Shropshire mother in call on benefits rules after work interview trauma for severely disabled son

A Shropshire mother has called for changes in the way disability benefits are awarded after her severely disabled son - who is unable to walk or talk and has the understanding of a toddler - was told he had to have a return to work interview.

image: http://www.shropshirestar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/25906950.jpg
April Normandin and her son Carl


April Normandin, a registered carer for her son Carl, 20, was left frustrated at having to put her son through the stresses of the interview process despite having documents from his doctor saying he would never be able to work.
Carl, who lives in Bicton, near Shrewsbury, suffers from the rare rubinstein-taybi syndrome. He relies on carers helping with his personal tasks and has autism which leaves him with behavioural problems and anxiety.
After the interview process for Employment Support Allowance caused Carl distress and panic, his 47-year-old primary school support worker mother has called for changes in the way benefits are awarded.


She said: “Since Carl turned 20 his child tax credits, with the disability element, was stopped by the DWP and I had to apply for ESA.
“As it was acknowledged that he was severely disabled as a child, I didn’t think it would be a problem applying for his benefit once an adult.
“After being on the basic ESA for 13 weeks it was decided he was to be put in the work-related category instead of the support category.
“I had sent in a doctor’s letter confirming his disability and him being unable to ever work. I received a letter inviting Carl to attend a back to work interview and if he didn’t attend his money would be reduced.


“The decision to place Carl in this category made me feel cross and frustrated, as it had taken me so long to fill the forms in, which is extremely upsetting, as you have to explain how bad things are for your child when in life we try to look at his positives. Then you have to take the time to go to the doctors to get written evidence to confirm what you’ve stated is true, and they still obviously took no notice of what had been sent in.
“To expect Carl to be capable of any form of work is totally unrealistic if not ridiculous.”
During the interview, Mrs Normandin says she was told an appeal might be necessary. “This filled me with dread as Carl doesn’t react positively meeting strangers in unfamiliar places, which is what would have happened,” she said.
“Thankfully an hour after returning home, after being bitten and scratched by Carl as he was so distressed by the experience, I received a call from the interviewer explaining she’d managed to get the decision changed and put him into the correct category.
“She explained this would only mean £10 a week extra, but that’s not what the real problem was.
“It was the sheer difficulty in having to take him to attend regular interviews when there was no reason to and the upset and anxiety this caused us both.
“I think the DWP should take the word of doctors as they obviously know Carl’s condition and how it affects him, and take into account all the information I supplied as I have been his mum and carer for 20 years.”
A DWP spokesman said if the Jobcentre had known the full extent of Carl’s condition he would not have been invited to an interview.

Read more at http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/health/2016/12/07/shropshire-mother-in-call-on-benefits-rules-after-work-interview-trauma-for-severely-disabled-son/#YipM7FEOd53VXhSZ.99


I simply do not believe them that they would not have called him.   They had all the medical information which would have made it quite clear.

Some of these DWP people need to get out into the real world, fucking idiots.

nicko wrote:
Some of these DWP people need to get out into the real world,  fucking idiots.

Shows what happens when guvm'nts abdicate their responsibilities, and then either 'corparitise' or even contract out essential services...

And then those new bosses/managers work for a profit motive, rather than putting their more vulnerable clients' needs first and foremost. .And then employ unqualified and unthinking mindless minimum_wage drones on the 'frontline'.        

All in the name of a fiscally-oriented Thatcherite government looking to cut costs, so that they can halve corporate tax rates..  Not that unusual a practice, either --  many conservative Western gov'ts are currently attempting the same or similar, all around the globe...

Supply-side,"Reaganomics/Thatcherism" "Trickle Down" voodoo economic theory, at its' worst..

Trouble is Wolfie, these people who make the decisions are mostly young people who sit at desks filing their nails or talking about their boy/girlfriends, they know nothing about the real world where people are struggling to survive on a pittance. they just know how to tick boxes.

Assh****,

I have dealt with social services, benefits agency on adult help only, they do not have a clue.
They are trained in assh*** speak, they all speak the same crap.

It is blatantly obvious this woman and her son have more than enough to cope with without assh**** making their lives more difficult.

nicko wrote:Trouble is Wolfie, these people who make the decisions are mostly young people who sit at desks filing their nails or talking about their boy/girlfriends, they know nothing about the real world where people are struggling to survive on a pittance.   they just know how to tick boxes.

No quite - historically at least ESA assessments have mostly been conducted by semi-retired doctors working for private companies who get their marching orders (and lots of taxpayer's dosh) from the government.

Know what? If I was her I'd say "okay set the interview up" and I'd take him there and let them deal with him right there and then.

eddie wrote:Know what? If I was her I'd say "okay set the interview up" and I'd take him there and let them deal with him right there and then.

I thought she did, and then re-read it.   However, if she had of done it would have totally traumatised him and that isn't in his best interests.

Isn't it a case of people ticking boxes rather than reading the full medical history of each claimant? I guess they don't have time to do that, or they're not advised to do so. Administrative work is often a bit disconnected from the personal reality of individuals. Perhaps the system needs to be changed so that they have to read all the medical stuff before they tick a box.

the system needs ripping down and replacing...along with the dishonourable and callous staff that inhabit it....

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't it a case of people ticking boxes rather than reading the full medical history of each claimant? I guess they don't have time to do that, or they're not advised to do so. Administrative work is often a bit disconnected from the personal reality of individuals. Perhaps the system needs to be changed so that they have to read all the medical stuff before they tick a box.

The full medical history of claimants is available if required - but there are cost restraints on the assessment process.

Lord Foul wrote:the system needs ripping down and replacing...along with the dishonourable and callous staff that inhabit it....

They're not necessarily callous or dishonourable. I don't know how the system works, but how are staff supposed to distinguish between someone who can never work and someone whose condition might improve so they can work? When the original claim is made, is there a way to flag up those who will never improve?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:the system needs ripping down and replacing...along with the dishonourable and callous staff that inhabit it....

They're not necessarily callous or dishonourable. I don't know how the system works, but how are staff supposed to distinguish between someone who can never work and someone whose condition might improve so they can work? When the original claim is made, is there a way to flag up those who will never improve?

If there isn't, there should be.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not necessarily callous or dishonourable. I don't know how the system works, but how are staff supposed to distinguish between someone who can never work and someone whose condition might improve so they can work? When the original claim is made, is there a way to flag up those who will never improve?

If there isn't, there should be.

I agree. Obviously, they do have to check if people are improving and are now fit for work, but there are people who are never going to be, and that should be established at the time the claim is made.

Permanently disabled persons used to be tagged as being "TPI" (Totally and Permanently Incapacitated..) when their disabilities passed a certain level, and it was obvious that they would never work again, and would need care and support to keep them alive...

It seems obvious to this outsider here, that in its' infinite wisdom, the Cameron Thatcherite regime over there took it into its greedy and financier-controlled head to screw over the poor and disabled --  as all good Tories know, disabled, poor and destitute people are only there because they deserve to be, and it is much more important that their corporate owners should have their tax rates halved because they are such good and kind masters, don't y'all know !

It would only take the British government to re-write the charter for its service providers, to have the most vulnerable returned to their rightful position, front-and-centre --  but don't hold your collective breaths, as the May guvm'nt seems intent on fulfilling their corporate masters' greedy desires..      

There is a system whereby if people are severely disabled they do not have to work. Also the mother can have a home visit so doesn't need to drag her child anywhere.

People born disabled arnt going to get any better, so it should be a given really.

magica wrote:There is a system whereby if people are severely disabled they do not have to work.  Also the mother can have a home visit so doesn't need to drag her child anywhere.

People born disabled arnt going to get any better, so it should be a given really.

That does depend on the nature and severity of the disability. Many people who are born disabled do work, and some can have their conditions improved a little. The severity and chances of ever working should be established straightaway. I get the impression that everyone is treated pretty much the same, and it's only at an appeal that individual cases are looked at properly.

magica wrote:There is a system whereby if people are severely disabled they do not have to work.  Also the mother can have a home visit so doesn't need to drag her child anywhere.

People born disabled arnt going to get any better, so it should be a given really.

It should, but it isn't Magica.   I could site you many cases, even a woman dying in a hospital bed who was called for an interview.


My daughter was disabled and they had her trailing backwards and forwards for interviews all the time, even though her legs were so swollen and painful from numerous DVTs she could hardly walk and had epilepsy.

We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc, Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job? What do posters think about this?

nicko wrote:We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc,   Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job?     What do posters think about this?

If they are physically and mentally able to work then they should do so - if not then they should be supported - just like anyone else.

nicko wrote:We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc,   Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job?     What do posters think about this?

I think the idea is that it's generally not a disability or condition as such which they look at, it's the extent to which a disability prevents someone from working. If disabled people are are happy to run marathons and climb mountains, they may well be happy to work and are capable of it. I guess they would need to establish what kind of work they can do though. They might be able to run and climb, but not sit at a desk, for example, or vice versa.

nicko wrote:We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc,   Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job?     What do posters think about this?

Disability benefits aren't (or shouldn't be) just about supporting a disabled person to live ie food etc.  All that specialised equipment they have doesn't come cheap and a great majority of it doesn't come free either.

Yeah, someone who needs a wheelchair to get about can get one on the NHS, but it's basic.  A more specialised, motorised one which in some cases enables the disabled person to become more independant can cost an enormous amount of money.

[quote="sassy"]

magica wrote:There is a system whereby if people are severely disabled they do not have to work.  Also the mother can have a home visit so doesn't need to drag her child anywhere.

People born disabled arnt going to get any better, so it should be a given really.

It should, but it isn't Magica.   I could site you many cases, even a woman dying in a hospital bed who was called for an interview.


My daughter was disabled and they had her trailing backwards and forwards for interviews all the time, even though her legs were so swollen and painful from numerous DVTs she could hardly walk and had epilepsy.[/quote]

That's appalling Sassy. That should never have happened. I really do think the Governments treat disabled people so poorly now, and make things so hard for them. They think being disabled is easy, well they should try it sometime.

Spindleshanks wrote:

nicko wrote:We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc,   Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job?     What do posters think about this?

Disability benefits aren't (or shouldn't be) just about supporting a disabled person to live ie food etc.  All that specialised equipment they have doesn't come cheap and a great majority of it doesn't come free either.

Yeah, someone who needs a wheelchair to get about can get one on the NHS, but it's basic.  A more specialised, motorised one which in some cases enables the disabled person to become more independant can cost an enormous amount of money.

Isn't that what DLA is for? The article was about ESA, which is a different benefit.

nicko wrote:We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc,   Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job?     What do posters think about this?

Many men who have lost their legs or arms in war are told they don't have disablities as they have prosthetic legs. Do they think they're legs and arms will grow back again? Personally I think they deserve to have disability benefits.

Your read cases whereby people have had it because they got acne, since when has that been a disability?

magica wrote:

sassy wrote:


It should, but it isn't Magica.   I could site you many cases, even a woman dying in a hospital bed who was called for an interview.


My daughter was disabled and they had her trailing backwards and forwards for interviews all the time, even though her legs were so swollen and painful from numerous DVTs she could hardly walk and had epilepsy.[/quote]

That's appalling Sassy. That should never have happened.   I really do think the Governments treat disabled people so poorly now, and make things so hard for them.  They think being disabled is easy, well they should try it sometime.

They definitely should.   They also don't seem to realise that just getting anywhere is more expensive when you are disabled and not having the money to eat a good diet impacts terribly on disabled people's health.

magica wrote:

nicko wrote:We have seen pictures of Service Men and women with no legs and other extreme trauma running Marathons, climbing Mountains etc,   Are they entitled to Disability Benefits? Would they be told to get a job?     What do posters think about this?

Many men who have lost their legs or arms in war are told they don't have disablities as they have prosthetic legs.  Do they think they're legs and arms will grow back again?  Personally I think they deserve to have disability benefits.

Your read cases whereby people have had it because they got acne, since when has that been a disability?

I'd be interested to see an example of someone given ESA for acne. Perhaps the problem was psychological effects?

Someone with prosthetic legs may well be able to work. As I said, it's not the disability as such they go on, it's how that disability affects them and stops them working.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Disability benefits aren't (or shouldn't be) just about supporting a disabled person to live ie food etc.  All that specialised equipment they have doesn't come cheap and a great majority of it doesn't come free either.

Yeah, someone who needs a wheelchair to get about can get one on the NHS, but it's basic.  A more specialised, motorised one which in some cases enables the disabled person to become more independant can cost an enormous amount of money.

Isn't that what DLA is for? The article was about ESA, which is a different benefit.

Oh, i've misunderstood then, I thought it had all been lumped together.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Isn't that what DLA is for? The article was about ESA, which is a different benefit.

Oh, i've misunderstood then, I thought it had all been lumped together.

People who work can get DLA, but this is about being assessed to see if the claimant can work.

sassy wrote:

magica wrote:

They definitely should.   They also don't seem to realise that just getting anywhere is more expensive when you are disabled and not having the money to eat a good diet impacts terribly on disabled people's health.

I agree Sassy. Being disabled is hard enough without all the problems that go with it. Cameron, when PM, said he wouldn't touch disabled people and straightaway he did! Easy option.

magica wrote:

sassy wrote:



They definitely should.   They also don't seem to realise that just getting anywhere is more expensive when you are disabled and not having the money to eat a good diet impacts terribly on disabled people's health.

I agree Sassy.  Being disabled is hard enough without all the problems that go with it.  Cameron, when PM, said he wouldn't touch disabled people and straightaway he did!  Easy option.  

You'd have thought that him being the father of a disabled son (yes I know he passed away) that he'd have had more consideration for the difficulties that go alone with it.

This is a typical exampul of our income taxes NOT going to OUR OWN sick people who really need help. instead going to bleeding forunuz.

I'd say it's more a case of bad and indeqate govt in reality.

The money is there to do up Buckingham Palace and Rees-Moggs home FGS.   It has fuck all to do with foreigners and all to do with a government that wants to hand over everything to it's mates and get the poor to pay for the rich.

Rees-Mogg wife’s ancestral home benefits from £7.6m state rescue    https://www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32f-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1

I think it's more to do with the system and how they log particular disabilities re individual people.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Know what? If I was her I'd say "okay set the interview up" and I'd take him there and let them deal with him right there and then.

I thought she did, and then re-read it.   However, if she had of done it would have totally traumatised him and that isn't in his best interests.

True but I think the interviewer would probably be too embarrassed to even start the interview.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:


I thought she did, and then re-read it.   However, if she had of done it would have totally traumatised him and that isn't in his best interests.

True but I think the interviewer would probably be too embarrassed to even start the interview.

Sorry Eds, but having dealt with them, I think that is very naive.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:


I thought she did, and then re-read it.   However, if she had of done it would have totally traumatised him and that isn't in his best interests.

True but I think the interviewer would probably be too embarrassed to even start the interview.

Sorry Eds, but having dealt with them, I think that is very naive.

Yeah I've dealt with them too when my dad died and you're probably right, they're too dense to know what embarrassment is. Totally fucked up my dads money when he got cancer. Total dimwits.