In light of the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP appearing on BBC’s Sunday Politics it thought I would present a few pressing legal questions concerning a specific sections of the Welfare Reforms relating to the ESA50 questionnaire and Migration from existing benefits.
1. Why do the Department of Work and Pensions, continue to represent ATOS Healthcare and other contractors as Data Processors in the Capacity of the Work Capability Assessment? When a previous Information Commissioner ruling in respect of ‘Work Related Medicals states: “If they offer an ‘opinion’ which may alter a later outcome or decision” that “they are defined as a ‘Data Controller’. Is it not in fact the case the Lord Freud whilst describing ATOS’s role in the Work Capability Assessment, State “They only offer an ‘opinion’.
2. Is it not in fact the case given this ‘Data Processor’ status that Data Protection Act Authority must be obtained without Subterfuge, for the purposes of Sharing information. A matter which both his department and the DWP where warned about by DMA Legal Group back in 2011.
3. Is it not in fact the case , that the DPA authority obtained via Declaration 4, Page 18, ESA50 questionnare is not legal under the Data Protection Act (As there is no right of refusal other than that of not claiming the benefit?) and as such the DWP could not share claimants Personal Information with ATOS Healthcare or any other providor who carries the status of Data Controller such as that surrounding the ‘opinions’ offered in the Work Capability Assessment.
4. Is it not in fact the case, that the Social Security Act 1998 (Right of Supersession) states (to paraphrase) that where an existing award of benefit is in place this can only amended or terminated via supersession.
5. Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Decision Makers on his behalf, assigned to the the Incapacity Benefit reassessment team, have gone on record admitting that they have not been superseding the existing award of incapacity Benefit, Income support or Incapacity benefit paid as income support, they have been instructed by his department “just to terminate the existing awards”. which as he knows is in err of law.
6. Does the Right Honourable Gentleman, have an explanation why he knowingly instructed Decision Makers on his behalf (They answer only to the Secretary of State), to commit fraud and illegally terminate existing awards of Social Security Benefit without supersession, leaving the tax payer with a £Multi-billion bill for back payments which claimants have remained entitled to since their migration to ESA or similar Social Security claims?
7. Is the right honourable Gentleman aware, that the 2010 (Transition) Regulations, of forced assessment to meet the requirements of conversion, do not meet the requirements of the Right of Supersession (Social Security Act 1998).
8. What is the right honourable Gentlemans opinion of Declaration 5, page 18 of ESA50 questionnaire endorsed by his department and himself?
“I also understand
– any other benefit I may claim in the future”
Given that it allows for;
a) The use of false, outdated, or previously dis-proven (by appeal tribunal) data to be used as if it is current and factual.
b) That it attempts to illegally circumvent the Right of Supersession (Social Security Act 1998) via administration.
c) That it is another attempt at ‘retrospective’ legislation, this time via administration. I.e that false, outdated, or previously dis-proven data can be used to disallow a claimant for up to 5 years of previous Social Security claims, including that of passported benefits such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax benefit, leaving the claimant with a £100K+ recovery claim by the Department of Work and Pensions.
d) That based upon this use of false, outdated, or previously dis-proven data/evidence, that a claimant can have their claim defined and fraudulent, facing an automatic 3 years sanction from receiving any of the associated Social Security Benefits.
Would the Right Honourable Gentleman care to explain why these draconian conditions have been forced upon claimants?
9. Why is it that if a claimant redacts, declaration 4, 5 & 6 on page 18, ESA50 questionnaire, that the information provided will be ignored even if the rest of the form is completed in it’s entirety, and the will be defined as “not having limited capability for work”, without any assessment.
10. Why under his instructions that the Department of Work and Pensions, literally sat on a notified appeal application (Concerning these very points raised) for over six months (without filing it to the HM Courts and Appeal Service), then after over a year, forcing it be listed for just 30 minutes, before a part time judge who in her own admittance was “not qualified to hear this case” and has deferred the matter for a full hearing, with an indefinite time scale as to when that will occur.
Due to myself redacting Declarations 4, 5 and 6 page 18 of the ESA50 questionnaire, I have been left with Nil income since March 5th 2012, the Rt Hon Gentleman has been using rather underhanded tactics to prevent this case from ever reaching the Judiciary, including instructing staff to make false accusations, intimidation and delaying tactics as highlighted here
http://r-force.org/blog/?p=143 DWP Bully Boys Sent packing.
http://r-force.org/blog/?p=61 Threatening Letter from the DWP
http://r-force.org/blog/?p=71#comment-2720 DWP and the Criminality
of the incapacity benefit reassessment team
http://r-force.org/blog/?p=65 DWP have an interesting interpretation on your rights to record telephone calls.
http://r-force.org/blog/?p=85 “It’s a Policy Matter” DWP complaints ‘non’ resolution department. (This team was used to delay due process under the appeal tribunal procedure).
Update: For those of you that doubted what I presented concerning the Appeal Tribunal
So it will be rather difficult for the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP to deny this now.
The Judge in this case has actually invoked Rule 5, K (ii),
“the Tribunal considers that the other court or tribunal is a more appropriate forum for
the determination of the case; or”
The main problem with this is that the listing before the Regional or Nominated District Judge is “only for further directions” not a full hearing as presented by the judge during the earlier proceeding.
So I am going to have to apply to have this set aside.
This games playing by the DWP and the HM Courts & Appeal Service, is starting to get rather ridiculous.
Are they really this scared of one disabled man?