Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Presenting Officers asked to report on averting enhanced PIP awards and ESA SG appeals
The recent intake - with one exception - just sit there looking stunned.
That’s very much the way it seems to be for the POs around our neck of the woods as well. There’s a few older ones that know their way around the law and often raise very valid points (both for and against the client). The remainder just look hugely out of depth and are often chewed up by Tribunal judges. The exchange I’ve seen several times now usually goes:
Judge: “Now Mr/Ms PO, what is the Departments view on this case?”
PO: “We still support the original decision Mr/Ms Judge”
J: “Hmm, interesting, because the medical evidence says…”
Followed by being made to look very silly and then quickly agreeing with whatever the Tribunal are minded to award (which is usually what I’m asking for). It’s quite good fun actually though I do occasionally feel sorry for the nicer ones.
On the whole though I can’t help but feel the DWP would be better off spending the money on improving the quality of decision making. Or even doing something radical and getting claimants medical records themselves before making a decision…
Nice summary. Our old ones have mostly gone now. The new ones contribute nothing at all.
Like I was saying earlier, I don’t know what POs can do when original decision just clearly wrong (would need to be baby magicians rather than baristas or barristers) and so the whole idea of saving money by ‘averting’ awards is misconceived.
Like I was saying earlier, I don’t know what POs can do when original decision just clearly wrong (would need to be baby magicians rather than baristas or barristers) and so the whole idea of saving money by ‘averting’ awards is misconceived.
The money they could actually save would be by previewing cases and conceding where appropriate.
“On the whole though I can’t help but feel the DWP would be better off spending the money on improving the quality of decision making. Or even doing something radical and getting claimants medical records themselves before making a decision…”
Couldn’t agree more. The problem in my view is indeed that too many cases end up at Tribunal due to the appalling quality of the assessment and the subsequent decision.
Obtaining claimants medical records would no doubt present a clearer picture of any issues than the fictionalised nonsense produced by ATOS/Crapita and Maximus, and would definitely be a lot cheaper. (Possibly a better way of producing the savings so optimistically predicted for the POs).
Of course, the twin elephants in the room are, 1) DWP don’t actually want a fair and objective assessment and decision-making process, preferring a (allegedly) money-saving stitch-up of the claimant, and 2), The corporate (and no doubt Tory voting) shareholders of wealthy multimillion businesses ATOS, Crapita and Maximus would scream blue murder should their free handout of taxpayers’ money be threatened.
“Of course, the twin elephants in the room are, 1) DWP don’t actually want a fair and objective assessment and decision-making process, preferring a (allegedly) money-saving stitch-up of the claimant, and 2), The corporate (and no doubt Tory voting) shareholders of wealthy multimillion businesses ATOS, Crapita and Maximus would scream blue murder should their free handout of taxpayers’ money be threatened.”
Where’s the like button?
Righstnet have a “Like” button which appears like the “Upload Documents” button in a UC journal i.e. only when they choose 😊
Had an ‘old hand’ PO attend an overpayment appeal hearing yesterday. Happily conceded the absence of significant substantiating evidence from the DWP and legal arguments made on behalf of appellant. Also agreed to recommend to the DM that a SOR was not requested (we shall see!).