Waiting for Assessment decision and confusing letter received.

HI Gary, I actually got through this afternoon after being on hold for over an hour. I spoke to a nice woman who initially said it was a standard letter, but after double-checking said that I'd been put in the LCW group - so you were absolutely correct. She admitted no decision letter had been sent or was pending. I said that I would like an ESA85 and she printed it while I was on the phone and put it in an envelope and said it would be sent first class. She also said it was a very thick file of paperwork. She said that I can write to them with the Mandatory Reconsideration or I can do it over the phone. Is this correct and what is normally recommended?I have no idea how the process works and couldn't seem to be able to get her to explain it properly.

I am trying to steel myself for what I expect will be annoying mistakes and misrepresentations. I believe I should have qualified for the support group on incontinence grounds and Social Interaction. I am prescribed Lorazepam daily for severe anxiety and have been taking it for over two years - I expect that the assessor will have written that I can do certain things and missed the bit where I said I need to be heavily medicated for any social interaction, which is not something that is practical or safe to do except very occasionally.

The assessment was by phone and only lasted for 12 minutes from start to finish. Luckily I had put it on speakerphone and managed to record the call, so I will be able to play that back as I go through the ESA85. I am dreading it, as I hate talking about or hearing myself talk about my incontinence problems - I can't bear reading my phychiatrist's report which adresses it either. I really don't want to see how they've interpreted my problems in this area. I have accidents where I need a change of clothing two or three times a week, and this has been going on for well over two years. The assessor barely asked about it, just noted the frequency and that's there's no warning etc, didn't interrogate me, like I was expecting. I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to talk about this again and if I have to go to a tribunal and discuss it, I will have to be medicated up to the eyeballs.

You actually explained to me how the incontinence descriptors work etc, and without your input, which was invaluable, I was going to leave it off the form entirely as I find it such a humiliating thing to discuss. I am 58 years old and talking with what sounds like much younger people than me about it is mortifying. That's why I was initially relieved that the call was so brief and didn't go into much detail. Now I realise that I probably didn't explain things properly.

Sorry for rambling, I've spent the last few hours trying to calm down and put things in perspective. I shall try to keep a level head and go through the ESA85 when it arrives as objectively as I can.

thanks again,

Nathan

Hi Gordon, thanks for this it's really useful advice.

I've just got the ESA 85 and as I expected it's a work of fiction. I mean there are loads of outright lies, dozens of answers to questions that I was never even asked. There is so much made-up informations that it is obvious you couldn't have got that from a 12 minute interview.

One main flag though. They have found that I get weekly incontinence episodes that lead to a complete change of clothes etc. but haven't allowed it as qualifying of the support group as they write at the end that it's caused by a mental proble rather than a physical problem with the bladder. I discussed this with Gary several months ago and he was of the opinion that the distinciton wasn't relevant. Any idea as to what I should do about this.

Thank you,

Nathan.

I've just litened to the tape recording which I am so glad that I made. The assessor says i have attacks leading to incontence about once a week - on the call I said at least three times a week and ever day if I come under too much stress. He says I am "able to continue" my day after this - he didn't ask and I'm not.

Says that I go to bed at 10pm and get up at nine - I suffer with insomnia and get up at two pm. Rubbish about showering, dressing, taking meds without prompting that weren't asked. Says I drive going food shopping with my son, which is an outright lie as on the recording I clearly say that he goes for me and leaves it in the shed outside. Says I go monthly to collect my medication with my son, which is another complete fabrication that wasn't mentioned. Says I cope with change fine if planned (never discussed and the opposite claimed in my application), and copes with changes of plans with my son with good notice - again not discussed. For some reason keeps mentioning that my adult son, (who is not an adult) has to go with me to new and unamiiar placers, which is not discussed and not true. Also literally ten other statements about me that I apparently was asked, but which are not on the recording, which spans the phone call from beginning to end.

How do I approach this. Do I phone and say it's all wrong or do I type up a point by point rebuttal. I have to point out that these aren't just errors, they are fabrications and if it went to tribunal I would produce the recording along with a word for word transcriotion. To my mind this is a criminal alteration of the facts, to such an extent that I feel personally attacked. I have been struggling massively with suicidal thoughts since Wednesday and don't really think I can cope with all this. I feel like it is a cyncial conspiracy and clearly no one at that end could care less if I live or die. No one will get reprimanded or sacked for this, no matter what I do. Is there any realistic point in going on with this charade if they are determined to lie and cheat to this extent - they will just do the same thing with the mandatory review and the tribunal, by which point I will be broken.

HI Gordon, that's what I thought initially after reading the guides. I was submitting a claim anyway due to Social Interaction and inability to deal with change and wasn't sure whether to mention the bladder incontinence or not. That i have done so unnecessarily is not really a problem. Interestingly, that is the only descriptor where they haven't fundamentally made everything up, obvioulsy because they could see they didn't have to.