Court orders Atos to pay disabled woman a derisory £5,000 over dishonest PIP assessment

Only £5,000?

This was an opportunity to make an example of those who have been abusing the disability benefit system for too many years – and the courts have not taken it.

A larger, more punitive award would have sent a much stronger message – especially if other people who have been similarly wronged are lining up to fight their own court battles.

A court has ruled that a disabled woman should be awarded £5,000 compensation by the government contractor Atos, after a dishonest report by one of its assessors led to her being awarded the wrong level of benefits.

Vanessa Haley, from Huddersfield, told the county court in her written evidence that the assessor had tried to “impede her entitlement” to the enhanced rate of the daily living component of personal independence payment (PIP) by “falsifying” her assessment report.

The assessment report also led to her being denied any PIP mobility support.

She was awarded the compensation after the court upheld her claim of maladministration against Atos and her allegation that it was responsible for causing her health conditions to worsen.

Source: Court orders Atos to pay disabled woman £5,000 over dishonest PIP assessment


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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

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!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

5 thoughts on “Court orders Atos to pay disabled woman a derisory £5,000 over dishonest PIP assessment

  1. david

    I’m wondering if it may have been done to protect her from loosing ‘benefits’ as we know there is a cap of £6k in savings before benefits are reduced, and the DWP may not have given her the same leeway with court ‘winnings’ as they do with backdated money after an appeal OR a delay in assessment.

    1. Matt

      I remember years ago when a physiotherapist falsified a report about me that all I received was the report and a letter from the DWP saying my benefits would be stopped blah blah and no support or assistance whatsoever.

      Fortunately I have a mountain of medical/hospital stuff and won the case in the end. Thanks in part to my parents who put my appeal together. It’s borderline criminal that a fraudulent report can wrongly remove essential money for a period of time.

  2. Dez

    Hooray a win for the truth and agree the award should have had a more punishing punative edge to stop these lying agents just walking over claimants. It would have been good to have heard more about how the Court was persuaded that the agency was caught out lying or fabricating their negative report. Was there a witness or recording or other better quality medical information that swayed the decision. No matter what good win great news that starts to prove the system is and could be fixed against claimants to serve what purpose a fat bonus for fairy tales and a saving from Gov. coffers either way unfair and out of order..

Comments are closed.