dwpexamination forum now available at http://www.dwpexamination.org
OK, lets take a look at what the evidence I have gathered says about the system used by ATOS Origin alleged “Doctors” to stop our benefits. If what the evidence is suggesting here is true, then our own Government needs to be held to book over this as it appears ATOS are not following their own administrative procedure.
As far as I can tell, there are a series of standardised questions which the alleged “Doctor” is required to ask each claimant. These questions are allegedly standardised so there can be no argument about inconsistencies.1
The questions have a set of standard answers, which the alleged “Doctor” can use as his answers.2 These questions are designed to (a) confuse you (b) embarrass you (c) are often repeated in a different format so you can actually contradict yourself, which may then be interpreted by the alleged “Doctor” as contradictory evidence.3
Supplementary questions like ‘What kind of car do you drive?’, ‘do you go to restaurants, bars, clubs or the cinema/theatre?’ are not on the “official” list of questions and should not be asked if they are following a pre set administrative procedure. After all, we have already been asked how long we can sit or stand?
The system appears to be designed to make examination easy for the alleged “Doctor”. Who has a standard set of answers he can use, which allow him to say without fear of contradiction that he gave the best possible answer he could to fit your present state of health. It also appears to be deliberately designed to give the client the least possible chance of fully answering a question and thus remaining on benefit4.
You are not aware of the questions you are going to be asked, or of the points system used to determine your current state of health. Alleged “Doctors” also use hand written descriptions like ‘did not appear to have any difficulty sitting or rising from a chair’. ‘Did not appear to have any difficulty in removing or putting on his coat’. None of which appear in that format on the “official” list of questions. This is simply other “observations” which further disallow your claim5.
ATOS alleged “Doctors” appear to select items from you IB50 which can easily be challenged and appear to be ignoring glaringly obvious things like recent surgery, radiation treatment or the fact that some patients are recovering from serious trauma or mental health issues. How can this be a fair assessment of your current state of health? They can also ask questions, make observations and give ‘their’ opinion on whether you are telling the truth regardless of their level of expertise or area of specialism6.
You are advised to give the alleged “Doctor” as much information as possible on your state of health so he understands your situation clearly. Evidence suggests that any information you give the alleged “Doctor” is totally ignored, an assumption is made, an answer selected from a list, and entered on your behalf by what now appears to be a hostile examiner. So there is a possibility any answer you give can be misinterpreted, resulting in your benefits being suspended7.
You are advised to produce any Hospital or Doctors letters to support your claim. This evidence can not be requested by the alleged “Doctor” and must be volunteered by you. Having done so your evidence is then totally ignored as the alleged “Doctor” has already made it clear to you that he is interested only in your “present” state of health. In effect, this means he is not interested in what has happened in the past, rather how you feel on the time and day of your medical. Sounds a bit like the MOT drivers put their car through every year, doesn’t it8?
1 See questions you may be asked.
2 Not all of these pre set answers actually reflect the answer you give
3 A deliberate ploy to “catch you out”. Can they actually ask questions outside those on the “official” list?
4 Is this evidence of a “biased” test?
5 Is this a valid argument for putting the questions and answers in the public domain so you know what to expect?
6 Is this method of questioning designed to put you under extreme pressure, when you are already in a nerve wracking situation? Are they aware of the effect this would have on a person with serious mental health issues?
7 The alleged Doctor could argue that a letter from a surgeon that is usually at least 6 months old (at the time of your ‘examination’) is not evidence you are still ill?
8 This suggests that by using this disclaimer at the beginning of your ‘examination’, the alleged Doctor is telling you he is not interested in the past, so any evidence you produce from your specialist or GP can be considered out of date and therefore irrelevant.
Your opinion please?
I’ll be back