Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

32 die a week after failing test for new incapacity benefit

102 replies

ttosca · 08/04/2012 13:41

By Nick Sommerlad on April 4, 2012 11:00 PM in Health

More than a thousand ­sickness benefit claimants died last year after being told to get a job, we can reveal.

We've highlighted worries about the controversial medical tests for people claiming Employment Support Allowance which are being used to slash the country's welfare bill.

The Government has boasted that more than half of new ­claimants are found "fit to work" - failing to mention that over 300,000 have appealed the decision and almost 40% have won.

Instead, employment minister Chris Grayling (below) says this ­"emphasises what a complete waste of human lives the current system has been".

Chris-Grayling.jpg

Here's another waste of human life.

We've used the Freedom of Information Act to discover that, between January and August last year, 1,100 claimants died after they were put in the "work-related activity group".

This group - which accounted for 21% of all claimants at the last count - get a lower rate of benefit for one year and are expected to go out and find work.

This compares to 5,300 deaths of people who were put in the "support group" - which accounts for 22% of claimants - for the most unwell, who get the full, no-strings benefit of up to £99.85 a week.

We don't know how many people died after being found "fit to work", the third group, as that information was "not available".

But we have also found that 1,600 people died before their assessment had been completed.

This should take 13 weeks, while the claimant gets a reduced payment of up to £67.50 a week, but delays have led to claims the system is in "meltdown".

Mr Grayling admitted last month that 35,000 people are waiting longer than 13 weeks. Commenting on the deaths of ­claimants, a Department for Work and Pensions official said: "It is possible that the claimant had already closed their claim and then ­subsequently died, meaning that these figures may be ­overestimating the true picture."

Of course, they're bound to include some people who died of ­something completely unrelated to their benefit claim.

David-Groves.jpg

But there are plenty of tragic cases - such as that of David Groves (above) who died from a heart attack the night before taking his work ­capability assessment.

The 56-year-old, from Staveley, Derbyshire, worked for 40 years as a miner and telecoms engineer but stopped on doctors' orders after an earlier heart attack and a string of strokes. His widow Sandra said: "When Dave was called in for a medical, he felt like he was back to square one.

"He was in a terrible state by the day he died. It was the stress that killed him, I'm sure."

Stephen Hill, 53, of Duckmanton, Derbyshire, died of a heart attack in December, one month after being told he was "fit to work", even though he was waiting for major heart surgery.

Citizens Advice told us it has found "a number of cases" of people dying soon after being found fit for work.

"There seems to be a clear link between the cause of death and the condition they were suffering from that led to the claim," said Katie Lane, head of welfare policy.

"We have always supported the idea that people who could work and want to work should be helped to do that. But we are seeing a lot of seriously ill and disabled people being found fit for work.

"We have serious concerns about whether the test used to decide if people are fit for work is the right test."

The work capability assessments are carried out by private firm Atos, on a £100million a year contract.

The firm made a £42million profit in 2010 and paid boss Keith Wilman £800,000, a 22% pay rise on the previous year.

The response to our FOI request:

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request of 16 February 2012. You asked:

Can you please provide me with the number of ESA claimants who have died in 2011?

Can you please break down that number into the following categories:
? Those who are in the assessent phase
? Those who have been found fit to work
? Those who have been placed in the work related activity group
? Those who have been placed in the support group
? Those who have an appeal pending

The table below provides data on the numbers of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants where the Department holds information on a date of death being recorded in 2011 and whose latest Work Capability Assessment (WCA) date (or activity towards assessment) was before the end of August 2011, the latest data available.

In total, between January 2011 and August 2011, some 8,000 claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end. This represents about 1% of the total ESA caseload in May 2011 (the latest caseload data available). The table below shows the position of these claims when they were closed.

Those in the Support Group receive unconditional support due to the nature of their illness, which can include degenerative conditions, terminal illness and severe disability.

Note it is possible that the claimant had already closed their claim and then subsequently died, meaning that these figures may overestimate the true picture. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting these figures.

WCA Outcome at most recent assessment and number of claimants with a recorded date of death

Assessment not complete 1,600
Work Related Activity Group 1,100
Support Group 5,300
Total 8,000

All figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

Data on the number of ESA claimants that have died following a fit for work decision is not available, as the Department does not hold information on a death if the person has already left benefit.

The Department does not hold information on the number of claimants who died whilst an appeal was in progress.

We then asked for:

The total Employment and Support Allowance caseload figures most comparable with the ones in the FOI request, eg Jan-Aug 2011, showing how many ESA claimants are put in support group, WRAG group, fit to work or claim ended.

Clarification on whether these figures are only new ESA claims or whether they include the transfer from Incapacity Benefit?

Clarification on the six-week cut off figure - why was that selected?

We were told:

As at August 2011 there were around 730,000 people receiving ESA. In the three quarters Jan-Sep 2011, 380,000 people left ESA. It is not possible to provide the further detail you request.

These figures only cover new ESA claims - claims from IB recipients are not included.

The six-week figure is used routinely within the department when looking at where people go after leaving benefits.

However, there are more figures on the outcome of Work Capability Assessments on the DWP website here and here.

blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html

OP posts:
Serialkipper · 08/04/2012 20:53

This is an example, btw, not casework.

You are claiming that there is support for this person: I'm pretty sure there's none.

Unless you're now trying to arrogate credit for people who give to charity and to beggars...

Serialkipper · 08/04/2012 20:58

I'm pretty sure there's conditionality on Income Support about being available for work.

Flightty · 08/04/2012 21:05

I don't know if income support even exists any more. There is something apparently for single parents until the child is five.

Once they're five you're expected to work. I'm not sure how many hours.

John, I'm not asking or expecting you to look at any individual cases. Especially not here.

I'm just making a suggestion if you have any power to put pressure on anyone in govt, just, write better letters. That's basic but would help people enormously.

Thankyou

johnhemming · 08/04/2012 21:16

It does exist
www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018708

However, I cannot sensibly advise on an individual case here.

Serialkipper · 08/04/2012 21:32

It's not an individual case, it's a hypothetical.

You're looking for tactical individual solutions ("Move in with your granny", "Reduce your FE course hours"), which is all very well for an advice centre.

It's completely unsuitable for someone who holds the strategic power of an MP. Burying your head in the sand and saying effectively, "The new system works, you just need to know how to work it," is a denial of reality which will cost lives.

mercibucket · 08/04/2012 21:36

They're not hypothetical - that's my brother!

johnhemming · 08/04/2012 21:39

It is a real situation for which there must be and is a real solution.

Serialkipper · 08/04/2012 22:35

Sorry, mercibucket, didn't mean to dismiss either your brother or my own situation.

But john is trying to escape from the systemic problem he has helped create by hiding in the detail of individual cases.

mercibucket · 08/04/2012 23:11

Oh no offense at all serialkipper! You are right. I just wanted to make clear that 'hypothetical' does happen in rl! It's the 'worst' cases that fall through the gaps. My sister has me/depression and 'passed' her interview to get esa - because she was depressed but not severely mentally ill - so she was able to present a good case, take people with her, get help with the forms etc. My brother is far to ill to do that. You only need to look at the 6 inch scar up the back of his head to see things might not be right!

breadandbutterfly · 09/04/2012 00:01

Dreadful article and much much more needs to be done to highlight the ludicrousness of a system where someone can be assessed both fit for work by one rganisation and yet not fit enough for work by another and hence fall between two stools. Everyone should be able to access some sort of essential benefit - and these assessments should be linked so that noone can be both too well and too ill at the same time.

johnhemming · 09/04/2012 09:37

But john is trying to escape from the systemic problem he has helped create by hiding in the detail of individual cases.

The system is not supposed to leave people without money. That is the systemic objective. If there are individual cases where people are not getting any support at all then they need to be looked at to find out why. That is why individual cases are important.

It appears superficially to me that Income Support applies for the cases cited. However, without looking in detail at the cases I cannot say any more.

The government's definition for JSA is as follows:
www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_200090.html

There is nothing in this about having to be available for work 40 hours a week. Indeed people doing less than 16 hours a week can get JSA as well.

yakbutter · 09/04/2012 11:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

johnhemming · 09/04/2012 12:34

The system is shit John with the libdems caving in to every Tory demand.
Err ... no

I'm still disgusted that the right to ESA has been removed from young disabled
people turning 18.
Contributory ESA yes, means tested ESA no. In other words the decision has been to means test it.

And with no Independnat Living Fund where are they meant to go john? What
are they meant to do John?

Firstly, you are misrepresenting what is actually happening. Secondly, this acts to make people not claim things that they are entitled to. Thirdly, the country does face some serious challenges. I have some difficulty working out (in those circumstances) why extending means testing is something that is "shit".

If we are trying to protect those on the lowest incomes - which at least I am and I persuaded the government to increase means tested benefits by the full amount of inflation (unlike many people who are in work) - then why is extending means testing "shit". There are much worse options for balancing the books as far as the effects on people on low incomes are affected.

SerialKipper · 09/04/2012 12:37

You really don't know anything about benefits, do you john?

The reason JSA has a limit of 16 hours for someone already working is so that they can be "available for work" on top of that. Ditto the limit on hours in education.

This website explains it rather better than the DWP one:

"Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) is a benefit for people who are:
unemployed (or work less than 16 hours), and
are capable of working, and
are looking for a job."

If you are not capable of working, then you don't get JSA. But if you have been deemed Fit to Work, then you don't get ESA either. It's really simple.

Glitterknickaz · 09/04/2012 12:42

My MP is Francis 'jerrycan' Maude.
So I am screwed.

SerialKipper · 09/04/2012 12:58

And here's the DWP's own Benefit's Advisor.

You can do it without figures to find out if there's anything you'd be even potentially eligible for.

If you fill it in, as I did last night, for a single person with no children who has been found Fit to Work but isn't able to work in real-world terms, the programme says they get ZERO.

The system is designed to leave them without support.

You're trying to wrangle individual circumstances, eg "move in with granny" to get around the fact that the system is designed to leave them without support. For an advice centre that's a great attitude.

For someone with responsibility for the system, it's pure denial.

johnhemming · 09/04/2012 13:59

If you are not capable of working, then you don't get JSA. But if you have
been deemed Fit to Work, then you don't get ESA either. It's really simple.
Which is where income support comes in if indeed this is correct.

I have dealt with benefits casework since the late 1980s. Whereas I accept that some people may not be getting benefits. That is not how the system is designed to operate and with the right assistance (they can, of course, come to my advice bureau, but that is in Birmingham) they should get benefits.

I did encounter someone who came off contributory ESA and was qualified for means tested benefits, but didn't claim them.

I tend to quote from the government websites because they should be source accurate.

SerialKipper · 09/04/2012 14:08

john, do me a favour. Tomorrow when your staff are back, go and ask them about conditionality on Income Support.

Ask them what the conditionality is for a single person with no children who has been designated by the DWP to be Non Disabled.

johnhemming · 09/04/2012 14:18

I do actually need a case for this. I do not believe that it is true that the system (when functioning properly) works like this. I tend to help my staff out on the more complex cases anyway.

TheGreatestmadhairDayinHistory · 09/04/2012 14:55

But it does work like this. There are cases all over the internet, a quick google will show you.

People are being taken off ESA, told to apply for JSA as they are fit to work, and then not able to apply for JSA because they are actually not fit to work. It is happening, it is not hearsay, I know people it has happened to. Income support doesn't seem to be available for most, as far as I can see, and will not even exist any more soon under UC

2old2beamum · 09/04/2012 15:30

madhair as you say it does work like this and it is happening. I feel I am losing the will to live. This government is evil. Angry

SerialKipper · 09/04/2012 15:37

Ask your staff what the conditionality is on Income Support for a single, childless person designated Not Disabled.

It's a set list.

This will tell you how the system is designed, irrespective of any individual workarounds.

working9while5 · 09/04/2012 15:46

I have written about this a lot in the past. My friend and colleague has a 19 year old son with severe learning disabilities (has about 10 functional words), cerebal palsy, epilepsy etc. Was diagnosed at birth following a birth injury, has a consultant etc etc. He had to present at one of these "interviews". It's laughable.

As a Speech and Language Therapist I can almost guarantee there will be people who are too incapable, incompetent and/or unwell to communicate adequately their "defence" who will have their benefits removed while those with lesser complaints maintain their status because they are more erudite and better supported to play the system. Those who can play the system can and will find away around it. Some of these people will deserve the benefits they receive from doing this, some won't. The most vulnerable will fall prey either way.

It's disgusting. Who gives these boards the right to dismiss medical evidence from highly trained consultants with years of experience? Where is their expertise in judging these cases? Why on GOD'S EARTH should someone who is an adult, physicallyd disabled, epileptic and nonverbal be expected to justify that they are not fit for work? Who would employ that person? What job could they do? Developmentally, he has less language and communication than an average 15 month old. How much did it cost some "board" to agree that actually his consultant was right about this? It cost his mother a day's work to take him to the interview.

Glitterknickaz · 09/04/2012 16:09

Apparently I am no longer going to be eligible for Carers Allowance soon because two of my three disabled children only get middle rate care DLA.

I still won't be able to work, but I'll be forced to..... so who is going to look after the kids, take them to appointments etc? Husband will be in the same boat.

I'll still be a carer but no longer entitled to CA.

2old2beamum · 09/04/2012 16:17

Come on all you lazy buggers who rely on benefits off to the workhouse, I'll see you there!

Swipe left for the next trending thread