Making it happen. Holding officialdom to account. Frank, fearless and free. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Join our conversation YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: PASS IT ON!

PBROtrib PAGEview COUNTER excludes casual browsers scrolling through a selection of posts

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

PIP Disability benefit changes seriously compromising people's independence' Capita in Peterborough resort to tricks over plastic water beakers to prove disabled are in fact mobile...

Add caption HM The Queen at the Motorbility launch - its all so different now, so are the lease hire vehicles...

More than 50,000 disabled people have had specially adapted cars and other lease hire vehicles abruptly taken away as they have no option but to move over to a point scored controversial new disability benefit, according to the Motability charity that runs the scheme.

MPs and campaigners are now demanding that Mrs May makes urgent changes to the Motability programme, so vehicles are not 'snatched back' before claimants have had at least a chance to appeal against their decision.

Journalists and Broadcaster Julian Bray (who is disabled) writes: The latest figures from the Motability charity show 51,000 people have been taken off the scheme after a mandatory reassessment for personal independence payments (PIP) since it launched in 2013 - 45% of all cases. 

Sadly the assessments - many not only inaccurate but some 'deliberately professionally flawed' are carried out by 'moonlighting' medical professionals, some of whom have little or no relevant experience, they might be for example an ambulance paramedic, or even a St Johns  'qualified first aider', and they have been coached by firms such as Capita to routinely use 'professional tricks' to catch out those being assessed.

Physical audio recording of the assessment process is prohibited by Capita in Peterborough unless an identical duplicate copy is supplied at the time. How many claimants have access to dual recorders? It really is a scandal.

For example prior to the PIP face to face assessment at an Assessment Centre in Peterbrough, a (Capita employed) security guard may innocently offer to pour a beaker of water and hand it to the disabled person being assessed for PIP. If the offered plastic beaker is picked up or held, it ticks another box, effectively reducing the point scoring PIP process.  

Capita is one such organisation said to be making many 'millions' in profit out of routinely denying disabled people access to the Motability scheme, simply by marginally adjusting the points totting up process, so many just fall say one point below the entitlement criteria, so the 'Motability' vehicle is taken away. 

Often the disabled driver is initially unaware that he/she has failed to qualify, the first they will know is a 'hand back' package in the mail from Motability along with a 'virtual' offer of £2,000 (from Motability not the DWP) a sum discounted from the trade sale book price for the disabled person to purchase the used car they are currently leasing from Motability. 

There is however an unadvertised important interim process before it gets to the onerous judicial Tribunal stage, a process many MPs GP's and advisors seem to be totally unaware of, and that is called Mandatory Reconsideration.  

A decisionmaker within the DWP, will look again at the PIP assessment, this is known as Mandatory Reconsideration, but this really only works if the claimant has first physically seen the actual report prepared by the freelance fee earning 'moonlighting' medical professionals, and sent by firms like Capita to their client the DWP.

The claimant also has to be sufficiently 'savvy' to pick legal and factual holes in it. The ones I have seen are so far from reality, and deliberately contain wholly false and misleading medical statements such as 'mistakenly' reducing the actual daily dosage rates of medications taken ie two pills a day as opposed to eight and so on.

This still usually means if the car offer to purchase price is say £6,000 then £4,000 has to be personally financed by the rejected disability claimant, in addition the vehicle has to be re-licenced and insured as a private car ( rather than a Motability fleet lease hire car) and the driver who may have been with Motability for many years, is treated as a new insured, without access to a no-claims discount and that IS expensive. 

The disabled person is currently given just eight weeks before the Motability lease hire vehicle is handed back.  What is not generally known, is that if the PIP award is being challenged, it is important to obtain the actual written report Capita (or other agency) sends to their client the DWP, as it bears little or no resemblance to the later DWP document supplied to the claimant.   

Over 3,000 have since rejoined the Motability lease hire scheme after the initial decision to refuse them PIP at the qualified Motability point score rate, had been overturned or readjusted, ironically the difference in monetary terms may only be a few Pounds.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) claims a fraction of PIP decisions are overturned, while those taken off the Motability scheme are eligible [from the charity not the DWP] for a £2,000 value of support.

But charity Muscular Dystrophy UK said 900 cars are now being taken away every week, as more people are rejected for PIP.

Conservative MP Peter Bone said: "You need it for mobility purposes and maybe you use it for work, but because you lose your PIP [mobility higher rate] award you lose the car at the same time.

"You appeal against the PIP award and ultimately the tribunal awards you back [ie a higher scored] the PIP, but you've already lost the car and maybe your job because of it."

Mr Bone said the Government should let people keep their Motability cars until they have gone through the appeal process.

"The Government could quite easily put that right and it wouldn't cost a significant amount of money at all," he added.

Labour former work and pensions minister Angela Eagle said: "What's happening in the worst cases is from being mobile and being able to get out and about in a car, that's been removed and this may mean people have had their ability to live their life at taken away, and some of them are left housebound."

The Motability scheme entitles disabled people to lease a new car, scooter or powered wheelchair using part or all of their tested benefit. In some cases an additional front end premium is applied to some models.

Many are specially adapted for the claimant's individual needs.
Thousands of people are being denied Motability, though, as they transfer over from disability living allowance (DLA) to PIP.

The number of people eligible for Motability funding has halved during the reassessment process since PIP launched in 2013, according to Muscular Dystrophy UK.

It said 126,300 of the 254,200 people who were eligible for Motability funding under DLA, and had been reassessed for PIP are now no longer eligible. However the real figure of those denied could be much higher, as the data is fragmented. 

DWP figures show that since PIP launched, more than 160,000 people have had their original rejection overturned at the interim mandatory reconsideration stage or at appeal.

Some 65% of decisions are now overturned at tribunal in the claimant's favour, according to the latest Ministry of Justice statistics.

Nic Bungay, director of campaigns, care and information at Muscular Dystrophy UK, said: "Each of the 51,000 vehicles being taken away is a story about a disabled person's independence being compromised.

"This is having a devastating effect on quality of life.
"The fact that two-thirds of people who contest their PIP award win their case shows that the system isn't working and is in urgent need of reform."

Muscular Dystrophy UK is now calling on the DWP to reverse a fiercely contested change in the rules.

To qualify for the higher level of the mobility component of PIP, which is needed to get a Motability vehicle, a person must meet a number of criteria for example: be unable to walk unaided for 20 metres, compared with the previous distance of 50 metres under DLA.   PIP Assessment Centres such as the one run by Capita in Peterborough, Cambs. (at Stuart House) is located so the claimant has to physically walk more than 20 metres just to reach their Capita first floor reception desk. So many fail even before the assessment starts!

The DWP claim there are now 70,000 more people on the Motability scheme compared with 2010.

Ministers say the Motability charity provides a support package to those who no longer qualify for the scheme, including a £2,000 lump sum, however this appears to be a misunderstanding as the £2k package is offered as a contra amount against the trade resale value of the secondhand car, not 'cash in hand'.  

If an appeal is successful, PIP arrears are repaid in full to the claimant but without interest for the time lost, and they can also rejoin the Motability scheme immediately if they repay their transitional support money, or else within six months of the date they left the scheme. [This of course is a nonsense as many will have purchased the vehicle or taken a out commercial loans to pay for it.]

Private companies carrying out controversial assessments for disability benefits are set to bank millions of pounds more than was budgeted for in their contracts, new figures suggest.

Labour accused the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of "rewarding failure" by Atos and Capita, which appear set to be paid more than £700 million for their five-year contracts.
This compares with an original estimate of £512 million for the contracts to carry out assessments for personal independence payments (PIP).

The DWP said the assessment process for PIP is key to supporting claimants, and it has to balance effective support for the most vulnerable with getting the best value for the taxpayer.

Analysis by the Press Association shows Atos and Capita have already been paid £578 million in relation to PIP since it launched in 2013.

This includes £257 million in 2016, the highest year so far, according to the department's monthly spending data.
But the three original call-off contracts for this work totalled £512 million.

This figure was supposed to cover a five-year period, according to the original contract documents.

A DWP spokeswoman is reported to have said  said: "The reality is that, since PIP was introduced in 2013, more than two million decisions have been made; of these just 7% have been appealed and 3% have been overturned.

[It is very difficult to appeal the process, unless you have legal training and know how to access the actual 'confidential' report sent to the DWP by firms like Capita. Unless the Claimant demands to see a copy, they will never ever know what has been written about them. That 'secret' report that will remain on the DWP digital files for many years to come. All the claimant will normally see is the subsequent bland letter sent by the DWP with the formal PIP decision. They will however already know if their Motability vehicle is being removed as Motability seems to get the news weeks ahead of the claimant!

It also requires immediate and sustained action, in writing, in challenging decisions to effect a Mandatory Reconsideration. this cannot be stressed enough. It is  vital that your own GP writes a very detailed and full letter in support of your stated medical condition(s), most GPs will charge a fee for this, but trust us this is money very well spent. Capita say they routinely write to your GP but those letters are rarely actioned as the GP is too busy].  

"But we constantly review our processes, to make sure they are working in the best way possible.

"Most people leaving the Motability scheme are eligible for a one-off payment of £2,000 to meet their needs." [This is untrue no payment or money changes hands, it is simply a book allowance against the trade secondhand value of the mobility lease car should the claimant wish to purchase it, once they are booted off the scheme]

Motability [ie not the DWP] has already provided more than £50 million in support through this transitional package.

With DWP having paid Atos and Capita an average of £19 million a month over the past two years, the companies are set to be paid in excess of £700 million by the time the contracts hit the five-year mark.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Debbie Abrahams said: "It is beyond belief that this Tory Government is rewarding failure.
"The PIP process is in disarray and these private companies are receiving huge payouts in a time of extreme austerity.

"It is clear that these costs are spiralling out of control.
"The Government needs to get an urgent grip on these extortionate payments to private companies, especially at a time when they are getting more and more assessments overturned in the courts."

The payouts by DWP totalled £198 million in 2015, £91 million in 2014 and £7 million in 2013, the year PIP launched.

Figures released for January and February 2017 show the companies have been paid a further £25 million this year.

Atos won two of the three original tenders - a £206.7 million contract to carry out assessments in the North and Scotland, and a £183.9 million contract for London and the South.

The other £121.6 million contract for assessments in Central England and Wales was won by Capita.

More than 160,000 people initially denied PIP have had this decision overturned since the benefit launched in 2013, according to DWP figures, while Atos and Capita have been dogged by accusations of insensitive assessments.

A DWP spokeswoman said: "We are determined to provide claimants with the support that they need, and the effective assessment of people's abilities is key to this.

"We routinely review our work to make sure that we focus our resources on the most viable options and deliver the most effective support for the most vulnerable in society, while also ensuring the best value for the taxpayer."

A separate £59 million contract for PIP assessments in Northern Ireland is devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and is not recorded in DWP data.

The original DWP contract tender suggested the four contracts would be worth between £480 million and £680 million.

Liz Sayce, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said: "If Government is spending an extra £200 million on the companies carrying out PIP assessments we need to ask why.

"But we also need to ask if this is a good use of taxpayers' money at a time when over 50,000 people have had to return their Motability cars and the Government has made it more difficult for those with serious mental health conditions to qualify for PIP."

A Capita spokeswoman said: "We were selected through a rigorous procurement process by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to undertake personal independence payment assessments in line with DWP's clearly defined service specification.

"We provide these reports to the department who, alongside considering all other evidence submitted by a claimant, make a decision on whether to award a benefit, and if applicable the level of such an award.

"We are paid according to the number of quality controlled assessments we complete for DWP."

Additional sources; PA, CNS, BBC, AGENCIES E&OE Tel:+44 (0) 1733 345581

Post a Comment





UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.

Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens. We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independent Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.

We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.


THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled.

We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. l

ampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object] publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).


NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.

Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)


Rights Holder Charter
Version: January 2009 v.3
This Rights Holder Charter (“Charter”) sets out the terms and conditions governing the relationship between Julian Bray, Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch blog entitled Peterborough Tribune (PBROTRIB) on the Blogger and other platforms, and an individual or company making a Contribution to PBROTRIB (“Rights Holder”). The purpose of this document is to ensure that the Charter terms are
incorporated into to all Contracts with each Rights Holder, so both parties areclear as to how PBROTRIB may use content. This Charter does not apply to content submitted:
· using a feature or interactive service that allows
the individual to upload to and display content on any of PBROTRIB websites
(including social sites), apps, WAP sites or any web address owned or operated
by PBROTRIB as may link to the terms accessible at
(User-Generated Content (“UGC”)); or
This Charter applies to all Rights Holder Contributions, except where the Rights Holder is already subject to a separate
written agreement with PBROTRIB in relation to Contributions, or where PBROTRIB
has agreed in writing to vary or amend the Charter due to exceptional circumstances. Formation of the Contract

By sending PBROTRIB a Contribution you are making
an offer to PBROTRIB to use the Contribution.’ PBROTRIB’s use of the
Contribution is acceptance of your offer and creates a Contract on the terms of this Charter. Submission of a Contribution by you is an acknowledgement that
you agree to the terms of this Charter. If you do not agree to the Charter you must email us as soon as possible to raise your objection and withdraw your
submitted Contribution, otherwise you will be deemed to have accepted the Charter terms.
Contract: the agreement between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution incorporating this Charter and the Special Terms (where applicable);
Contribution: material (written, audio, visual, video or audiovisual) created by the Rights Holder and will be
classified as either Material You Send Us or Material We Request From You;
Credit: for Material You Send Us “© [insert name of Rights Holder and Year]”;
Publication: means one or more publications owned or operated by PBROTRIB. Licence: the licence granted by the Rights Holder to PBROTRIB
as set out in the Licence sections of this Charter;
Personal Data: has the same meaning as provided in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;
Material You Send Us: a Contribution as set out under the Material You Send Us paragraph;
Material We Request From You: A Contribution as set out under the Material We Request From You paragraph; Rights Holder: name of the of the individual or company which has created the relevant Contribution; Special Terms: written terms between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution that are not set out in this Charter and/or vary this Charter; and User-Generated Content: content submitted by an individual through a feature that allows the individual to upload material to any of PBROTRIB websites or social sites.
Conflict with other Agreements: If there is any inconsistency between any of the provisions of this Charter and the Special Terms, the Special Terms shall prevail. To be clear, where no Special Terms are agreed in writing, the Charter will apply without variation. Sending us a Contribution –
The information Rights Holders please provide To PBROTRIB When sending us a Contribution, please provide the following information:
Your Full Name;
Your Full Address; and Your Contact Telephone Number and Email Address.

We will not be able to provide Credits where a
Rights Holder has not provided the relevant information.

Material You Send Us

Material You Send Us is a Contribution that is
received by PBROTRIB from a Rights Holder. The Contribution may be solicited or unsolicited. The following are examples of Material You Send Us:
PBROTRIB has seen the Rights Holders’ photograph on a third party website. PBROTRIB contacts the
Rights Holder and asks to use the photograph. (Solicited). A Rights Holder speculatively submits a range of photographs to and for PBROTRIB’s use. The Editor may or may not decide to use one or more of the photographs. (Unsolicited) Material You Send Us does not include UGC, Material We Request You To Send Us or material that is governed under any
other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to accept any Material You Send Us for review and if accepted for review is under no obligation to offer a Contract. Should PBROTRIB decide that it wishes to use the Contribution, it will be governed by the terms of this Charter. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. If you wish to submit a speculative Contribution to us, please
contact the appropriate PBROTRIB title. Please note that PBROTRIB will not be able to acknowledge receipt of your Contribution and any submission is at the Rights Holder’s own risk.
Material You Send Us – Licence Terms
PBROTRIB believes that Material You Send Us is the
Rights Holder’s property and that the Rights Holder should not need to give up all its rights for the Contribution to be used by PBROTRIB. Therefore, by
sending us a Contribution, the Rights Holder grants the following irrevocable licence in perpetuity to PBROTRIB: The right to publish, reproduce, licence and sell the Contribution as part of the Publication throughout the world in the following formats:
-- the physical printed Publication;
-- in a replica layout in any electronic format of
the Publication;
-- on the website version of the Publication;
-- in any PBROTRIB apps delivering the Publication
to a reader; and
-- on any PBROTRIB social media pages.
-- The right to publish extracts or the whole of
the Publication (which may or may not include the Contribution) when promoting PBROTRIB’s business or subscriptions in media advertisement, show cards and other promotional aids. The Right to authorise The Newspaper Licensing Agency and similar reprographic rights organisations in other jurisdictions (“RROs”) to distribute or license the distribution of your Contribution throughout the world in any language(s) for RROs’ licensed acts and purposes as amended from time to time, and to keep available your Contribution through such RROs. The unlimited right to amend, edit, select, crop, retouch, add to or delete any part of the Contribution, in any format, whether electronic or otherwise, including the right to remove or amend any meta data associated with the Contribution.

The right to store the Contribution electronically.
In return for the licence granted in relation to the Material You Send Us, PBROTRIB will endeavour to provide the Credit with the Contribution. The licence granted to PBROTRIB shall survive any termination of the agreement between PBROTRIB and the
Rights Holder. Material We Request From You
Material We Request From You is a Contribution that
has specifically commissioned by PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB will contact a Rights Holder and
commission them to provide a Contribution in relation to a brief. An example of Material We Request From You is: PBROTRIB needs a photograph of a country building. PBROTRIB instructs the Rights Holder to attend the venue and take picture of the building. Material We Request From You does not include UGC, Material You Send Us or material that is governed under any other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB . The Rights Holder will provide its own equipment and materials to fulfil its obligation for Material We Request From You. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. Material We Request From You –
Assignment and Licence
PBROTRIB believes that Material We Request From You should be PBROTRIB ’s property as PBROTRIB has requested the Rights Holder’s services and instructed them to create the Contribution on its behalf. However, PBROTRIB acknowledges that the Right Holder may need a licence from PBROTRIB to
use the Contribution for limited purposes. Therefore, in submitting Material We Request From You to PBROTRIB , the Rights Holder assigns to PBROTRIB with full title, right and interest all existing and future intellectual property rights in the Contribution. In return, PBROTRIB will endeavour to give a Credit to the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB grants the Rights Holder a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use the Contribution in its own online and offline portfolio, provided that the following copyright notice is applied to the Contribution “©Peterborough
Tribune, used under limited licence”.
General notes about Rights: Any rights granted to PBROTRIB or the Rights Holder under this Charter shall survive termination of the Contract for any reason. Rights Holder Promises The Rights Holder promises: that it owns the Contribution and / or is (and will continue to be) authorised to grant the rights to PBROTRIB; nothing in the Contribution is blasphemous, discriminatory, defamatory, untrue, misleading or unlawful; that the Contribution complies with the NUJ Code of Professional Conduct and the Independent
Press Standards Organisations Editors’ regulations and Code of Practice; the Contribution does not contain any virus, Trojan horse, hidden computer software or similar; the Contribution does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party; where the Contribution contains Personal Data, all
the necessary consents in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 have been obtained; where the Contribution contains images of children under the age of 16, written parental consent has been obtained and can be provided on request; and maintain and comply with, at all times, the highest ethical standards in the preparation, creation and delivery of the Contribution.
Complaints In the event that a complaint is raised in relation to a Contribution, the Rights Holder agrees to co-operate fully with any internal or external investigation or process. Status. The Rights Holder is an independent contractor and nothing in the Charter shall render the Rights Holder an employee, worker,
agent or partner of PBROTRIB. The Rights Holder is responsible for any taxes/national insurance payable in relation to any services provided under the Charter.
Indemnity The Rights Holder shall keep PBROTRIB indemnified in full against all loss incurred or paid by PBROTRIB as a result of or in connection with any claim made against PBROTRIB by a third party:
arising out of, or in connection with the Contribution, to the extent that such claim arises out of the breach of this or any terms of this Charter (including any Special Terms); and for actual or alleged infringement of a third party's intellectual property rights arising out of, or in connection with the use of the Contribution except in so far as the claim arises as a result of changes made by PBROTRIB or a breach of the Licence by PBROTRIB.
Variation of the Charter No variation of any term of this Charter will be effective, unless it is set out in writing (letter, fax or email) and signed by
a relevant authorised representative of PBROTRIB. If you wish to submit a Contribution and are unable to agree with the terms of this Charter or if you
have any questions regarding this Charter, please contact a relevant authorised representative of the PBROTRIB publication.
Problems & Disputes In the event of a problem or dispute in relation to a Licence and/or in connection with this Charter, in the first instance the Rights Holder and the Editor will look to resolve the dispute amicably. Application of the Charter Unless otherwise agreed, this Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction