­
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: "The Evidence Does Not Suggest" - But there is no evidence!

"The Evidence Does Not Suggest" - But there is no evidence! 31 May 2018 09:03 #8197

  • Spanner
  • Spanner's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 433
  • Thank you received: 495
Those of you who are familiar with the assessors report, the decision notice and the mandatory reconsideration notice will also be familiar with the incessant and disingenuous use of the phrase 'The evidence does not suggest', but what does this mean?

The use of this phrase by health professionals and decision makers is one of the most disgraceful tricks in the DWP's arsenal. 'The evidence does not suggest' is nothing more than a con trick, a con trick employed by DWP at every turn to intentionally deny benefit claimants their lawful right to welfare benefits.

'The evidence does not suggest' is found on every page of the assessor's report (ESA85) where the assessor asserts that the claimant does not score on a specific activity under schedules 2 & 3, or regs 29 & 35 of the 2008/2013 ESA regs. The only reason the phrase is used is because the assessor (and decision maker) have no evidence whatsoever that the claimant does not score on an activity. If they did have evidence they would provide it. The reason they never provide it is because they never look for it, they don't need to look for evidence to deny benefits because the phrase 'The evidence does not suggest' gives them everything they need.

Breaking this phrase down shows us that "The evidence" seeks to give the impression that evidence exists, it does not exist and is never produced. The second part "does not suggest" seeks to give the impression that "the evidence" (which does not exist) has been properly evaluated. Overall, the phrase seeks to give the impression that the assessor and decision maker have applied logic, fact and reason in reaching a conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The phrase now becomes a conclusion but is based on nothing more than an expectation that the claimant will believe that evidence does exist and that "The evidence" automatically supports the conclusion whereas in fact, the conclusion is based on nothing more than fallacy and fraud.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: comply or die, El-dudeareno

"The Evidence Does Not Suggest" - But there is no evidence! 31 May 2018 09:32 #8198

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2043
  • Thank you received: 1922
Glad you brought this up Spanner as it will make for a good read and argument against them if we can scrutinise this and find a way to counter it. Any evidence (medical or otherwise) an ESA claimant produces, should be used against the descriptors the claimant finds they meet and produce evidence for. Decision Makers should note the following:

"A descriptor applies to a claimant if that discriptor applies to the claimant for the "Majority of the time" or, as the case may be, for the majority of the occasions on which the claimant undertakes the activity described by that descriptor".

This comes under Decision Making and Determination of limited capability for work related activity whih I willlink to shortly.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

"The Evidence Does Not Suggest" - But there is no evidence! 31 May 2018 09:45 #8201

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2043
  • Thank you received: 1922
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/contents/made

I took the above quote from this website (see Part 6 (34) Determination of Limited capability for Work related Activity.

Although this refers to the Support Group of ESA, we could argue that it applies to the WRAG group too as it suggests being able to undertake certain tasks under the descriptors one might fall under and whether `for the majority of the time` someone can undertake, or attempt such activity described in that descriptor. That`s how I read and understand it anyway but I could be wrong. Below is the WRAG elements just for comparison:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/794/regulation/19/made
The administrator has disabled public write access.
­