Skip to content

DWP Reject PIP Claimant’s Appeal- Before She Knows Outcome Of Original Claim

August 25, 2017

5 Comments leave one →
  1. jeffrey davies permalink
    August 25, 2017 9:51 am

  2. Nicolas permalink
    August 25, 2017 9:58 am

    Unbelievable to some, but not to those who have experienced the system, internal document? unlikely, just posted ahead of request to meet their 80 % failure target for MR.. May be the DWP has a lottery to who is allowed a sucessful mandatory reconsideration, or ATOS or its alias and Capita, state who they have stretched the facts, that is told porkie pies, to fail at the end of their assessments.

  3. Alan. Phillips permalink
    August 25, 2017 10:36 am

    It goes to show how fucked up this system is!
    We don’t have really stand a chance when the thing seems stacked against us!
    And to think this was sold to us as a better deal for disabled people – What a- buncb of crap that was.

  4. Alis McCabe permalink
    August 25, 2017 1:12 pm

    Following my PIP assessment and thankfully I stayed on same amount of money as my indefinite DLA, I received a letter stating my MR had been rejected. But I hadn’t risked asking for an MR due to receiving same amount.
    Alis M

  5. August 25, 2017 1:47 pm

    More garbage from the DWP’s BRIBED scumbag

    Not even a scan of the letter?
    Evidence Free, harmless hot air blowing to make it look like something is being done.



    Fraud Act 2006 –

    Here is the CRIMINAL OFFENCE – Fraud by abuse of position –

    (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

    (a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, (DWP criminals treatment of GENUINE claimants)

    (b)dishonestly abuses that position, and

    (c)intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

    (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a RISK of loss.

    (2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

    That’s it. that’s the WHOLE offence. Up to ten years in prison just for that.
    Not exactly difficult is it.

    How come public sector scum and their bribed criminal filth have such severe Fake learning difficulties when it comes to spotting hate crime.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: