I have finally ‘won’ and had a benefits decision go in my favour. The very language of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ comes naturally throughout these processes yet is very telling and is very fucked.
Of course, they weaselled out of the back-payment when I didn’t even know that that was ‘optional’. Thus the state suffers absolutely no consequences for purposefully dragging out the whole process. Their first goal is to get you to give up. At least I thought there would be some vindication in the end, when they had to backpay for all of those months and thus their delay would work against them. But no. Their second goal is to reduce the amount they give out in benefits under the guise of a class war but actually so they can give it to their mates.
tHeY HaVe DeCiDeD aNd ThEy WiLl dO As ThEy PlEaSe BeCaUsE tHeY sAiD sO aNd We’Re YoUr OwNeRs aNd DoN’t YoU fUcKiNg FoRgEt It AnD bE gRaTeFuL fOr WhAt YoU’rE fUcKiNg gIvEn.
That’s the gist of it. I’m massively relieved to no longer have this pressure but it’s all very dehumanising.
Yes the guidelines around back pay are very different to PIP and ESA and not at all clear. What medical evidence do they mean. A fit note or your completed UC50 form or even the evidence you gave at the work capability assessment. I have had all three said so far in different cases and there appears to be no right of appeal if you don’t agree. I believe the claim should start when you apply on-line and tell them you have limited capacity for work on-line. So far this measure has never been used as it would for PIP or ESA.Benefits advisor’s response
At least you have won though.
And therein lies the purpose for this government constantly ‘reforming’ and coming out with ‘new’ labels for benefits payments— to confuse and to silently change the rules. Every iteration is worse, that’s the point.
In fact, since my Labour MP was helpful before I’m going to see what their thoughts on it are.