I'm sure this subject has been discussed to death, for that I can only apologise.
For a couple of years now, doing a little research on my own, I think that I may have what a Work Psychologist I saw 01/2012 called a neuro diverse condition. I thought it might be Aspergers, it might be ADD possibly Dyspraxia. I'm by no means an expert nor a diagonistician. I could be completely wrong and, as i suspect my GP thinks (but doesn't say), lazy!
When I first saw the Work Psychologist (a dwp person, i don't know much about the specific role as I'd never heard of them before) I was on JSA. Since then I started on the Work Programme which I am still on. She claimed she could test for Aspergers but relented to saying she could do some kind of test to see if I might have ADD. I realise that makes no sense, but it involved answering a load of puzzles like remembering number sequences backwards and spotting patterns and stuff. From what I could understand she said it was highly likely. I have yet to get an official diagnosis as such facilities are not local to me and I find travelling around cities rather scary. There is now a chance the local CMHT might do one.
However the Work Programme treated me badly. They ignored the information regarding my mental health (even though no formal diagnosis) and refused to accept even the possibility of such problems - of any kind. I was told that without a support worker present they wouldn't countenance any such possibility. I made a complaint and have since changed advisers. Though the replacement is better they still admit they can't do anything. Basically the WP is rubbish. I was told that the main problem was because I was on JSA and that I should claim ESA.
To cut a long and predictable story short that's what I did, six months later I have, unsurprisingly, failed the WCA. I've sent the GL24 form back to lodge an appeal. I'm not sure how that will work but I'm told that doing so reinstates my benefit until such time as they decide whether to change their mind (I doubt it, let's be honest). In the meantime I have to persuade my GP I need help.
I suppose my point in posting is just to hear what other people think. I haven't found my GP to be terribly helpful or sympathetic and the system certainly isn't. ESA should be employment support, but it seems to work on the basis that, in order to get into the WRAG (my stated goal, i don't claim to be deserving of the support group) you need to also qualify for the support group. This doesn't make much sense to me. As a result I feel guilty as if I'm swinging the lead. But on the other hand, I just can't cope with the DWP. I find life difficult and I find dealing with society at times very hard. All the stuff you've heard before no doubt.
I can't say for certain I'm an aspie/add/whatever, so I could be wrong. But just trying to get support and be taken seriously is horrendous. It's enough to make you ill even if you aren't. If anyone has any advice I'd be grateful, thanks.
Scorpion is right - it's not about the diagnosis. Else you'd have some people with Autism who are capable of working claiming ESA when they shouldn't be.
I think you will find that those breaks are written in law and an employer can't choose to ignore them.
I don't understand what you mean.
if the tribunal is scheduled before i can get a diagnosis then i'll have to attend without one anyway. They won't put it off (unless, ironically, you have a diagnosis, I suppose!).
But i just cannot believe that they, beyond anyone else, will agree that I have such a condition without one. Otherwise you'd have a lot more people than even are being passed already getting through surely. If regular doctors are reluctant to believe the possibility of these kinds of condition, why would a tribunal doctor and a judge be any different?
I don't suppose it matters. They will decide whatever they decide regardless anyway.
But the problem isn't even about the diagnosis, though I don't know what will happen if i'm not diagnosed (i'll still feel exactly the same as I do now). The whole peocess is intended to determine whether you can work, not whether your condition is valid or your claim to suffer from it is genuine. Consequently they could very well think, yes he has XYZ, but he can still work!
That is the problem with all of this. The mental health descriptors are woefully inadqequate for this and that's what the CAB tell me they base their approach to helping with appeals upon.
I'm not trying to be negative to what people have said, I feel exactly the same. But the problem is I cannot assume that the tribunal will be positive. I cannot even assume I'll get a diagnosis. Not everyone succeeds, even at tribunal. If it was that easy, well we wouldn't be having this conversation I suspect.
Even then I still have to contend with the Work Programme sooner or later, and, worse, what comes afterward (my time ends next April), and that sounds horrific.
Scorpion is right - it's not about the diagnosis. Else you'd have some people with Autism who are capable of working claiming ESA when they shouldn't be.
I think you will find that those breaks are written in law and an employer can't choose to ignore them.
I don't understand what you mean.
if the tribunal is scheduled before i can get a diagnosis then i'll have to attend without one anyway. They won't put it off (unless, ironically, you have a diagnosis, I suppose!).
But i just cannot believe that they, beyond anyone else, will agree that I have such a condition without one. Otherwise you'd have a lot more people than even are being passed already getting through surely. If regular doctors are reluctant to believe the possibility of these kinds of condition, why would a tribunal doctor and a judge be any different?
I don't suppose it matters. They will decide whatever they decide regardless anyway.
But the problem isn't even about the diagnosis, though I don't know what will happen if i'm not diagnosed (i'll still feel exactly the same as I do now). The whole peocess is intended to determine whether you can work, not whether your condition is valid or your claim to suffer from it is genuine. Consequently they could very well think, yes he has XYZ, but he can still work!
That is the problem with all of this. The mental health descriptors are woefully inadqequate for this and that's what the CAB tell me they base their approach to helping with appeals upon.
I'm not trying to be negative to what people have said, I feel exactly the same. But the problem is I cannot assume that the tribunal will be positive. I cannot even assume I'll get a diagnosis. Not everyone succeeds, even at tribunal. If it was that easy, well we wouldn't be having this conversation I suspect.
Even then I still have to contend with the Work Programme sooner or later, and, worse, what comes afterward (my time ends next April), and that sounds horrific.
