[draft] Letter to the DWP

[kaberett]

Feedback appreciated; I won't be sending it til tomorrow.

To whom it may concern,

Regarding my DLA application, reference [#]

You have not awarded me any rate for either the Mobility or Care components. I request a Mandatory Reconsideration. If this decision stands I will appeal it.

My previous claim in 2012 was also rejected on first receipt. Following a lengthy appeals process I was awarded DLA at the Lower rate for mobility and the Middle rate for care, based on the information I had provided at the outset. Since 2012 I have received a number of further diagnoses, including but not limited to autism and PTSD. I have provided extensive documentation – including 17,000 words of detailed additional notes, that caused me significant distress to write. Furthermore, I received an unexpected phone call from the DLA team in spite of the clear statements in my application that I find telephone conversations extremely difficult and often need help with them: as a direct result it was necessary for me to take diazepam.

In addition to the Mandatory Reconsideration, to take into full account the detailed information submitted with my claim, under the Freedom of Information Act I wish to be informed of:
1. the cost of the reconsideration and appeal of my 2012 application to the DWP and any other relevant government departments; and
2. the cost to the DWP (and any other relevant government departments) of mandatory reconsiderations and appeals in the past 12 months, following an initial rejection without assessment; and
3. an estimate of the cost of the current reconsideration.

I look forward to your response.


[signoff]

Comments

[kaberett]

NB last time we danced this particular round I went through the two-page "but ur not disabled tho" letter and disputed it point by point, with more detail, and cross-referencing to my (15k words, very well organised) additional notes. I think I really can't be fucked this time.

[sebastienne]

(Quick thoughts from a train)

If this current rejection looks vulnerable to the same criticisms as the last one, could you explicitly reference your previous rebuttal? Include a copy, even?

Also the letter currently reads as if you took a call from the DWP, which IIRC isn't what happened? Might be worth making explicit that you had to get someone to call them on your behalf..

[kaberett]

... attaching a copy is a brilliant idea - thanks, I'll do that.

I did in fact end up having to take a call from them at one point. But yeah, might expand on that one.

[beckyc]

I was about to suggest a similar thing re copy. Ideally with all the relevant sections highlighted in some manner.

And definitely go into more detail about the phone call - it's DEEPLY inappropriate that they can't manage to handle working around a disability in that way

[cxcvi]

It may be worth mentioning that your previous application was equally as detailed as this one was, and also to mention the steps that you went through to prove your case. I feel that your CBF feelings here are justified, though.

Also, I would probably s/look forward to/await/ in the ending to your letter, but you probably know better than me on why this isn't a sensible suggestion.

[kaberett]

Good call.

Mmm, I'm actually dithering over that one - can't decide where I want to be on the trade-off between "exerting obvious polite pressure" and "obviously extremely curtly irritated".

[alexseanchai]

Sounds good to me. Not happy or tactful, but it seems to me that you'll get better results if you're neither.

[kaberett]

I am pretty much aiming for "posh, pissed off, and polite enough to make it clear exactly how miserable they will be if they push me."

[alexseanchai]

Nodnod!

[hilarita]

I *like* the FOI bit. Neat. Very neat. I suspect you'll only get information about point 2, but the point is there. Are you likely to copy in your MP or similar?

[kaberett]

flippac's fault :-)

Hadn't intended to copy in my MP but might as well, I suppose...

[milkymoon]

This sounds very clear - I do hope the DWP actually pay attention and sort this out for you!

[emperor]

I would be inclined to make the not-specific-to-you FOI requests seperately, lest your letter ends up in the "FOI to sit on for weeks" pile?

[kaberett]

Actually, they're required to respond to the FoI request faster than I'd expect them to respond to the first part of the letter...

[askygoneonfire]

I wondered about the relevance of the FOI request in this letter - it may mark you as "has an axe to grind" rather than "wants a review in order to live". Whilst I'm sure you in fact both have an axe to grind and want a review so you can live, I'd question how helpful the former is to speeding up this process?

[kaberett]

They already know I'm difficult. I don't actually have much to lose by continuing difficult. :-/

[askygoneonfire]

In that case, have at it!

[hilarita]

Also, difficult & stroppy == someone who may complain to MPs, media etc. This often encourages action from organisations that don't want any more bad press.

[worlds_of_smoke]

Wow. That's an awesome letter. Go you. <3

[(Anonymous)]

Having had to appeal a DLA application before and at the time had done the reconsideration thingy, I later found from various charities and whatnot that there is little value in this as it changes things far less rarely than the first step of the appeal process does.

[kaberett]

Unfortunately I'm obliged to go through reconsideration before they'll let me appeal.

[(Anonymous)]

though this guide http://www.dls.org.uk/advice/factsheet/welfare_benefits/DLA_appeals/DLA%20Appeals%20Factsheet.pdf does recommend going for a reconsideration first it doesn't seem to apply that you have to, I tried looking at the government pages and they were decidedly unhelpful, clicked on the like for how to appeal DLA and DLA wasn't on the list of benefits on that page! I was 2005/6 when I was doing this, so rules could have changed, my recollection is that they made it look like you had to ask for a reconsideration when your entitlement is actually to go to any level of appeal.

[kaberett]

From the letter:

You can appeal against this decision, but you cannot appeal until we have looked at the decision again. We call this a Mandatory Reconsideration.

[(Anonymous)]

aha, just found a document via google rather than via the dwp site that says for decisions made after some day in October 2013 reconsideration is mandatory, so sorry for the other irrelevant info. It seems as part of this change they are also changing whether or not you can provide additional information - so if you have new medical reports since you sent the form in add those and possibly consider getting additional personal testimony from family/friends etc.

[(Anonymous)]

For reference
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264915/appeals-process-changes-q-and-a.pdf

It appears you have a month from the date of asking to submit any further evidence.

[kht.livejournal.com]

I think it reads well. One minor point - it might be an idea to clarify the reason for diazepam rather than assume that the reader knows what it is and what it's for. Good luck, and I hope you get a sensible response!

[kaberett]

Good point; done. Thanks!

[khronos_keeper]

Sorry to be nosy, but am I reading correctly that they simply haven't gotten back to you at all, not that they have either accepted or rejected your claim?

(Disability Services are notoriously slow in America, too, and most people get their initial application rejected just as par per course, regardless of how severe the applicant's disability really is. Sort of like, "If you're really disabled, you'll apply a second time." That is literally the unstated attitude. Like, what even?)

Also, out of curiosity, why is it you want to know how much the government spends reviewing your case?

[kaberett]

No, they have got back to me and told me they're not going to give me any money.

I want to know how much they're spending on it to make a political point: I am curious as to whether they're spending more money in making these rejections across the board than they're "saving". Also, because it will annoy management, and I am pretty much down with doing that at this point.

[quirkytizzy]

In the US, it's standard practice to outright reject EVERY SINGLE claim (disability and health) the first time it is submitted. 1) It saves the government money because some people don't appeal and 2) the government can sleep satisfied that it has sucessfully fucked over another tax paying citizen.

Ugh. Sounds like the UK is taking cues from us. UK POLITICIANS - WE IN THE USA ARE NOT GOOD ROLE MODELS, YOU ASSHOLES!!

[khronos_keeper]

I actually got accepted to Medicaid on my first time! I was amazed. I'm not really sure why. I mean, I was a jobless grad student $30K into debt with an urgent $5K emergency room bill at the time, with no health insurance, so that probably helped.

Not sure if they actually investigate the underlying health problems prompting the care visit, but I had a seizure and passed out in class, so that might have been a factor.

I DUNNO MAN. I'm still surprised I ever got helped.

[quirkytizzy]

That's way good you got accepted! I really wish that were the rule rather than the exception. It sounds like care was absolutely needed and like RITENOW!

[khronos_keeper]

I know, right? I know the emergency doc referred me for a follow up to make sure it wasn't going to get weird/bad, so there was some amount of concern for it to get investigated, so that may have also contributed?

The shitty part is that I totally fell into the statistical category common for my socioeconomic group, where poor folks don't get health insurance, so they don't go to the doctor because they can't afford it, their health problems magnify, and they end up in the emergency room with huge bills. So I think the state wanted to make an end run around that.

I think it's personally kind of weird because while I've always lived under the poverty level my whole life, my parents have always pushed for me to get a better life for myself. And even 3/4 of the way through an advanced degree and working 3 jobs, I'm still on federal subsistence. It's weird.

[khronos_keeper]

WHAT EVEN. Fucking dicks. Seriously WHAT EVEN.

Also that is a very interesting and salient point to know and make, I'm glad it occurred to you to ask it.

On a slightly different point, I find it kind of interesting the way you approach your gov figures? I dunno I have a kind of weird perspective. I've always kind of thought of myself as the prole getting chewed up by the massive machinery, with the machine hardly being accountable for how awful I end up. That sounds weird, sorry D:

[catyak]

Even as a prole you can be a spanner in the works. It's harder when you have to fight an individual battle though, although at least it's harder for them to say "you're the only one with the problem" or similar brush-off lines because the internet makes it easier to find others in the same situation.

[kaberett]

On a slightly different point, I find it kind of interesting the way you approach your gov figures? I dunno I have a kind of weird perspective. I've always kind of thought of myself as the prole getting chewed up by the massive machinery, with the machine hardly being accountable for how awful I end up. That sounds weird, sorry D:

I'm upper-middle class, I've got two degrees from Cambridge, I (can) sound posh*, and I grew up breathing local politics. Cambridge is a small enough town that what this means in practice is I'm on first-name terms with (1) the previous MP and (2) the current MP; I don't live there any more, but when I whinged about the DWP on FB a few weeks back current!MP commented to ask if there was anything I'd like him to do about the situation.

Basically, I've got a fucktonne of privilege in this area and I'm leveraging every bit of it I can. I'm in a position where it's relatively easy for me to treat government departments like servants and have them go along with it because they're caught up in the societal model that says people who talk like this have power. I try not to fuck over individual employees of government depts - especially when they've obviously less privilege than me - but damn, if the system's going to deliberately put me in a position where it thinks my options are "fight dirty" or "die", I know which I'm going to do -- and then I'm going to offer to use the same tools for anyone who needs them.

Less "prole getting chewed up by the machinery" and more "people like me built you, people like me run you, and people like me get to dictate how you work."

I mean in practice it's not that simple - it's an act, it's not an act I can keep up, and I am sodding terrified of the machine - but I can usually keep it up long enough.

* I code-switch like anything to suit the situation, because Reasons. Survival strategy.

[khronos_keeper]

This is so interesting to me, and I think it's fantastic and amazing that you know how to wield your privilege like a sword against unjust pricks.

I also think it's an incredibly interesting cultural issue that MPs respond so uniformly helpfully when you code yourself as someone who has enough social power to make them regret putting you in this position. I find it pretty interesting, because it's something I can see in local politics in my area (class here is coded heavily in your speech), but less so in the state or federal politics.

I guess I've come at it from the opposite end of the spectrum as you, and I think it's awesome to see someone who is aware of their social power being able to use it for helping themselves in a way they truly need, and using it to carve a path for people like you to follow.

I'm just so used to people in power, especially government officials and doctors and teachers, ignoring me or considering my illnesses as histrionics, that I'm stuck in the habit of never looking for help. It's so weird, even if you're really terribly sick, so many privileged people in my home community think you're shamming for money or attention and it's really sick, it's really fucking sick I don't get it.

And now I'm in the position where I get all the wonderful diseases of my class (I've recently learned that I've been poisoned by mycotoxins multiple times, which is pretty common in agricultural areas), but then when I go to doctors in my school community, all they see is the privilege I've borrowed from my education. I literally had one doctor dismiss one of my health concerns right in front of me because it was unlikely for someone who was getting their graduate degree to have any of the circumstances that would cause said health concern. (I had them all plus a few more. It was sick. He just assumed rather than asked.)

I just like watching you kick asses and take names. Though I wish you wouldn't have to, you should just be able to consider the wholeness of your health as something sacrosanct.

[karen2205]

I would suggest:

1. Reorder. What happened in 2012 is of little to no relevance now; the DWP's job is to assess the current claim, what happened two years ago is of marginal importance. The important point you've got here is the telephone call one, so it should come first.

2. Cite the Equality Act and the duty on the DWP to make reasonable adjustments when referring to the telephone call to you. You've told them you don't use telephones for disability reasons and they've called you anyway.

3. Reword or contextulaise "autism": it will be read as referring to being non-verbal with severe learning difficulties and jars with the rest of the content of the letter. "Autistic Spectrum Condition" or "Asperger Syndrome" or "High Functioning Autism" would all work better here, even if you go on to say something like "I consider myself to have autism and refer to myself as autistic" or similar.

4. Your level of distress in preparing the application is irrelevant to a consideration of its merits [you didn't have to prepare it yourself, you could have had someone else do it for you] so remove reference to it, it sounds wrong in the context of a formal letter.

5. Question 2 is the only question that is properly a question the DWP have to answer under the FOI Act. They have twenty working days to do so. Tell them you will refer their failure to comply with this to the Information Commissioner. Questions 1 and 3, as worded are seeking information specifically about you, not generic information. You can either rephrase so that they are seeking generic information ie. "what is the average cost of a reconsideration for an adult DLA claim over the past six months" or make an additional, separate request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for all information the DWP hold about you. Under the DPA, they have forty actual days to supply the information sought. Again, threaten referral to the Information Commissioner if they don't comply.

Happy to help if there are useful things I can do.

[kaberett]

This is super-helpful - I am editing accordingly. Thank you enormously!

[catyak]

The information about 2012 is sort of relevant because it implies "I've done this before and I won last time". It's a roundabout way of informing them that the little tricks to discourage people won't work because they didn't work last time, so please don't waste everyone's time with them again.

Being polite at this stage is important, but making it clear that crap is not accepted needs to be established up-front.

If they answer all three parts of the FOI, it would be interesting to then question them about any difference between the figures for #1 and #3. Unless there's an adverse reason for leaving them in, I'd be inclined to leave them in because when they refuse (even with justification) you can go rattle the cage of the ICO and cost the system a bit more money. (I still cling to the vain hope that one day they'll actually work out that saying no is costing them more money in the longer term and change attitude.)

[karen2205]

The information about 2012 is sort of relevant because it implies "I've done this before and I won last time". It's a roundabout way of informing them that the little tricks to discourage people won't work because they didn't work last time, so please don't waste everyone's time with them again.

I know that's why it appears relevant at first glance. It's actually much more likely to be useful/relevant at the end of the appeals process once kaberett has won, when it might be possible to use it as part of some sort of formal complaint against the DWP, because by then there would be a course of action: ie. DWP, you were wrong in 2012, you were wrong again in 2014; this is starting to look like harassment/breach of the Equality Act/possible tort of misfeasance in a public office. Using it now reads like: (a) a possibly empty threat, the DWP will have no qualms about ignoring (b) a lack of understanding of what test the DWP decision maker is applying ie. not appreciating what is directly relevant to the decision they're making.

Being courteous is important, yes, don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. Stating clearly than appeal will be brought is proper and a good thing to do. Sometimes threatening costs is a good thing to do too, but not here, as the Tribunal has no power to award them. Trying to move the focus onto issues that aren't relevant [previous conduct, previous appeals] tends to cloud the currently relevant issue and can sometimes confuse, because of the volume of material.

They won't answer all three parts of the FOI. Two of the questions are obviously not questions that *can* be answered under the FOI. To tease the other answers out you need to use the DPA, which deals with personal information. Govt depts have by now had training on the FOI/DPA; even working with the generally correct assumption that people know less than you think they do, gathering material to answer FOI requests is time consuming. People are lazy. If there's a way out of answering the questions then they will take it.

Govt depts/Local Authorities are surprisingly bad at working out the most cost effective way of proceeding. Local Authorities that get this sort of thing wrong (spending more on fighting something than they'd have spent on just doing the thing in the first place) can be referred to the District Auditor. I don't know if something similar can be done with central govt depts. If not, this is an area where the mainstream press may be persuaded to take an interest.

[catyak]

Did you know this doesn't appear to be friends-locked on DW? Lack of a padlock icon at the top. I only ask because it is locked on LJ.