Tweet
Re: 7months still waiting........
According to the DWP, a decision should be made and notified to a claimant within seven working days of the DWP receiving report from ATOS. The maximum time any claimant should have to wait for a decision is 13 weeks.
Giving credit where it is due, the DLA office at Blackpool tend, more often than not, to make decisions within 14 days of information being sent to them by a claimant. This is my own experience of them. I have to disclose that I have been waiting six months for a decision as to whether I should be moved from the WRAG to Support Group, due to my condition worsening. The DLA office made a decision within 14 days of my informing them.
If it is ATOS who are dragging their feet, then a letter can be drafted to enquire as to what stage your case is at. Likewise with the DWP. However, once one or both go past the 13-week mark, then, potentially, they are acting unlawfully as Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998, requires a public authority to deal with a person's affairs in a timely manner and Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful to perform any act that is incompatible with a person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 13 weeks is, generally, regarded as "timely".
As for ATOS's claim that there is a backlog, I am somewhat sceptical of this claim and hold the view it is a smokescreen to disguise the fact they wanted out of the contract. Why? My suspicion is that claimants have become more savvy and threatened ATOS with legal action, using pro bono representation, under Section 6 of HRA, due to ATOS being classed as a "public authority" due to them carrying out functions - medical assessments - on behalf of a government department, which is classed a public authority in any case. You should also be aware that, in addition to requiring a public authority to deal with a person's affairs in a timely manner, Article 6 confers the right to a fair hearing. Changing or omitting relevant facts from reports, resulting in a DWP Decision Maker's decision being skewed wrongly against the claimant and denying them support to which they are legally entitled is something for which ATOS has form. Is it little wonder ATOS is banned from operating in a number of U.S. states and Mainland European countries. They have also been branded "the biggest disability denial factory" by U.S. state legal officers.
According to the DWP, a decision should be made and notified to a claimant within seven working days of the DWP receiving report from ATOS. The maximum time any claimant should have to wait for a decision is 13 weeks.
Giving credit where it is due, the DLA office at Blackpool tend, more often than not, to make decisions within 14 days of information being sent to them by a claimant. This is my own experience of them. I have to disclose that I have been waiting six months for a decision as to whether I should be moved from the WRAG to Support Group, due to my condition worsening. The DLA office made a decision within 14 days of my informing them.
If it is ATOS who are dragging their feet, then a letter can be drafted to enquire as to what stage your case is at. Likewise with the DWP. However, once one or both go past the 13-week mark, then, potentially, they are acting unlawfully as Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998, requires a public authority to deal with a person's affairs in a timely manner and Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful to perform any act that is incompatible with a person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 13 weeks is, generally, regarded as "timely".
As for ATOS's claim that there is a backlog, I am somewhat sceptical of this claim and hold the view it is a smokescreen to disguise the fact they wanted out of the contract. Why? My suspicion is that claimants have become more savvy and threatened ATOS with legal action, using pro bono representation, under Section 6 of HRA, due to ATOS being classed as a "public authority" due to them carrying out functions - medical assessments - on behalf of a government department, which is classed a public authority in any case. You should also be aware that, in addition to requiring a public authority to deal with a person's affairs in a timely manner, Article 6 confers the right to a fair hearing. Changing or omitting relevant facts from reports, resulting in a DWP Decision Maker's decision being skewed wrongly against the claimant and denying them support to which they are legally entitled is something for which ATOS has form. Is it little wonder ATOS is banned from operating in a number of U.S. states and Mainland European countries. They have also been branded "the biggest disability denial factory" by U.S. state legal officers.
Comment