no ib113 sent

The only feasible way of challenging the fact that an IB113 was not (properly) issued, is if a claimant fails the PCA and makes it an issue before an appeal tribunal.

Taking the matter up with Atos and/or the DWP, may just be like talking to the proverbial brick wall. There may however be grounds for pursuing a case of maladministration against the DWP, as the action by Atos as the contracted agent of the Department, does not follow the proper administrative procedures.

This action can take some considerable time to pursue, so in the first instance it would be better to proceed as I have indicated in the first paragraph.

It is worth a try, but if its left until after a PCA is failed, the findings of the PCA may have influenced the tribunal into a belief that the person was not up to the standard for exemption criteria.

Being as the IB113 is not mandatory, its failure would not allow a win at appeal on a technicality

If the customer can encourage the issue of an IB113 ( I know this can be done as I have done it a few times for myself) then there is a chance the person might avoid being called for examination. The IB113 can be used not only for exemption but as an item of evidence to be considered by 'medical scrutiny' i.e the process that decides whether or not you meet the criteria without being needed for a medical, and not that long ago this was a fairly substantial percentage of customers

DRAGON2009 wrote:

It is worth a try, but if its left until after a PCA is failed, the findings of the PCA may have influenced the tribunal into a belief that the person was not up to the standard for exemption criteria.

Being as the IB113 is not mandatory, its failure would not allow a win at appeal on a technicality

Although the issue of the IB113 is not mandatory in all cases, an appeal tribunal would be required to consider if the appellant would meet any of the conditions as set out in the The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995, especially if it is specifically raised as an issue before the tribunal.

The tribunal cannot simply make assumptions about whether a person was not up to the standard for exemption, without fully investigating all the facts. A failure to do so would almost certainly constitute an error of law, if appealed further to the Upper Tribunal.

I agree with you about the tribunal but why risk a PCA at an MEC if you might be able to avoid it by encouraging a IB113 and thus the chance to avoid a loss that might end up with an impoverished wait for a tribunal in 6 months time

The claimant never knows how they mght inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot at a medical . Most do not even know that attending alone diminishes their chance of success. Every effort should always be made to avoid i especially now since LIMA is the ultimate stitch up software

but why was my expmetion ended, what regulation did they they use to end it? who decided wot was time for it to come to end?

and stop talking about apeal tribunrals, the is decison maker level stuff.

if im not exemtomt then thats fine if thats the case

where are the regulations to be found on what the law says should happen.??

i also would not complete the ib50 as i was scared and new what was coming, i knew atos were only weeks away from forcing me against my will to have yet another medical with them, i no what there like. (they have took no action over this, the only thing that happend after i could not complete the form was a appointment for a mediacl with atos) id rather loose my benifit at this stage then let doctors of atos put me though a year of hell with a inacurate report medical report