recommendations, and are working hard to implement the remainder as soon as possible.

In addition, a department-led review reported in March 2010. We have now implemented its recommendations which include taking better account of the effects of exhaustion and making greater provision for people awaiting or in between courses of chemotherapy. The improvements as a result of this review came in to force on 28 March.

We have now appointed Professor Harrington to conduct a second independent review of the WCA and provide further recommendations as appropriate. He has already started work on the programme of work he has identified, to look in detail at the descriptors for mental health and other fluctuating conditions. Also as part of his review, on 14 July the Government published a call for evidence as part of Professor Harrington's second independent review of the WCA.

The call for evidence is particularly interested in views and evidence about:
- the implementation of Professor Harrington's Year 1 recommendations and the impact they are having;
- what, if any, further work is required in future reviews; and
- the face-to-face assessment.

The call for evidence runs until 16 September. May I encourage Ms Voljeti, to contribute to this process.

I hope this is helpful.

With best wishes,

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Minister for Employment