Are DWP Decision Makers Submitting Fabricated Evidence To Appeal Tribunals? | Welfare Weekly
It seems there is no legal deterrent to stop DWP decision makers from breaking their own rules in order to hit Departmental targets for pushing people off-benefit. Read this, by Neil Wheatley:
This week, the DWP admitted to fabricating testimonials used in an official information leaflet.
Employees of the DWP are unlikely to be surprised by such unethical behaviour.
Indeed according to G S Prince, Assistant Manager for JobCentre Plus at the Chippenham BDC (from a letter dated 3 December 2010):
“An individual decision maker … does not owe the appellant a legal duty of care and is not legally liable for any errors or omissions he may make.”
According to this statement, DWP Decision Makers who commit perjury by submitting fabricated evidence to an Appeal Tribunal cannot be held accountable for their criminal actions.
If DWP Decision Makers have no legal liability for the honesty or accuracy of the evidence that they submit to an Appeal Tribunal then how does each Appeal Tribunal ensure that claimants receive a fair trial?
Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, should provide a clear statement about the claim made by G S Prince.
Are DWP decision makers legally liable for errors and/or omissions submitted to Appeal Tribunals? Yes or No
and specifically;
Are DWP decision makers legally liable for fabricated evidence that they submit to Appeal Tribunals? Yes or No
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Dishonesty and lies are all part of Duncan-Smith’s everyday existence, and there is evidence to show that they always have been (false CVs). I firmly believe that the DWP policy and attitudes stem directly from that dishonest cretin.
“Are DWP Decision Makers Submitting Fabricated Evidence To Appeal Tribunals? ”
Mike just edit that to:- DWP Decision Makers are Submitting Fabricated Evidence To Appeal Tribunals, and that is the reality of the situation and has been so for many years.
Sadly this neither shocks nor even surprises me, the whole system has been brutalised to suit the Psychopathic Messianic Dogma of IDS. Note too that the document also seems to break laws on Gender Discrimination: “An individual decision maker … does not owe the appellant a legal duty of care and is not legally liable for any errors or omissions [ HE } may make.” (My capitals. It refers to Decision Makers in terms of “he” and “his”, surely nowadays this is unacceptable sexism in a Government document.
Fabricated evidence is not the same as an ‘error’ or ‘omission’ though. And perjury is perjury; whatever the legal exclusions of the situation outside the court, once they are speaking in court they must not knowingly mislead the tribunal. It doesn’t matter whether it is a DWP matter, or a matter completely separate from Government, they can still be brought to book for lying in a court.
Mike I can no longer find the original of this (can only now find a copy in a secret group) but it was originally on an open FB group and is VERY SCARY :
Ok we have a bit of a tricky post now but one that is true and illustrates the latest all time low DWP will go to to justify their adverse decisions to the Court.
Our client who attended court and won today is convinced somebody at DWP altered and forged some of her PIP form. Many of the pages on the main descriptors were replaced with the no tick boxes ticked, indicating she had no problem with washing, dressing, toileting, and communicating and with all her written info was virtually blank. On closer scrutiny of the bundle which contained the application form, her handwriting was noticeably different on the form on these pages and her 7s uncrossed on others.
She was denied points as she had indicated “no problems,” but after writing a statement to confirm, and a submission pointing out the inconsistencies and alleged fraud, the judge agreed with her and the decision was overturned.
We urge you to therefore keep copies of your PIP form and compare it to the one in the bundle, if on appeal.
Indeed there was a follow up to the article above after someone contacted the site, and they stated that faking evidence was indeed a criminal offence:
http://www.welfareweekly.com/letters-dwp-decision-makers-personally-responsible-fabricate-evidence/
Faking forms is not uncommon. One adviser said to initial every statement at the end, much like you block out spaces on a cheque. Also sign every page at the top. It seems in your case that new pages of the form were used that were already blanked out. That’s why it is vitally important for people to ALWAYS photocopy any benefit form application; it can be clearly seen then by the tribunal that documents have been forged, and appropriate action can then be taken regarding the fraud.
Should we not be surprised by this, by their blatant treacherous and deceitful behaviour, this is the tory party after all, that’s what they do best, they couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it, they are once again breaking the and nobody’s lifting a figure to stop them, so much for the opposition parties!