DWP Decision Maker Refers To Claimant As A ‘Lying B****’ In Appeal Papers

A welfare rights worker has posted an extract from a DWP submission to a PIP tribunal in which the decision maker refers to the claimant as a ‘lying bitch’.

The two pages from an appeal submission have been posted by a professional welfare rights worker on the Rightsnet website, where they are a regular contributor.

The extract states that the claimant is able to drive her two children to school and therefore, in the opinion of the decision maker, does not require guidance or supervision.

The submission then goes on to argue that if the claimant’s function was as poor as she claims then “she would not be fit to drive as she would be a severe danger on the road and there is no evidence to suggest that DVLA have been informed of such”.

The decision maker looks at other benefits received by the claimant, arguing that ESA is assessed on different criteria and so not relevant, before turning to carers allowance and stating:

“Although Miss [redacted] has identified a high level of personal restriction, she is entitled to Carer’s. To be entitled to Carer’s Allowance a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another disabled person each week. In this lying bitches case she is receiving the middle rate carers allowance component for providing day-time supervision to another disabled person. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.”

Quite apart from the vicious expletive, which is utterly unpardonable whatever the explanation, the submission raises other concerns.

Not least the fact that there is no such thing as ‘middle rate carers allowance component’ and you would hope that a decision maker would have at least a beginner’s level of benefits knowledge.

The submission is badly constructed, suggests a large amount of copy and pasting has taken place from standard DWP appeal templates, is grammatically poor and contains basic spelling errors, such as using a foot pedal for “breaking” a car.

It is no surprise that the DWP is currently losing 73% of its PIP appeals if the hate-filled prejudice and ignorance on display here is a reflection of the professionalism of the staff it now employs.

You can read the full thread on the Rightsnet website.