Tweet
Good Morning Aii,
I have issued claim for damages against the Secretary for Work and Pension in respect of the blatant maladministration of my claim for PIP and Universal Credit, which and evidently, has and will unfortunately effect a number of people, and in particular, disabled people who are having their benefits stopped and not because their illnesses and disabilities have improved overnight, but because of the welfare reforms and the unlawful way in which Claimants are medically assessed and subsequent, report which is full of false facts is relied upon by DWP to deny welfare benefits for a vulnerable part in our society who unfortunately suffer from both physical and mental conditions which puts them at an disadvantage and deserved to be giving extra support rather than having benefits stopped as a Government agenda to cut public funding as a means of saving money.
I dared to object to this process and in particular the negative impact that the PIP process as to award disability payments, which and 9 out of 10 times is denied on the false reporting of a unqualified health care worker employed by ATOS as to profit from removing a genuine disabled person who needs extra financial support because of their condition.
What is clear is that the number of suicides as committed by disabled people who have lost out on benefits is staggering and goes unnoticed and which has prompted me to start civil proceedings against the DWP who to date have been allowed and gone unchallenged to treat people in this way.
DWP were unable to provide a defence to my Particulars of Claim which highlighted and evidently showed how flawed and why the welfare reforms and treatment of disabled people was unjustified.
This has caused a few problems as I have entered judgment in default, but them and the assigned Master seem to be making the rules up as they go along.
One example being DWP were granted a strike out application, this after withdrawing the application and the Master relied on the rule that I failed to comply with a previous order, which was never the case.
As I have followed all correct procedures and rightly asked for judgment in default of a defence not being offered I feel them and the assigned Master are bending the rules on the assumption that I do not know the protocol and if I had legal representation the rules would not be abused.
Any help on this would be really appreciated.
I have issued claim for damages against the Secretary for Work and Pension in respect of the blatant maladministration of my claim for PIP and Universal Credit, which and evidently, has and will unfortunately effect a number of people, and in particular, disabled people who are having their benefits stopped and not because their illnesses and disabilities have improved overnight, but because of the welfare reforms and the unlawful way in which Claimants are medically assessed and subsequent, report which is full of false facts is relied upon by DWP to deny welfare benefits for a vulnerable part in our society who unfortunately suffer from both physical and mental conditions which puts them at an disadvantage and deserved to be giving extra support rather than having benefits stopped as a Government agenda to cut public funding as a means of saving money.
I dared to object to this process and in particular the negative impact that the PIP process as to award disability payments, which and 9 out of 10 times is denied on the false reporting of a unqualified health care worker employed by ATOS as to profit from removing a genuine disabled person who needs extra financial support because of their condition.
What is clear is that the number of suicides as committed by disabled people who have lost out on benefits is staggering and goes unnoticed and which has prompted me to start civil proceedings against the DWP who to date have been allowed and gone unchallenged to treat people in this way.
DWP were unable to provide a defence to my Particulars of Claim which highlighted and evidently showed how flawed and why the welfare reforms and treatment of disabled people was unjustified.
This has caused a few problems as I have entered judgment in default, but them and the assigned Master seem to be making the rules up as they go along.
One example being DWP were granted a strike out application, this after withdrawing the application and the Master relied on the rule that I failed to comply with a previous order, which was never the case.
As I have followed all correct procedures and rightly asked for judgment in default of a defence not being offered I feel them and the assigned Master are bending the rules on the assumption that I do not know the protocol and if I had legal representation the rules would not be abused.
Any help on this would be really appreciated.
