Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
But do you really know the way the rules are meant to be applied or are you "listening" to the myths, which are usually at best, an incomplete explanation of the rules. Eg There's a lot more to mobilizing than being able to go a certain distance.
|
It is in the DWP handbook that they are now to assume people have aid's regardless if they actually have the aid's or not. They are also supposed to exempt people from the aid's check tho if they provide proof of good reasoning to not be using such aids, such as medical reasons or unsuitability where they live, however these exemptions are for the most part not been made hence one of the reasons the DWP is losing so many tribunal cases.
One would think the DWP and NHS talk to each other, e.g. to see if someone claiming to have a problem has even seen their GP about it (shockingly these kind of checks are typically not made). Another reasoning been if a DWP assessor says person A can mobilise with X set of aid's then it should be logical a letter goes out to the NHS to supply these aid's, however nothing of the sort happens. The aid thing is a pretty dangerous game they playing e.g. I have many doctor's and physios tell me a wheelchair is a last resort as it effectively sets your body to rot always been in a sitting position, the NHS pushes hard for people to exercise as much as possible and they dont want people to be in a wheelchair unless they have no ability to mobilise at all without one, even if someone can walk say 5 metres, that may be enough for doctor's to avoid a wheelchair. However the DWP work on an opposite ideology where they think everyone who has walking problems, should be using wheelchairs. When a tribunal is faced with this conundrum they should side with the NHS doctors which I believe is what typically happens but even with all these lost cases the DWP persist with their policies.