Medical Examination and Government Letters

...A state which savagely repressed or persecuted sections of its people could not in my view be regarded as observing the rule of law, even if the transport of the persecuted minority to the concentration camp or compulsory exposure of female children on the mountainside were the subject of detailed laws duly enacted and scrupulously observed....

...Our society is one in which a very high value is put on human life. No decision affecting human life is one that can be regarded with other than the greatest seriousness.

The second general comment which should be made is that the courts are not, contrary to what is sometimes believed, arbiters as to the merits of cases of this kind. Were we to express opinions as to the likelihood of the effectiveness of medical treatment, or as to the merits of medical judgement, then we should be straying far from the sphere which under our constitution is accorded to us. We have one function only, which is to rule upon the lawfulness of decisions. That is a function to which we should strictly confine ourselves...

A duty to give reasons will arise as part of the general duty to act fairly.

Judicial review is available where a decision-making authority exceeds its powers, commits an error of law, commits a breach of natural justice, reaches a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached, or abuses its powers.

Re: Welfare Reform Act 2007

I have concerns over the way the Medical Examination as required by the Welfare Reform Act 2007 has been implemented. I do not believe it was the intent of Parliament that lesser standards should apply to these medical examinations compared to the standards that apply to those carried out by the NHS. I believe it was the intent of Parliament that standards as good as or better should apply.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has contracted out services to Atos Healthcare. Atos Healthcare in a written reply has stated that "...the examining practioner would not have access to a customer's NHS medical patient history". Atos Healthcare has stated in a written reply to the Health and Safety Executive (case reference 4177247 handled by Mr J...) that "...The Medical Examination Centre assesses people's functional ability through consultation, discussion and simple physical tests(e.g. reflex)...".

In my case, I would be pleased to see the DWP medical expert if that expert had consultant level knowledge of my condition and who could provide me with a better view on the steps needed to stabilise my condition and turn me around so that I get well and back to work. In deciding whether a medical examination is necessary, I would like a specialist to review and decide on medical grounds whether there is a medical benefit to the patient in attending the medical examination.

I believe there would be a major cost saving in screening the ESA forms and only examining those who were not terminally ill or those whose medical conditions are stable. My condition is terminal and not stable yet I was compelled to attend an unnecessary medical examination. As a tax payer for 30 years I feel the money would be better spent on those cases where success is more likely.

Please can you confirm that you believe the standards should be as good as or better than those applied in NHS GP surgeries and NHS hospitals. Please can you take the steps necessary to ensure that the will of Parliament is complied with.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Thank you for your letter of 14 October to the Secretary of State on behalf of ... of ... who has expressed concerns about the new medical examination known as the Work Capability Assessment. The Secretary of State has asked me to reply in my role as Minister for Disabled PeopIe.

It may be helpful to explain that people receiving Employment and Support Allowance are required to attend a Work Capability Assessment which is designed to help establish whether there is entitlement to the benefit and their level of work capability. The assessment also determines which group the individual should join (the work-related activity group which has mandatory requirements to attend work-focused interviews attached, or the support group, which does not).

Healthcare professionals employed by Atos Healthcare, the private company contracted to provide medical services for Jobcentre Plus, receive speciaIist training before undertaking these assessments. The maintenance of high standards of medical practice is enforced through monitoring and evaluation of the healthcare professionals, including random audits by the Medical Service's quality monitoring and auditing system. Approval to carry out the assessment can be removed if a healthcare professional's work does not continue at the required standard.

... may be pleased to learn that we already screen the information provided by customers before deciding whether a face to face examination is required. The precise circumstances for exemption are prescribed in the regulations and include terminally ill people who are fast-tracked onto the higher rate of benefit. Every effort is made to identify potentially exempt cases by liaising with the GP or specialist before contacting the claimant. This ensures that where at all possible, severely ill peopIe are not troubled by the assessment and in particular do not have to undergo a medical examination unnecessarily.

It is important to recognise that assessment looks at what an individual can do, rather than simply making a diagnosis of their medical condition. It is function-based, rather than condition-based and focuses on a person's ability to perform work-related activities, rather than on their particular illness or disability.

I trust this reply is helpful to ...

Regarding your reply to ... MP dated 28 October 2009 following his letter of the 14 October 2009 on my behalf.

I have concerns over how the medical examination has been implemented by Atos Healthcare in my case and in others. I am in favour of valid medical examinations carried by competent qualified medical practitioners who have access to full medical records.

I attach my letter of complaint to the GMC in respect of negligent, neglectful and or incompetent actions by Mr David Wright, Chief Medical Officer, Atos Healthcare. I appreciate your comments, which have assisted my case.

In summary, the information I provided was not screened before deciding on a face to face examination and the medical examination was not carried out by a competent qualified medical practitioner.

Please can you investigate why I have still not received a reply from the DWP to my letter of the 15 August, why I have still not received a copy of the medical report and why I have still not received a reply to my letter to Atos Healthcare dated 28 September 2009.

The Care Quality Commission has informed me that Atos Healthcare is outside the scope of their responsibilities. Can you confirm this is your understanding? If this is so, can you inform me which independent body is responsible for the regulation of the quality of care provided by Atos Healthcare who is a customer of the DWP? In addition, can you confirm that Atos Healthcare is also outside the scope of responsibility of PALS?

You mentioned "the Medical Service's quality monitoring and auditing system" in your letter. Can you provide me with contact information and where reports are published?

I draw your attention to the legal case mentioned in my letter to the GMC. "...to review and apply current medical opinion in respect of "...assessment looks at what an individual can do, rather than simply making a diagnosis of their medical condition...". I refer you to the legal case involving the United States of America, State of California, Department of Insurance and their 2005 settlement with the UnumProvident Corporation. This agreement settles disputes over thousands of claims filed by California policy holders who were unfairly denied benefits by the insurance carrier during the time period between January 1, 1997 and September 30, 2005...".

I presume that, in my case, Atos Healthcare has charged the DWP for a service that they did not carry out. In my case, Atos Healthcare did not comply with the Welfare Reform Act, the Regulations and the principles you outlined in your letter. I respectfully request you to ask the National Audit Office to audit my case, to audit similar cases where potentially large numbers of patients and their carers have been unfairly denied benefits and to obtain financial recompense from Atos Healthcare. I do not see why tax payers have to pay for services not received. It would be better to address this injustice now before future costly litigation occurs.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for your further letters of 17 November and 8 December 2009 on behalf of Mr B... of ... concerning the Work Capability Assessment and Atos Healthcare I apologise for the delay in replying.

I am sorry that it has been necessary for you to write again but thank you for doing so.

I am unable to offer a full response at present as we are still considering this issue and enquiries are taking longer than anticipated. I will, of course, send you one as soon as possible.

Thank you for your further letters of 17 November and 8 December 2009 on behalf of Mr B... of ... concerning the Work Capability Assessment and Atos Healthcare.

Following my letter of 6 January, I understand an official from this Department wrote to Mr B... on 7 January.

I have attached a copy of her reply for ease of reference.

I hope this matter has now been resolved to Mr B...'s satisfaction.

Dear Mr ...

Last year you progressed my letter dated 9 October 2009 to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. You obtained a reply dated 28 October 2009 from Jonathan Shaw MP, the then Minister for Disabled People, Department for Work and Pensions. The Minister was misled by the DWP and Atos Healthcare, evidence of which I have subsequently obtained, unfortunately matters are still outstanding.

I wrote to the DWP on the 4 August 2010 see attached. I have neither received an acknowledgement or a response to this letter. Please could you request the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to review the contents of this letter, to explain why my letter has, so far, been ignored and obtain a detailed response to each of the 14 points raised in the letter.

In addition, please could you write to the Minister of Justice on my behalf, provide him with a copy of this letter and the attached 4 August 2010 letter and ask him to launch an investigation into whether individuals working for the DWP are subject to undue influence by Atos Origin and as a result do not enforce the Contract between the DWP and Atos. Atos has implicitly agreed it has committed multiple breaches of Contract and has implicitly agreed it has mislead the former Minister for Disabled People and thus Parliament.

The Minister of Justice could ask, as a start, the NAO to independently audit my case to see whether Atos have refunded the taxpayer for failing to engage a qualified medical professional in deciding whether a face to face assessment was necessary, for producing an unsound ESA85 and for producing an unsound IB59. I have published, desensitized where appropriate, all correspondence and additional information on my website http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html. The Minister of Justice could ask the NAO to investigate how extensive are the failures, maladministration and mismanagement.

In November 2001, there was a Labour conference near Oxford on 'Malingering and Illness Deception'. It was attended by Malcolm Wicks, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work, and Mansel Aylward, his Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Unum (previously UnumProvident) was the driving force and was represented by John LoCascio. Unum in 2002 in the US faced a multi-million class action lawsuit for operating "disability denial factories". In January 2003, a California jury reached a 1.7 million USD settlement against UnumProvident and two years later, the California Department of Insurance fined the company 8 million USD because it "misinterpreted job classifications, improperly overruled doctors' opinions and knowingly used incorrect insurance definitions to avoid paying benefits". Other states received compensation from Unum. Unum allocated between 325m USD and 415m USD to cover the likely costs.

The work of this 2001 Labour conference resulted in the UK Welfare Reform Act 2007. In 2006 Unum helped to draw up the rules and regulations of this Act. UnumProvident Centre provides funding for Psychosocial and Disability Research based at Cardiff University. The Director of the Centre is Professor Mansel Aylward. Please could you ask the Minister for Justice to investigate whether Professor Aylward acted properly while working for the DWP when awarding contracts to Unum and whether his actions conformed to the Civil Service Code.

Unum refunded millions in the US. Atos follows the same unsound and possibly illegal in the UK approach that Unum and Atos included in the regulations relating to the Welfare Reform Act 2007. Please could you ask the Minister of Justice to investigate whether Atos Origin have acted illegally, by implementing the Act apparently deliberately breaching the Contract between the DWP and Atos, the NAO can provide the evidence, and to investigate whether Atos should refund the UK taxpayer millions GBP and compensate the individuals denied benefits on unsound grounds? It should be noted that the medical conditions and the medical professional who undertook each process should be noted on all forms. The GMC can tell whether the individual is qualified to carry out a medical assessment for the particular medical condition as set out in the Contract. In my case Atos used unqualified healthcare professionals on three separate occasions. They have not refunded the taxpayer for providing three unsound medical assessments. My case is not unique.

Please could you request the Minister responsible to remove Atos Origin from the shortlist of companies eligible for Government work related to the DoH Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC) framework catalogue and to remove Atos Origin from being eligible for any new Government work. The grounds for this action are the repeated breaches of Contract with the DWP by Atos Origin and the gross errors made by Atos Origin e.g. loss of confidential data, patients recalled for scans, clinic faces second investigation et al. More details are listed on my website. http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosbusiness.html

Finally could you request the Minister responsible either to expel Atos Healthcare (Atos Origin) from Commercial Occupational Health Providers Association (COHPA) www.cohpa.co.uk or to withdraw all Government contacts with COHPA. COHPA appears to be a front organisation for Atos and Unum. The grounds for this action are the repeated breaches of Contract with the DWP by Atos Origin. Senior individuals from the DoH and the DWP attend the COHPA AGM and other events and thus may be subject to undue influence. Please could you ask the Minister of Justice to investigate the individuals who attend COHPA events and receive benefits from COHPA to ensure their actions conform to the Civil Service Code.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter

Thank you.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWlA 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 3000

The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
Department for Work & Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London SWlH 2NS

26th August 2010

Dear Private Secretary,

Re:- Mr B... of ... 

Please find attached a copy of my letter addressed to Mr Darra Singh, Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, on behalf of my above-named constituent regarding his ongoing concern about Atos Healthcare.

Mr B... has requested that you also review the contents of his letter and would be grateful for any comments you may like to make in response to the general issues raised.

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

... MP

Att.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWlA 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 3000

Mr Darra Singh
Chief Executive
Jobcentre Plus
Caxton House
Room 607, Level 6
London SWlH 9NA

26th August 2010

Dear Mr Singh,

Re:- Mr B... of ...

Please find attached a copy of correspondence recently received from my constituent, Mr B..., regarding his ongoing concerns about Atos Healthcare, which I understand you may have already received directly.

I would be grateful if you could respond specifically to each of Mr B...'s 14 points and send me a copy.

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

... MP

Att.

Re:- The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWlA 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 3000

The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP
Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

26th August 2010

Dear Private Secretary,

Re:- Atos Healthcare

Please find attached a copy of correspondence recently received from my constituent, Mr B... (...), who would like the Ministry of Justice "to launch an investigation into whether individuals working for the Department for Work and Pensions are subject to undue influence by Atos Origin and as a result do not enforce the Contract between the DWP and Atos".

For your information, I also attach a copy of the letters I have sent to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

... MP

Att.

1 November 2010

Re:- Atos Healthcare and the DWP

Please find attached a copy of corresspondence recently received from the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, in response to representations made on your behalf regarding your experience or Atos Healthcare. I am still awaiting a response from the Secretary of State for Justice but have today sent him a further letter as a chase-up.

Furthermore, please find attached a copy of the Minister's response to the Parliamentary Question I recently tabled on your behalf.

Yours sincerely,

... MP

Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House, Tothill Stree, London SW1H 9DA

Our ref: ...
October 2010

...MP

As you may be aware, your letter of 26 August to the Secretary of State for Justice on behalf of Mr B... of ... has been passed to this DeparUnent for reply. I am sorry for the delay that this caused. Mr B... wrote about his experience of Atos Healthcare. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for the Work Capability Assessment.

Hilary Brierley of the Department's Commercial Management Directorate wrote to Mr B... on 3 September offering an extensive reply to the outstanding issues which he had raised in his letter of 4 August. I enclose a copy of Ms Brierley's letter for your reference.

I do not feel there is anything I can add to Ms Brierley's letter. However, should Mr B... wish to raise any additional issues I would, of course, be happy to look into them.

With best wishes,

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Minister for Employment

Dear Mr ... MP,

... The Right Honourable Iain Duncan Smith yesterday stated that there were 5.5 million unemployed and 500,000 jobs available through Jobcentre Plus (JCP). I just watched on a business media channel a CEO of a JCP contract employment agency crowing about profits and future prospects from the DWP. It reminded me of Atos Origin stating in their annual report the highest margin in Europe was from the DWP. As a high rate tax payer for thirty years this concerns me. So how are some profits for the employment agency achieved?

I believe the JCP pays the external agency for placements on success. A driver is placed and works for no salary for a period. The driver is then taken on and retained, on minimum wage, for just the period of time needed for the bounty to be paid. Some of this bounty, allegedly, is paid as a "sweetener" to the transport company. The driver is then made redundant.

Clearly the nil costs for the initial period of a driver and driver no promotion prospects to the transport company outweighs redundancy costs as the driver has worked for such a short period. Other alleged methods of "creative" dismissal I mentioned in my previous letter. There has never been a suggestion of payments to JCP staff. The JCP is happy as they have met their targets. The Government is happy at their success. Taxpayers and people desperate for work lose out. I am not sure of the time periods involved but "the six month JCP chop" was a phrase I heard.

People travelled from all over the country to work in London and the South East and feel betrayed. I know this is legal but is it moral? Is it consistent with the Big Society? I realise this was introduced during the thirteen years of Labour incompetence and it makes the figures look better but I look to this Government to improve matters.

So here are some suggestion for improvements. The employment agency should pay the driver during the initial period. The employment agency should only receive the bounty if the driver is retained for three years. Their duty is to the driver and they should audit the companies taking placements.

As the overall jobless falls the retention period can be reduced as it will be harder to place individuals. At the moment, for the employment agencies, it is like taking "candy from a baby". The "baby" is the taxpayer. The HMRC can audit staff turnover in the companies' annual return. I think it may be there already. If turnover is above a certain level the company will be put on a JCP watch list and bounties will not be paid to employment agencies that place people with these companies.

You will be aware major employers, allegedly, such as DHL, UPS have made redundant all their drivers. I am in favour of capitalism. I am in favour of free markets. I am not in favour of monopolies or foolish legislation that distorts markets and drives down the wages of the poorest in society. Part of the Government's job is to ensure transparency, to audit and to regulate. Maybe what is needed is a levy on companies who enjoy monopolies in supplying the Government with goods and services rather than wasting banks' resources and energy minimising the impact of the banking levy when the banks should be better employed as the engine of growth.

I hope you are in agreement with the sentiment if not the detail of the above.

Some minor corrections:-

I refer to employment and training companies. Where I say turnover I mean staff turnover. An employee is entitled to one week's pay for each year of service so by sacking an employee before the year is up saves the employer money. Once sacked there is a period before Jobseeker's allowance can be claimed. This forces the poor into the arms of loan sharks. I suggest the employment and training company pay minimum wage for all the weeks the employee is without work during the three years. This will concentrate their minds as they claim they place job seekers in "real" jobs. This should be no risk to the employment and training companies if they live up to the promises they give Jobcentre Plus.

Finally why not privatize each Jobcentre Plus employment activity as a separate company? Why must they be subsidised by the state and compete with the private sector? I believe the profits of employment companies are down. Private companies can never compete with a competitor offering staff for free. It is not just in logistics and distribution. The retail sector and others are getting in on the "too good to miss" deal.

Employment last month is down. Not surprising as Jobcentre Plus decimates employment in sector after sector. When was the last time you saw a major retailer job advert? I suggest they now get their "employees" through Jobcentre Plus. No pension. No perks. No security. Reduced employee costs.

	Department for Work and Penslons

	Caxton House
	Tothill Street
	London
	SW1H 9DA
	Telephone
	020 7340 4000
	Email
	ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
	www.dwp.gov.uk

Our ref: POS(2)11058/190

... MP
14 March 2011

Thank you for your letter of February 24 to the Secretary of State on behalf of Mr ... of ... regarding employment programmes in Jobcentre Plus. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this area of the Department's work.

The range of current provision for supporting people into work tends to be confusing and inflexible. The focus on specifying particular types of support for particular groups constrains providers and reduces value for money. The Work Programme will be different. Providers will be free to design support based on the needs of individuals and target the right support at the right time - not waste time delivering centrally-specified support that will not provide the help a person needs.

The Work Programme will help people with a wide variety of needs. We will offer providers higher rewards for supporting harder-to-help customers into employment to ensure that it is worthwhile for providers to help all customer groups. This Department is designing a coherent package of support, not just a single programme. Alongside the Work Programme we will deliver a more flexible advisory service in Jobcentre Plus. giving local offices more control and allowing them to deliver in a way that is responsive to local needs, and focusing on results rather than process.

The Work Programme will be the biggest single welfare to work programme this county has ever seen. It is the centrepiece of the Government's plans to reform welfare-to-work provision in the UK and ensure people have the right support as the economy moves out of recession and into recovery.

It will be built around the needs of individuals, providing the support they need when they need it. The Work Programme will be delivered by the best of the private, public and voluntary sector and will focus on helping people into sustained jobs, with in-work sustainment payments available for substantially longer than under current programmes. Providers will be given the freedom to innovate and do what works, rather than follow a top-down Whitehall-knows- best approach. In return they will be paid by results.

I hope this reply is helpful to Mr ....

With best wishes,

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Minister for Employment

From: Mr B... 
To: DWP WCA Evidence 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: WCA independent review - Call for Evidence launched 14th July

Dear Prof. Malcolm Harrington CBE,
 
First, may I say, I appreciate your efforts in addressing the failings in the 
implementation of the Welfare Reform Act and of predecessor Statutes, Rules and 
Regulations.  I would like to submit the following in respect of your Call for 
Evidence for your DWP WCA independent review.  I am willing for my evidence to 
be published in full on all media channels without reservations.

1. My Medical Status

I have worked full time in the the IT industry at a senior level for 30 years 
prior to my first admission to hospital.

I was emergency admitted to hospital in April 2009 (a ten day stay) after being 
revived from a fit. I was diagnosed with a brain tumour and given anti-convulsant 
medication. My condition deteriorated. I was an acute admission for a biopsy in 
October 2010 (a stay of 16 days). I was treated with six weeks of radio-therapy 
which completed in December 2010. I was so weak I needed patient transport and 
was allowed an escort due to my condition. I declined the offer of an escort 
after the first day as there was insufficient space on that first day and I saw 
others whose need was greater than mine. The radio-therapy has stabilised my 
condition. I am always weak and many days very tired or extremely tired. 
This is due to the number and dosage of medication I have been prescribed. 
My next MRI scan is scheduled for September 2011.

My condition allows me a few hours some days when I can use the computer. Daily 
physio-therapy exercises is slowly returning function to my right side. Handwriting 
is still problematic. 

2. My Feeling on an Annual Assessment

I am in favour of an annual assessment for everyone but it is a waste of resources 
to require all to attend a face to face assessment especially for those medical 
conditions for which the Contract states no face to face assessment is required. 
I am happy for the DWP to contact my GP or Consultants every three months if they 
feel so inclined. I have sent the DWP copies of my medical status after every MRI 
scan and treatment. What is the sense in harrassing me with an ESA50 form every 
year when the DWP the previous year has agreed to complete it for me due to my 
handwriting issues? It is crass waste of resources and just puts more profits 
into Atos coffers.

3. Contacting the DWP and Atos

The DWP and Atos prefer contact by phone. The DWP does not, against my understanding 
of Government objectives, provide email addresses except when a case is referred to 
a supervisor. My experience of phone messages is at best that there has been a 
misunderstanding of what has been agreed and at worst dishonesty. My experience leads 
me to suggest that the DWP and Atos should record every call and send the recording 
as an attachment to an email to every patient. This would concentrate the mind of the 
DWP and Atos and force them to be less cavalier with the truth over the phone. 
Alternatively the recordings should be kept until the patient has exhausted all 
avenues of appeal. Tribunals considering appeals should be able to access these 
recordings. 

4. Evidence (My correspondence in full to date) 

I submitted evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry and have published ALL correspondence 
(desensitized) on my website http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html. 

5. My view of the DWP and Atos

I was shocked to discover the lack of transparency, the duplicity and the evasion of 
the DWP and Atos.

- Why is it necessary to hide which medical conditions mean a face to face assessment 
  is not required and which, like mine, need to be referred to a GP or consultant? 

- Why is it necessary to hide which Parliamentary constituencies are not within the 
  90 minutes travel time?

- Why is continence or mobility not taken into account in the travel time? Hospital 
  patient transport provides bed pans. Look at the journey times, outside the maximum 
  90 minutes, and the changes that I was instructed to take; all in breach of the Contract.

- Why is travel time not audited and the results published? 

6. The Contract between the DWP and Atos

I have published major parts of the Contract between the DWP and Atos obtained under the 
Freedom of Information Act. 

- Why is the publication of this important document left to concerned individuals such as I?

It is a low cost option for the DWP to publish on the DWP website such information. 
Patients, advisors, Atos and the DWP could help reduce the Kaffkaesque waste of the 
current approach as demonstrated by the large number of appeals won by patients.

7. The DWP and Atos mislead Parliament

- Why did the DWP mislead the Secretary of State in claiming a competent medical authority 
  decides whether a face to face assessment is necessary?

8. The DWP and Atos fail to audit

- Why does the DWP fail to audit Atos?

In every private company I have worked for, the importance of internal and external audit 
means that reports are handled at board level. "Who did what, when, to whom" underpins 
every improvement. In my case, kindly review the correspondence to see how long it took 
to find the nurse who took a decision that only a qualified doctor should have taken. 
The NMC stated that she failed to read but as she can now read they cannot take the matter 
further as they are constrained in what they can investigate and what they cannot.

9. DWP and Atos deception

I was deceived by the DWP and Atos and duped into attending the illegal WCA. At that time 
there was no access to the Contract. I assumed that the DWP and Atos would put my interests 
as a patient first. The result was a shock. To compound the failings the refusal to provide 
me with the report despite repeated requests. 

10. DWP and Atos ignores the NAO

The Atos Independent Tier process was a farce. Please see the correspondence. Why, despite 
the specific recommendation by the NAO, was Atos allowed to investigate themselves? Why does 
the DWP and Atos suppress or lose evidence? How can evidence be found eventually if the 
patient is persistent. The DWP have declined to comment. 

11. My Atos report is a libel

The report itself is a libel. Why did the assessment start so late in clear breach of the 
Contract? Why did the assessment take so long? Why is there no mention of my black outs, 
memory loss, near falls and pain? In this electronic age why is the assessment not video 
recorded and a copy given to the patient? Alternatively why is the recording not retained 
pending appeal. How can the competence or lack thereof of the doctor be assessed? How many 
other libellous assessments have their been? I suggest the level of successful appeals 
speaks volumes.

12. Doctors and nurses fail to speak and write English

In the Contract knowledge by doctors and nurses of English, both written and spoken, is 
mandatory. Please read the reports written by the two doctors as published on my website. 
Their command of English is poor. The GMC say, due to Maastrict, doctors in the EU without 
any English can practice in the UK. The GMC further say it is up to the employer, DWP and 
Atos in this case. 

Patients describe their symptoms in idiomatic language. I recall describing the intensity 
of my constant weakness as "I feel like a limp wet fish" or "movement is like constantly 
wearing a diving suit with lead boots". Diving? Aqualung? was the broken reply by the doctor. 
I vaguely remember struggling in my mind to remember snippets of Latin, French and German 
but my overwhelming tiredness made the struggle futile. Clearly Atos should have supplied 
an interpreter for the doctor and due to medical confidentiality rules this should have 
been a doctor. Clearly if an English speaking doctor is available than one who was not 
competent would not be used. The DWP Contract specifies the English competency requirement 
but does not audit that Atos is "passing off" doctors and nurses who are not competent and 
profiting greatly by this. Remember the NMC found that the nurse in my case "failed to read".

13. Cleanliness of Atos doctors and nurses

I was concerned about the cleanliness of the doctor. She wore no gloves yet she squeezed 
my hands and manipulated my limbs. I was so close to blacking out I was barely able to 
keep myself together so I did not question at the time. There was no place in the assessment 
room for her or me to wash. I do recall a previous patient who had soiled himself but was 
handled by someone other than the doctor who handled me. Other patients were bleeding.  
It was Dickensian.  The GMC, CQC et al have stated this is an assessment, it is NOT a medical 
matter and therefore it is outside their remit. This is not the third world. We have access 
to first class medical equipment and plumbing. Atos penny pinching may cause illness but as 
their assessment is not a medical matter the costs will be born by the NHS.

14. Attitude of Atos doctors and nurses

I was hurried and hustled out of the secure door by the doctor despite my loss of balance. 
I was using the walls to keep upright. I got through the door and collapsed on the seat by 
the door. Doctors and nurses do not behave like this and after weeks when I had recovered 
a little I realised that Atos were operating a scam. Atos are fraudulently providing 
services to the DWP, at great profit to Atos, and the DWP are allowing this by failing to 
enforce the contract. 

Consider again my case. The Contract states that it is not possible for my condition to 
produce an assessment without access to my medical history. The DWP and Atos have 
repeatedly asserted that my assessment was valid. The DWP and Atos have not explained why, 
without the benefit of more medical information, months later they changed their mind. 
As part of your investigations it would be useful to find out how many assessment 
recommendations were overturned and for what reason.

15. Atos and travel expenses

The Contract states that travel expenses will be paid. Why did I, with my law legal 
knowledge have such difficulties in obtaining my expenses?

16. The DWP and Atos and preferential treatment

The Contract clearly states that patients who refer to their MPs are treated differently. 
This is outrageous. The Police would not act differently if a suspect contacted their MP. 
The implication for me is that the DWP and Atos feel they are operating in a way that 
would not stand up to close scrutiny.

17. DWP Senior Staff evasion

I refer you to the correspondence I have had with Darra Singh and other senior executives.  
I would like you to consider whether his answers address the issues I have raised or 
whether he is evasive and unwilling to investigate whether there is substance to my assertions.

18. "Delay, Defer, Deny"

Look at the volumes of correspondence in my case. The DWP should publish figures for each 
area as to how long the average process takes and the average items of correspondence. 

My recommendation to you is to demand copies of all the reports specified by the Contract 
for the most recent time period for each report; daily, weekly, monthly and annually. 
You should obtain and organisation tree for the individuals that receive these reports 
and ask what actions have been required as a consequence of the information in the reports. 
The DWP has been evasive in this area. 

I can sum up my experience of the DWP and their subcontractor Atos by three words; 
"Delay, Defer, Deny". The DWP is a secretive and evasive organisation. It refuses to 
publish information that would reduce costs to the taxpayer. It is profligate with 
resources; see the correspondence of my case. It is organised so that DWP Decision 
Makers have deniability. If there are no meaningful audits and challenges are not 
accounted for, the DWP Decision Maker has an easy time since they are not competent 
in medical matters. Atos has an easy time as Atos does not make decisions. This 
results in a cosy time for the DWP and Atos. The Atos annual report crows it makes 
the biggest margin from the DWP in Europe. A reasonable person might suspect neglect 
or incompetence or corruption is at play.

19. The DWP and Atos and patients, claimants, customers and clients

- Why is it necessary for a lay knowledge of the law to obtain benefits?

- Why are there errors and inconsistences in the forms and documents?

- Who are the Benefits Agency and why do they send me forms?

- Why does the DWP and Atos use customers, clients and claiments freely without rhyme nor 
  reason?  To paraphrase the explanation I have received the "lesser" educated are familiar 
  with the word "customer" but would be confused by the word "claimant".  This is despite 
  Parliament, media channels and independent advice agencies using "claimant".  If I am 
  confused by this usage, especially "client" then I suggest many others are.  My 
  understanding is that the DWP is a customer of Atos.  In your review can you consider 
  this patronising and confusing approach to a "claimant" or patient and recommend accordingly.

NB Employment Support Allowance (C or I) Support Group actually means Unemployment Allowance 
(C or I) Work Incapable. Employment Support Allowance (C or I) Work Capable actually 
means Unemployment Allowance (C or I) Work Capable and should have categories such as 
part time, work from home, local travel etc.  These categories should allow employers 
to evaluate and shortlist without interview costs and without causing distress to applicants.  
Jobcentre staff would send fewer applicants to try for patently unsuitable jobs.

20. Speculation on why the DWP and Atos abuse patients

Finally perhaps you could investigate the underlying drivers for this situation. Is 
this the utilitarian political philosophy setting aside the moral imperative? If so 
an honest Government would say so. Assuming that patients do matter, is there a darker 
motive at play? Unum and Atos host many PR and marketing events either directly or mostly 
through front organisations. Are the "benefits" fully disclosed?

You are aware of the CV of Prof Mansel Aylward. You will have noticed that the pictures 
of the champagne and caviar events have been removed from many web sites attended by Unum, 
Atos and DWP senior staff. I am in contact with a photographer of such an event. Atos 
hold the copyright but I am sure the photographer would release them to a Police investigation.

==============================================================================================
Date: 21 July 2011 15:35

Subject: Re: WCA independent review - Call for Evidence launched 14th July - Supplemental Evidence

Dear Prof. Malcolm Harrington CBE,
 
Further to my evidence in my email dated 19 July, I would like to supply the WCA independent 
review with the attached documents that support my assertions.  I am happy these documents 
are published in full as they are on my website.

The originals can be obtained from the DWP.
 
1. I attach a series of recent correspondence with the DWP.  I contend that the DWP is 
   evasive in that it claims to have previously addressed each issue in previous 
   correspondence but fails to address the substantive matters raised; failure to correct 
   the Parliamentary record, failure to audit, failure to comply with NAO procedures 
   (in respect of the Independent Tier).
 
2. I attach my ESA50 form dated 15 June 2009, the ESA85 report dated 24 July 2009 by Atos 
   to the DWP decision maker (a copy of which I received I presume November 2009 after 
   intervention from the Secretary of State), the Atos independent tier report dated 
   15 February 2010 and the IB59 report dated 23 April 2010 which changed my status 
   from "work capable" to "support group (a copy of which I received I presume after 
   intervention again from the Secretary of State).
 
At the introduction of the Atos independent tier (Medical Issues) report is stated 
"I have read all the documents supplied by the Customer Relations Team".  These are 
not listed or made available that I can challenge veracity and completeness.  
How is it that an "independent" review fails to list evidence considered?  
I suggest this is unheard of.  The abuse of process is one of the reasons that 
the NAO have set down recommendations that the DWP and Atos continue to ignore.
 
In the Atos independent tier (Medical Issues) report when on page 4 of page 7 is 
stated "Certainly Mr B... seems to have accepted the report in its entirety".  This 
cannot be sustantiated.  Please review all the correspondence and review how such an 
assertion can be made.  The Atos independent tier process is summed up by the statement 
in the report "I must confirm that a good deal of what he asks for is beyond the remit 
of the Medical section of the Tier".  The key issue of who decided that a the face to 
face assessment was not addressed. On 11 January 2010 I was told that a Nurse decided 
a face to face assessment was necessary.  That this is in breach of the Contract has 
never been disputed.  Her defence made to the NMC investigating panel was that she 
failed to read!  Why did the Atos independent tier highlight this "medical" failing?
 
Finally I suggest part of the problem is that senior personnel in the DWP and Atos do 
not carry out random spot checks on individual cases.  If the details, such as I have 
provided you, are reviewed, desensitized and published by the DWP, it would concentrate 
the minds of the operational staff to improve.  The culture of obfustication, evasion 
and waste at the DWP and Atos is so clear.  I suggest if you request all the ESA85 
reports produced by a random centre on a random day, desensitize and publish as an 
addenda to your report you would shame the senior personnel to do better.
 
Yours sincerely

Attachments:
   DWP ESA Atos ESA50 - 15 June 2009
   DWP ESA Atos ESA85 - 24 July 2009
   DWP ESA Atos IB59 - 23 April 2010
   DWP ESA Atos Independent Tier Report - 15 February 2010
   Extract from Email to the DWP BDC - 1 February 2011 13:00
   Extract from Letter from Matthew Nicholas, Director - 21 February 2011
   Extract from Email to Darra Singh, Chief Executive - 15 March 2011
   Extract from Letter from DWP - 18 April 2011
   Email to DWP - 27 May 2011
   Letter from DWP - 25 July 2011
   Email to DWP - 31 July 2011
      

To:      WORKPENCOM@parliament.uk
Date:    7 November 2011 11:56  
Subject: Proposal to replace DLA with PIP

Dear Clerk of the Committee,

Please could you be so kind as to forward my comments, as below, to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. My comments relate to the Committee meeting held on Wednesday 19 October 2011 at 9:30am, Subject: Proposal to replace Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment. I watched the proceedings on Parliament TV. A transcript of the meeting is not yet available so forgive me if I have misunderstood.

I believe at one point the Chair asked a question as to who could replace Atos in undertaking medical examinations or as commonly known assessments. I would like the Committee to consider if "locums" in the claimants own GP surgery could replace Atos. In GP surgeries, as now, "contentious" examinations are usually carried out by "locums". The many advantages of using the GP surgery include access to the claimant's full medical history and reduction in administrative and logistics costs. The "locums" both nurses and doctors could be the same qualified pool that are currently employed by Atos but I do not think this is necessary as occupational therapists could easily cover the current work capable assessment. An alternative could be the nearest physiotherapy or occupational health therapy centre these, like GP surgeries, are trusted by patients.

The DWP has stated that "as of 31 August 2011 Atos Healthcare has 847.24 (full time equivalent) Healthcare Professionals (HCP) undertaking medical assessments". This seems very few to undertake so many and complex assessments especially without access to the patient's medical history. The "Assessment of whether a claimant has limited capability for work" (points) and the "Assessment of whether a claimant has limited capability for work related activity" are straight forward forms to complete if and only if access to a full medical history is available. As a layman, but with expert IT knowledge, complex error prone tick box software (Lima) seems to be unnecessary.

As you are aware the original DWP and Atos contract was valued at £80m per year but in 2009/2010 the DWP paid £150.8m (DWP top-100-commercial-suppliers.pdf). The reasons for this increase, vastly in excess of inflation, have not been made clear. If the DWP paid the NHS PCT's £150m a year, I am sure the results of the assessments would result in far fewer appeals and this matter would be less contentious. As you are aware when the results of appeals are so many in favour of the patient and the DWP concedes so many before appeal there is a major problem in the assessment process.

As support to the approach I advocate above, I would like the Committee to consider "EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS 2008, 2008 No. 794 AND THE EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 2008, 2008 No. 795" in which is stated "the annual net benefit will be £215m (by year10) and the total benefit £1.1bn (10years)". I suggest comparing these figures with actuals suggests that the changes, such as I have proposed, would be a better way to move forward. It seems foolish, irrational and arbitrary to continue with the Atos "not fit for purpose" approach.

Finally I would like to declare my interest. I am still in the ESA(C) Support Group but all the weekly income I would receive from the DWP is withheld as my company pension scheme, due to my exceptional medical circumstances, has agreed to award me a pension. I only receive the £10 Christmas payment. In my case an unqualified HCP, a nurse "failed to read my ESA50" and ordered me to attend a face to face assessment. This decision, as defined by the Contract, should only have been taken by a doctor. I was defamed by libel by the doctor who undertook my assessment and produced the ESA85. She failed to understand the Contract in that my GP and or Consultants should have been consulted prior to my assessment. It has taken two years and two months for the DWP to concede all points I have raised including misleading the then Secretary of State. The case is with the Independent Case Examiner who I have left to decide the appropriate level of compensation.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

From:    Inquiry Manager
Date:    10 November 2011 16:23 
Subject: Proposal to replace DLA with PIP

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your email of 7 November. The Chair has asked me to reply.

We have noted your comments about the delivery of PIP assessments in the future. The Committee understands your concerns about PIP being delivered in the same way as the WCA for ESA and will be exploring this issue on 23 November with witnesses from disability representative organisations.

The transcript of 19 October should have been put on our website by now – I will chase this up, please check again in a day or two.

Thank you for your interest in the Committee’s inquiry.

Kind regards,

Ms Isabel Letwin, Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group

Departmental Secretariat, 4th Floor, Caxton House, 6-12 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA

7 December 2009

Dear Ms Letwin

Ref: Use of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare

I am concerned at the misuse of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare. If you refer to the Welfare Reform Act and the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare, a "customer", in respect of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), is a defined term and has a specific legal meaning. I believe there are instances where the term "customer" has been misused by the DWP and Atos Healthcare and in context are misrepresentations and potentially misleading. Usually in these instances the term "claimant" should have been used and in certain contexts "patient claimant".

The state has a statutory duty of care to patients and claimants. The commonly held view is that the term "customer" implies subject to Contract Law. There is no commonly held view that a patient or a claimant is a customer. I respectfully point out there is an obligation on Government to provide clear and fair advice.

As a particular example, I would like to draw your attention to the Atos Healthcare booklet "Caring about customer service" subtitled "comments, complaints and suggestions". This describes the initial stages of a legal process that may eventually lead to a judicial tribunal and an appeal in the High Court. I would argue that it is misleading to use the term "customer" in this document. In legal terms the "customer" is the DWP, the "supplier" is Atos Healthcare and the "claimant" has entitlements which are protected by the state by statute, regulation and case law.

Documents such as the one referred to above should either be rewritten so that they are correct in law and so use the term "claimant" or should have a glossary which lists the redefinitions by Atos Healthcare of the legal definitions.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like the relevant extracts from the copy of the minutes of the meetings where the DWP and Atos Healthcare agreed that a "claimant" should be referred to as a "customer". In particular I am interested in the justifications made in support of this change.

As background to my concerns, I draw your attention to my memorandum submitted to the recent Parliamentary Inquiry and my experience published on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html". This has links to the Parliament website.

I look forward to hearing from you and confirmation that you will take action to rectify this matter. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Department for Work and Pensions
Commercial Directorate

Our address       Medical Services Contract
                  Management Team
                  Room 306
                  North Fylde Central Office
                  Norcross Blackpool
                  FY5 3TA
Our phone number  01253 611552
Our fax number    01253 333807
Email: Michelle.Munro@DWP.gsi.gov.uk

Date:    9 February 2010
Our Ref: FOI 1209-2565

Dear Mr B...,

Use of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare

You wrote to Isabet Letwin on 7 December about the use of the term Customer by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) & Atos Healthcare, and the legality of using this term in the contract between DWP & Atos.

You also made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. I have been asked to reply and I apologise for the delay in doing so.

For the purposes of the Medical Services Contract the terms customer and claimant are used to differentiate between Atos Healthcare's customer, DWP and the DWP customer. However, as an agent of DWP, Atos Healthcare are expected to refer to "claimants" as customers in their correspondence and operational dealings with those individuals.

You specifically asked for

"relevant extracts from the copy of the minutes of the meetings where the DWP and Atos Healthcare agreed that a 'claimant' should be referred to as a customer".

You state that you are particularly interested in the justifications made in support of this change.

Following an extensive search of the paper and electronic records in this office, which includes the Atos Healthcare contract management team, and after discussions with colleagues in the Department's Communications Directorate, the information you requested is not held.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Michelle Munro

Freedom of lnformation Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk or by writing to DWP, Central FoI Team, 5th Floor The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT. Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Ms Isabel Letwin, Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group 
Departmental Secretariat, 4th Floor, Caxton House 
6-12 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA 

10 March 2010 

Dear Ms Letwin

Ref: Breaches of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare

I would like you to review the attached letters dated 22 February 2010; to Mr G Hampshire, Convenor to the Independent Tier, Atos Healthcare; to Ms RB..., Luton BDC, Jobcentre Plus; to Ms C..., Team Leader, Customer Relations, Atos Healthcare; and to the GMC (dated 3 March 2010). I have not received a response to the DWP or Atos letters. The GMC letter is being progressed. Please note I raised a new complaint and I have not received acknowledgment from Atos of the complaint. This is a new breach of the Contract between the DWP and Atos.

Can you provide me with the legal justification that supports the refusal of Atos to use the services of the Independent Case Examiner as recommended by the National Audit Office?

The "Atos" Independent Tier did not consider the multiple breaches of the Contract between the DWP and Atos. I have documented these http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoscontract.html#breaches. I was not allowed to provide evidence. The evidence of the Atos doctor Dr Bruecker, who implicitly confirmed that Atos provided unsound medical advice to the DWP Decision Maker, was not considered. This appears to breach the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to the rights of the individual in respect of justice.

Can you tell me who is responsible for the management of the Contract between the DWP and Atos? Schedule 16, Common Management Procedures (Clause 8.1) agrees that the Agreement should be managed. Who audits that this is done? I am concerned that there should be no undue influence by Atos on DWP personnel. Can you explain why no action has been taken over my serious complaint of assault and injury by Atos personnel? Can you explain why the "Approval" has not yet been removed by the DWP from the individuals complained of?

Can you confirm that Atos has refunded the DWP for the unsound medical advice they provided to the DWP? Can you tell me when the DWP Decision Maker will be able to make a decision based on sound medical advice in line with that outlined by Atos doctor Dr Bruecker?

Can you investigate if Atos, in particular Mr Brian Pepper, has obstructed justice in that Atos provided information to the Minister that the ESA information was reviewed by a qualified HCP prior to deciding a face to face interview was necessary? The Atos Independent Tier states this was not the case. In addition Mr Pepper was in breach of Contract in that he refused to take immediate action on the serious complaint.

As background to my concerns, I draw your attention to my memorandum submitted to the recent Parliamentary Inquiry and my experience in full published on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html". This has links to the Parliament website, extracts of the Contract, the unsound medical report and all correspondence (desensitised) including the results of the "Atos" Independent Tier.

I look forward to hearing from you and confirmation that you will take action to rectify this matter. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Ms Isabel Letwin, Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group 
Departmental Secretariat, 4th Floor, Caxton House 
6-12 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA 

11 March 2010 

Dear Ms Letwin

Ref: Use of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare

Further to my letter of the 7 December 2009 and following receipt of the information that you requested on my behalf under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000, I would like you to consider and see if there is sufficient cause for you to take action.

1. The Parliamentary Inquiry has reported. Evidence and the report uses the term "Claimant".

2. The "Atos" Independent Tier has reported. In the part reviewing the medical aspects the term "Claimant" is used. In the part reviewing the administrative aspects the term "Customer" and "Client" is used. The report states "The wording in Atos Healthcare literature is worrying and I think we can all accept that there is no more confusing word than 'customer'".

The FOI response included the following.

• For the purposes of the Medical Services Contract the terms customer and claimant are used to differentiate between Atos Healthcare's customer, DWP and the DWP customer. However, as an agent of DWP, Atos Healthcare are expected to refer to "claimants" as customers in their correspondence and operational dealings with those individuals.

The FOI response did not provide any information regarding "relevant extracts from the copy of the minutes of the meetings where the DWP and Atos Healthcare agreed that a 'claimant' should be referred to as a customer". This implies there is no reasoned argument to support the use of the misleading word "customer".

The meanings of "customer" and "shopper" and "purchaser" are very similar. They imply an optional purchase subject to the Sales of Goods Act. They never imply a statutory legal entitlement where a claim is required. I stress this point as I would like you to consider the translations provided by the DWP and Atos of English "customer" related literature and forms. Languages such as French and German are more precise and I expect their translations would not be able to use "shopper". The information would be nonsense in these languages. I expect the correct translation for "claimant" is used. This discriminates against those who have English as their language of choice.

Is it Government policy and DWP policy to provide clearer more easily understood literature for those whose first language is not English? I suggest this is discrimination and may be in conflict with both UK equality legislation and European equality legislation. Put another way, why is the UK Government and the DWP and Atos making it easier for people who do not speak or write English to claim their entitlement and making it harder for those whose first language is English?

Finally I understood there is an ongoing commitment by the Government to "Plain English" and making information easier to understand.

I look forward to hearing from you and confirmation that you will take action to rectify this matter. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Fw: Breaches of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare

Please can you once again forward for action to the senior executive in the DWP The Legal Group.

I have not had a response from Ms Isabel Letwin updating me with progress.

By now I would have expected, at the very least, a letter acknowledging that the serious matters I have raised are being addressed and in that letter some indication when resolution might be due.

Thank you

From:Cantrell Martin LEGAL GROUP DWP-DH COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT (MARTIN.CANTRELL@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK)

Date: 29 April 2010 16:59

Subject: Your letter to Isabel Letwin dated 10th March

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your email, with accompanying letter, of the 10th April.

I acknowledge receipt. I am sorry that you have not yet received a substantive reply

The matters have been referred to Mr Murphy of the Medical Services Contract Management Team. [Contact telephone number 01253 611 568]. Your letter is receiving attention. I expect that you will soon receive a substantive reply.

Yours sincerely

Martin Cantrell, DWP Legal Group, 1-11 John Adam Street, LONDON

Tel: 0207 962 8770

    To:      ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Cc:      enquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Progress on outstanding legal matters
    

Please can you forward to Ms Gill Aitken - Director General, Legal Group.

I am still seeking progress on my letter sent to Ms Isabel Letwin dated 10 March 2010. I received an email 30 April from a Mr Martin Cantrell who told me to expect a reply from Mr Murphy of the Medical Services Contract Management Team. I have neither received a reply from Ms Letwin nor from Mr Murphy. On the 27 May I followed up with an email enquiring about progress. I did not receive a reply.

I have since received a letter on 28 May from Mr James Fay, Freedom of Information Officer and a letter from Ms RB..., Luton BDC neither of which addressed the matters I raised. I attach copies of my replies to their letters neither of which has been acknowledged.

Please can you review this matter, ensure action is taken including the legal action requested and write to me to explain why a terminally ill patient receives such a service from the DWP.

All correspondence is published on my website http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html .

Thank you

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: FOI Request for list of DWP Approved Atos Health Care Professionals
    

Dear Sir,

Please can you provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, the latest complete list of the Department for Work and Pensions approved Atos Healthcare Health Care Professionals (HCP). For each HCP who is registered with the General Medical Council (GMC), I would like the name and the GMC reference number. For each HCP who is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), I would like the name and the NMC Practitioner PIN. In addition if other information such as the date of approval and or location where the HCP works is available, I would like this additional information to be supplied.

For clarification the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare includes the following:-

========
"Approved"
means the written recognition by the Chief Medical Advisor, on behalf of the Secretary 
of State, that an individual is satisfactorily trained, and has shown to have achieved 
the required standard to become engaged in the provision of medical or paramedical 
Services and is dependant on the required standards being achieved for each Service area
 
2.   MEDICAL TRAINING FOR NEWLY RECRUITED AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSSIONALS

2.5  The CONTRACTOR shall ensure that Health Care Professional giving advice and conducting
     examinations shall be Approved by the AUTHORITY acting on behalf of the Secretary of
     State. Approval will be dependent on individual Health Care Professional completing, to the
     CONTRACTOR's satisfaction, a course of training and appraisal in the relevant benefit area.

2.6  The CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all of its Health Care Professional providing Services to
     the AUTHORITY are accredited in accordance with the requirement to retain registration with
     the relevant licensing organisation.
========

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you

Yours faithfully

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: FW: FOI Request for list of DWP Approved Atos Health Care Professionals
    Date:    11 October 2011 16:54
    

Dear Sir,

I sent the email request as below on the 12 August 2011. On the same day I received the automated acknowledgement that the request had been received. I have not received any further communication about this request. Please can you progress this matter and explain why you have failed to respond within the 20 days allowed. Due to my medical condition I have not been able to chase up before now though I believe the requester is not required to progress chase FOI requests.

If I do not hear from you in a timely manner I will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

    To:      casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Complaint to the ICO
    Date:    19 October 2011 15:40
    

Dear Sir,

I created a request on the 12 August 2011 and received the automated receipt response the same day. I asked for progress on the 11 October 2011 and received the automated receipt response the same day. To date the DWP have ignored my request.

The DWP Chief Medical Officer is mandated to keep the approved list of doctors and nurses in compliance with the Contract between the DWP and Atos Origin. It should be trivial to obtain this information and publish it on the DWP FOI requests web site.

I have completed the ICO complaints form as attached and I have attached the email correspondence.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Department for Work and Pensions   Commercial Directorate

                   Our Address     Commercial Management of
                                   Medical Services
                                   North Fylde Central Office
                                   Norcross
                                   Block 3 Room 306
                                   Blackpool
                                   FY5 3TA
                  Our phone number   01253 611537
                  E-mail:
                  DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                          Date: 19 October 2011
                          Our Ref: FOI 2336-2367
    

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your freedom of Information request dated 12 August that was sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Adelphi and forwarded for me to respond to in my role as DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services Freedom of Information Officer.

Firstly may I take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding to your request for information.

You asked to be provided with

1. the latest complete list of the DWP's approved Atos Healthcare Health Care
   Professionals (HCP).
2. the General Medical Council (GMC) reference number for those registered
   with the GMC,
3. the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Practitioner PIN for those
   registered with the NMC.
And if available
4. the date of approval of the HCP
5. and the location where the HCP works

In reply to Q 1 as of 31 August 2011 Atos Healthcare has 847.24 (full time equivalent) Healthcare Professionals (HCP) undertaking medical assessments.

Further to the response given to Q 1 and also in reply to Q 2 we cannot supply the information relating to the list of all HCPs employed by Atos Healthcare, or the GMC reference numbers of these individuals. This information cannot be disclosed in accordance with Section 38 (1) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 which provides an exemption from disclosing information if such disclosure would, or would be likely, to put the physical or mental health or the safety of any individual at risk or greater risk.

It is unfortunately the case that a minority of DWP customers have decided to target HCPs employed by Atos Healthcare individually with harassment and threats of violence, with the stated intent to target all HCPs working for Atos Healthcare. DWP therefore consider that to release a full list would effectively provide that minority with a 'target' list to continue their harassment and in doing so DWP would be failing in their health and safety obligations to the HCPs.

We recognise that there is a strong public interest in our customers knowing the name and GMC reference number for the HCP who is assessing them, as it is only right that people know and can confirm that have been seen by a suitably qualified HCP. As such we will continue to provide this information on an individual basis to people undergoing an assessment unless information exists that the requester may pose a threat either directly through taking action or indirectly through enabling the minority to target HCPs.

However to release a full list under FOI we would have to accept that this list would be publicly available to that minority who have a stated intent to target HCPs. It would never be in the public interest to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual and it is important that the emotional and psychological well being of staff is protected. I am therefore satisfied that in considering the potential risks to HCPs we cannot see a wider public interest reason exists which would override our obligations to protect the health and safety of the HCPs and so the public interest in maintaining the Section 38 exemption in this instance outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

In response to Q 3 we cannot supply any information relating to an individual's NMC Practitioner PlN as this information which is held by Atos Healthcare, constitutes that person's personal data. This information cannot be disclosed in accordance with Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as disclosure would breach that person's right to privacy under the Data Protection Act 1998. In applying this exemption the Department has balanced the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information and consider there is no overarching public interest argument in favour of releasing this information,

In answer to Q 4 all HCPs must be approved by the Chief Medical Adviser to the DWP and separate approval is required for each benefit area in which the HCP is involved. Approval is dependent on successful completion of all stages of their training process and ongoing demonstration that the work being carried out meets a satisfactory standard.

We cannot supply any further information requested in these questions retating to the approval dates for each HCP employed by Atos Healthcare, this is because it is estimated that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit of £600. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for central Government it is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. Under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act the Department is not obliged to comply with your request, however if you were to make a new request for a narrower category of information, then it may be possible that we could comply with that request within the appropriate limit, although I cannot guarantee that this will be the case. for example, you could refine your request to limit your request to the HCPs who undertake medical assessments at a specific or a small number of Medical Assessment Centres (MAC).

In reply to Q 5 each MAC has a pool of HCPs who are trained to carry out medical assessments on a variety of benefits.

Each HCP has an agreed number of days on which they will conduct assessments. In addition, they also have agreed days of the week on which they work, and MACs, in which they will work. The type of assessment that the HCP is asked to carry out depends upon the needs of the business, i.e. the volumes of the different benefit types that are awaiting assessment and the age of the files.

If there is a business need at a specific MAC is for a HCP who conducts assessments in a specific benefit then he/she may be re-allocated to a different MAC from the MAC where they usually work.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information Officer, Commercial Management of Medical Services

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk. or by writing to DWP, Central FOI Team, 5th Floor The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT. Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Fw: DWP and Atos Periodic Reports Surveys
    Date:    9 November 2011 09:53
    

Dear Sir,

I may have mistakenly emailed to the wrong address the email below. I have not received an email acknowledgement neither automated nor manual. Please could you progress and forward to the DWP organisational unit that can comply with my request. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Mr B...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mr B... 
To: DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:30 PM
Subject: DWP and Atos Periodic Reports Surveys

Dear Sir,

Please can you provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, copies of information that relates to the Employment and Support Allowance administered by the DWP as defined in the numbered list below. Ideally the information should be published on the DWP website but if this is not possible it should be emailed to me or supplied as a printed copy.

I refer you to the Contract between The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited, Medical Services Agreement, Clauses Final Version 15 March 2005.

1.) The annual reports for October 2011, October 2010 and October 2009 as defined in "Schedule 5 Service Levels, 5 Annual Review, paragraph 5.2". "5.2 For the purposes of this annual review the CONTRACTOR shall submit an annual report by 31 October of each year summarising performance against each of the Service Levels set out in Appendix 1 to this Schedule 5." I expect these are already published on the DWP website so all I would need is the website references.

2.) The surveys from the most recent twelve (12) months as defined in "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 1, Common Business Requirements, 7 Claimant Satisfaction Surveys". "7.1 The CONTRACTOR shall undertake monthly surveys to gauge Claimants' perception of the service they receive." I expect these are already published on the DWP website so all I would need is the website references.

3.) A list of the periodic reports and the periods that each report covers that Atos creates for the DWP as defined in the Contract. Contract reference "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 2, Medical Requirements,". "5 Medical Quality Assurance, 5.1 Systems for recording and reporting information relating to recruitment, training and monitoring, 5.1.1 The CONTRACTOR shall maintain databases that collect and report information in relation to recruitment, training, monitoring, Approval and revocation of Approval."

4.) A list of the assessment software as referred in the Contract. Contract reference first section pages 20 and 21 of 76 covers intellectual property rights, 4.9 Contractor Software, 4.9.1 Ownership of all Intellectual Property Rights in the Contractor Software shall remain with the Contractor..., 4.9.2 The Contractor hereby grants to the Authority a non-exclusive, royalty free, non-transferable and irrevocable licence to Use the Contractor Software for the purposed of receiving the Services during the term of this Agreement.

5.) For the software referred to in 4. the companies or individuals that have a part or whole interest in the Intellectual Property Rights that are associated with such software. This should include all companies or individuals that Atos obtains rights from for use of this software.

To clarify 4.) and 5.) the medical examination (assessment) specific software that is referred to in clauses 4.7 Authority Software, 4.8 Authority Third Party Software, 4.9 Contractor Software and 4.10 Contractor Third Party Software.

I look forward to your acknowledgement and response within the prescribed time allowed. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

    From:    casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: ICO Response 14/11/11[Ref. FS50421466]
    Date:    14 November 2011 10:59
    

Dear Mr B...

Case Reference Number FS50421466

Your information request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Thank you for your correspondence dated in which you complain about the DWP's failure to respond to your information request.

In cases such as this the Commissioner does not consider that serving a formal decision notice would serve any strong public interest. However, I have written to the public authority to provide them with a copy of your original request, reminding it of its responsibilities and asking it to respond to you within 10 working days of receiving our letter.

Even though the Commissioner does not intend to issue a formal notice in this case, your concerns have been taken seriously. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

If the DWP responds and refuses to release the information you have asked for and you are dissatisfied, you may, after exhausting their internal complaints procedure, complain to us again.

This case has now been closed with the delayed response element showing as 'withdrawn' on our records. If you do not receive a response within 10 working days or are dissatisfied after having exhausted the internal review process mentioned above and would like us to look into the matter, please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter.

Yours sincerely,

..., Lead Case Officer

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: FOI 2336-2367 Request for internal review
    Date:    16 November 2011 09:34
    

Dear Sir,

I would like to request an internal review of the response dated 19 October 2011, which I received 27 October 2011, to my FOI request reference FOI 2336-2367. I received an apology not an explanation for the delay. I would appreciate an explanation.

I appreciate the assistance of the Information Commissioner's Office in obtaining this response as the DWP failed to respond either to my original request made 12 August 2011 or my later request for progress.

I note your assertion that there are potential risks in revealing a full list of the names of Atos doctors with their GMC reference number and a full list of the names of Atos nurses with their PIN number. I suggest the police are responsible for assessing if there is a threat from an individual or from a criminal organisation. I suggest you forward a copy of this letter to the police officer responsible for the investigation. You could consider the police's advice if the police support my suggestions that I feel would help to defuse the situation.

Notwithstanding, most professionals, including doctors and nurses, are happy to publish their credentials so that the organisations that employ these professionals can demonstrate that their employees are competent and are qualified. My professional status together with my full contact details are available for all to see. As a professional I accept the rewards and the risks. Threats are an occupational hazard. By being in the public eye is an additional check on my competency and will reduce my risk. Secrecy breeds suspicion.

Few in this day and age would visit a hospital without reviewing the credentials of the person that they are due to meet. Organisations that claim to employ professionals, especially in healthcare, and refuse to reveal their credentials naturally fall under suspicion. I suggest, in my experience, any potential risks are reduced if the list is published and so is subject to independent analysis and review. I further suggest that if a brief summary of the length of service and experience is included, this would do much to address the widely held negative perception of Atos. Keywords of "DWP" or "Atos" in a search engine returns scores of allegations that Atos are not using qualified HCPs. Some, like in my case, have been substantiated by the DWP and Atos.

It does not help that the HCP who carried out the assessment did not give their name and did not display their credentials in the assessment room. In my case, as the person who took my assessment had difficulty with spoken English, this was an additional warning light to me that all was not as it was claimed to be. I am happy for all to review my case to see why secrecy is so dangerous and how Atos put my life in danger.

The Government stresses the importance of transparency, openness and debate as the medium of improvements.

I believe the public interest in this instance outweighs the Section 38 exemption. In particular I believe the following points should be considered:

1. Every patient, including those aggrieved or those with malice intent, can obtain the information on request. Clearly, as is common in every organisation where healthcare professionals work, certain patients may need to be dealt with by social care or the police.

2. No location information is provided and given your comments, I accept this should not be published.

3. The Department of Health is not renewing their ASCC framework agreement with Atos.

4. Atos withdrew, after three years of a ten year contract, for NHS GP services, for, it is believed, quality issues.

5. Atos claim on their website to employ 1700+ HCPs which does not agree with the 847.24 figure that you provided me. This lower figure does not seem credible given the number of assessments that the DWP publish as taking place. Atos in a recent annual report boasts that it obtains the highest margin from the DWP.

6. The DWP have agreed that they do not audit Atos as Hilary Brierley Deputy Head of CMMS confirmed "...However, I can confirm that the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for the purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare's compliance with its contractual obligations....".

7. The Daily Telegraph published the DWP supplied figures that 94 percent of new DLA claims last year were approved without the need for a face to face assessment. Given points 5 and 6 above, a reasonable person might conclude that Atos were perhaps not giving quality and rigour priority in favour of throughput targets. As you are aware the original DWP and Atos contract was valued at £80m per year but in 2009/2010 the DWP paid £150.8m (DWP top-100-commercial-suppliers.pdf). Less qualified staff, nearly double the costs and the DWP fails to audit. Atos, as all commercial organisations do (in a monopoly market), must put the needs of Atos shareholders first.

8. Audits of medical quality are outside the remit of the DWP. Other medical governing bodies feel that as the process is an insurance assessment not an examination it is outside their remit.

9. Atos appear to be following the the McDonalds' Hamburger University approach by, presumably funding Derby University, to agree to accredit the Atos training module for nurses as a minor part of a degree course. If you recall the Unum funding of Prof Mansel Aylward in Cardiff University, who when working for the DWP was the driving force behind the "what they can do" approach that has been widely discredited. In the US Unum has been fined millions of dollars in settlement of running "disability discrimination factories". Unum and Atos were key members in how the "what they can do" approach was implemented in the UK You should further recall that a previous Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Work and Pensions, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, is listed in the House of Lords Register of Interests (2002) as the Chairman of the Unum Customer Advisory Panel. The results of the "what they can do" approach are a discredit to the DWP as measured by the high level of claimant success both before appeal, when the DWP concedes prior to tribunal, and as a result of appeal rulings.

10. In my case, Atos appears to have misled the DWP who in turn misled the then Secretary of State.

In summary an unreliable company such as Atos is not subject to DWP audit. Both parties can only proved that they are in compliance with the Contract between the DWP and Atos if there is full disclosure of relevant information. For the reasons specifed above, the publication of the list requested is in the wider public interest. Independent researchers can verify that both the DWP and Atos are complying in full with the Contract. Patients can independently check the credentials of those involved.

As an aside, it would help if the DWP published the medical conditions that mean a face to face assessment is not necessary. It would help for the DWP to publish the fact that, under Government instruction, the assessment has been changed in 2008 to favour those with more serious conditions and proposed Statutory changes will mean fewer medical conditions will be eligible. This means those currently eligible may not be so in future assessments. In the main people do not realise this is happening.

Transparency and openness would help defuse the situation and help rebuild trust in the DWP and Atos. I hope and believe a medical assessment carried out by a patient's Atos doctor or the patient's GP would produce the same result. I hope my case was an exception. If all interested parties work together then matters will improve. If secrecy continues the mistrust will deepen.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Department for Work and Pensions                Commercial Directorate

                              Our address       Commercial Management of
                                                Medical Services
                                                Block 3. Room 306.
                                                Norcross Government
                                                Buildings. Norcross Lane,
                                                Thornton, Lancashire
                                                FY5 3TA

                              Our phone number  01253 611537
                              Website           www.dwp.gov.uk
                              Email:
                              DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                              Date: 21 November 2011
                              Our Ref: CMMS 3887

Dear Mr B...

This is an acknowledgment to inform you that your complaint to the Information Commissioner relating to the delay in responding to your Freedom of Information request that was dated 12 August has been forwarded by the Information Commissioner for this team to respond to.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Roylance, Commercial Management of Medical Services

Department for Work and Pensions                Commercial Directorate

                              Our address       Commercial Management of
                                                Medical Services
                                                Block 3. Room 306.
                                                Norcross Government
                                                Buildings. Norcross Lane,
                                                Thornton, Lancashire
                                                FY5 3TA

                              Our phone number  01253 611537
                              Website           www.dwp.gov.uk
                              Email:
                              DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                              Date: 28 November 2011
                              Our Ref: CMMS 3887

Dear Mr B...

You recently contacted the Information Commissioner and advised them that you had not received a reply to your Freedom of Information request dated 12 August 2011.

I can confirm that we wrote to you with our response on 21 October 2011 and I apologise again for the delay in doing so.

I enclose a copy of that earlier response for your convenience. I am also copying this to the Information Commissioner's Office for completeness.

If you have any further queries, you can call me on 01253 611537.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Roylance, Commercial Management of Medical Services

Department for Work and Pensions                Commercial Directorate

                              Our address       Commercial Management of
                                                Medical Services
                                                Block 3. Room 306.
                                                Norcross Government
                                                Buildings. Norcross Lane,
                                                Thornton, Lancashire
                                                FY5 3TA

                              Our phone number  01253 611537
                              Website           www.dwp.gov.uk
                              Email:
                              DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                              Date: 5 December 2011
                              Our Ref: FOI 2551-3451

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 7 November that you sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Commercial Management of Medical Services (CMMS), and is being responded to by the DWP CMMS Freedom of Information Officer.

You asked for in Qs 1, 4 & 5:-

1.) The annual reports for October 2011, October 2010 and October 2009 as defined in "Schedule 5 Service Levels, 5 Annual Review, paragraph 5.2". "5.2 for the purposes of this annual review the CONTRACTOR shall submit an annual report by 31 October of each year summarising performance against each of the Service Levels set out in Appendix 1 to this Schedule 5." I expect these are already published on the DWP website so all I would need is the website references.

4.) A list of the assessment software as referred in the Contract. Contract reference first section pages 20 and 21 of 76 covers intellectual property rights, 4.9 Contractor Software, 4.9.1 Ownership of all Intellectual Property Rights in the Contractor Software shall remain with the Contractor..., 4.9.2 The Contractor hereby grants to the Authority a non-exclusive, royalty free, non-transferable and irrevocable licence to Use the Contractor Software for the purposed of receiving the Services during the term of this Agreement.

5.) for the software referred to in 4. the companies or individuals that have a part or whole interest in the Intellectual Property Rights that are associated with such software. This should include all companies or individuals that Atos obtains rights from for use of this software.

To clarify 4 and 5 the medical examination (assessment) specific software that is referred to in clauses 4.7 Authority Software, 4.8 Authority Third Party Software, 4.9 Contractor Software and 4.10 Contractor Third Party Software.

Unfortunately, I am unable to proceed with your request without clarification of some of the information you wish to receive. To help me do so, I would like to know in relation to

I am sorry but in relation to Q 1 could you please provide a copy of the para 5.2 you hold as the current Schedule 5 does not contain a paragraph 5.2.

In response to Qs 4 & 5 I am unable to proceed with your request without clarification of the information you wish to receive. To help me do so, I would like to know which part of the contract you are referring to as I am unable to identity the reference to "first section" pages 20 and 21 of 76.

Please note that if I do not receive appropriate clarification of your information requirements within three months from the date of this letter, then I will consider the remaining request closed.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Fay, Freedom of Information Officer

    To:      DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK
    Subject: Re: DWP and Atos Periodic Reports Surveys (FOI 2551-3451)
    Date:    07 December 2011 16:43
    

Dear Sir,

Your Ref: FOI 2551-3451

Regarding your letter dated 5 December 2011 from Mr James Fay, FOI Officer.

As background I refer you my FOI request dated 10 November 2009 ref FOI 1118-2180 following which I received an extensive extract of the Contract between the DWP and Atos. I believe this Contract is still applicable. I attach images of the pages to assist in clarifying the information I would like to receive:

For Question 1, I attach image s5-5-5-2.JPG.

For Question 4 and 5, I attach images of pages 20 (p20.JPG), 21 (p21.JPG )and 23 (p23.JPG). If you refer to 4.12 Deposited Software, the software I refer to is the software that is deposited in escrow with the NCC under 4.12.1 The CONTRACTOR shall".

I apologise if my terms are confusing. My understanding is that the Agreement comprises Clauses and Schedules. In addition each Schedule contains Clauses. The Agreement Clauses comprise pages 10 to 71. Sometimes I use the term paragraph instead of clause.

Please let me know if you need any further assistance.

Thank you

Yours faithfully

Date: 12 December 2011

Our Ref: FOI 2551-3451

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 7 November that you sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Commercial Management of Medical Services (CMMS), which I am responding to, in my role as the DWP CMMS Freedom of lnformation Officer. Thank you for providing clarification in relation to questions 4 & 5.

In your request you asked, in reference to the Medical Services Contract between DWP and Atos Healthcare:-

1.   Reference to a website containing the annual reports which are referred to
     within Schedule 5 Annual Review paragraph 5.2.

2.   to be provided with the Customer Satisfaction survey results for the last 12
     calendar months, and advised where these reports are published within
     DWP websites;

3.   a list of the periodic reports and the periods that each report covers that
     Atos healthcare provides for DWP in relation to the Contract reference
     Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 2 Medical Requirements; 5 Medical Quality
     Assurance, and section 5.1 systems for recording and reporting information
     relating to recruitment.

4.   A list of the assessment software as referred to in the Contract covering
     intellectual property rights;

5.   which companies or individuals that have a part or whole interest in the
     Intellectual Property Rights that are associated with such software, which is
     the specific software that is used in the medical assessments

In answer to Q 1 Schedule 5 has been reviewed since 2005, and no longer contains paragraph 5.2, this has been superseded by Schedule 16 Paragraph 2.2.3 Performance Reviews, and specifically 2.2.3.1 which states "Peformance reviews shall be held on a monthly basis between the AUTHORITY and the CONTRACTOR for the purposes of reviewing performance against Service Levels set out in Schedule 5 to this Agreement and conformance by the CONTRACTOR to all other standards and policies set out elsewhere in this Agreement."

In reply to Q 2 please find enclosed the customer satisfaction surveys for the past 12 month, commencing November 2010: these are not published on any DWP website.

In answer to Q 3 and in accordance with Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, the Department is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request it has previously responded to. My letter as the CMMS freedom of Information Officer dated 19 October (FOI 2336-2367) refers.

In response to Qs 4 & 5 the computer software used by the contractor in the compilation of medical assessments is Logic Integrated Medical Assessment (LiMA).

LiMA provides approved HCPs with a system of data entry that minimises typing. This is known as 'assisted text control' and allows information to be quickly and easily added to a report. 'Standard phrases' consist of sentences that users can customise by altering variables. Their use is never mandated and the option of 'free text' (where the user types into the report) is always available. Therefore, the report that is produced should always be an accurate reflection of the assessment.

To provide an example the phrase 'The condition started several months ago'
is constructed by the LiMA system as follows:
The user is presented with the Standard phrase - The condition started
The system will them prompt the user to select the appropriate option i.e. a few,
several, many or Since age (x) or from birth.
If the user has selected few, several, many the system will then prompt the user
to select the appropriate option i.e. days, weeks, months, years.

There are an enormous number of customisable phrases in LiMA which are regutarly updated, these are an integral part of the IT system and no separate list is available. However, as outlined above, there are no constraints placed on the approved HCP as to what information is recorded or how.

The system utilizes evidence based medical protocols which contain up to date medical knowledge relating to medical assessment technique and in the assessment of the effects of medical conditions. Emphasis is always placed on the differing circumstances of each individual customer and HCPs are required to justify their medical opinion contained on the medical report. This has contributed to an improvement in the quality and consistency of medical advice provided by approved HCPs. It also solves any potential problem of legibility of the medical report.

The questions and options built into the LiMA programme are exactly the same as those in the clerical form IB85 Incapacity for Work Medical Report form. This form was designed by the DWP.

The assisted text phrases that may be used to construct the medical history were drawn from many sources including the Incapacity Benefit Handbook, medical text books, examples of high quality Personal Capability Assessment report and discussions with experienced approved Healthcare Professionals (HCPs). They have been quality assured by panels of experienced HCP's and deemed appropriate for constructing good quality relevant clinical and functional histories and were agreed in consultation with the DWP Health and Benefits Division (formerly Corporate Medical Group).

The clinical examination results are structured according to the findings of evidence based medical research carried out by Atos Healthcare to determine the functional consequences of specific clinical signs. In other words the HCPs are expected to cary out a functional assessment of the affected system(s), not necessarily to carry out a full diagnostic clinical examination. This was agreed in consultation with the DWP Health and Benefits Division (formerly Corporate Medical Group).

LiMA software only functions as an interactive process during an assessment; it has no independent function and is designed to run only on Atos Healthcare networked based PCs not standalone PCs. Furthermore we have decided not to release specific technical data relating to LiMA software for the following reasons.

Reasons for claiming exemption

We consider the information exempt from disclosure under section 43 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act"). This is because, in our opinion, the disclosure of the information under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of both DWP and a third party licensee of DWP.

In this regard, we can tell you that DWP holds copyright, the intellectual property rights and has licensed a third party to use, customise, distribute, incorporate, market, maintain, support, sell and sub-license LiMA (and other software) in return for payment of a royalty to DWP. In that licence, DWP confirms that it will not, in effect, allow any other party similar rights.

The LiMA software program is not only integral to the conduct of DWP business; also represents a significant commercial interest to the DWP. Therefore we decline to provide the software, any technical or other information that would enable full or partial reproduction of the LiMA system.

While we acknowledge that, if supplied to you, the information would continue to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which would prohibit certain commercial re-use of the information by you) we have, after full consideration, reached the conclusion that the likelihood of prejudice to our commercial interests, and those of our licensee, remains. The information has inherent commercial value in terms of the business methods it reflects and the concepts it employs, neither of which is adequately protected by the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

To place this information in the public domain would undermine the basis of the arrangement reached by DWP with its licensee, as it would threaten the uniqueness of the information upon which assessments of commercial risk and return have been made and in relation to which commercial positions have been adopted and acted upon by the parties. We also consider that release of the information would be likely to place DWP at a significant disadvantage in seeking to secure similar licensing arrangements with third parties in the future.

In applying the exemption under section 43 (2) of the Act, we have considered whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. We have concluded that it does. We have reached this conclusion because, in our view, the public interest in understanding how the LiMA system works, and in being assured that the LiMA system properly reflects and supports the identification and assessment of benefit entitlements, can be met by a non-technical description of the system, and the role it is intended to play in the decision making process. We believe that you have this information.

We are also mindful of the fact that any public concerns about the integrity of LiMA can be met and fully addressed through due process of the benefit system itself, which contains rights of review and appeal covering both the DWP's decision on entitlement to benefit, and the process by which that decision is arrived at. Conversely, we do not believe that the public interest would be served by creating an environment, which adversely impacts the public sector's ability to obtain a secondary benefit from its investment in information systems.

Were the public sector to release, under the Act, commercially valuable information such as that inherent in the LiMA system, the public sector would find it difficult to engage the expertise of commercial licensees (an expertise the public sector does not have) in deriving latent value from its information systems, to the detriment of the general taxpayer who would be deprived of the royalty revenue which might otherwise be realisable. For these reasons, we believe that it is right to maintain the exemption in relation to the specific information you seek.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Commercial Management of Medical Services, Freedom of Information Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwo.gsi.gov.uk. or by writing to DWP, Central FOI Team, 5th Floor, The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adman Street, London WC2N 6HT.Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire Sx9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Date: 13 December 2011

Our Ref: FOI 2557-3356

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request that was received by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Adelphi on 9 November 2011 and forwarded on for me to respond to in my role as DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services Freedom of Information Officer.

You asked for:- copies of information that relates to the Employment and Support Allowance administered by the DWP as defined below, and in reference to the Medical Services Contract.

1.  The annual reports for October 2011, October 2010 and October 2009 as
    defined in "Schedule 5 Service Levels, 5 Annual Review, paragraph 5.2".

2.  The surveys from the most recent twelve (12) months as defined in
    "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 1, Common Business Requirements, 7
    Claimant Satisfaction Surveys".

3.  A list of the periodic reports and the periods that each report covers that
    Atos creates for the DWP as defined in the Contract. Contract reference
    "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 2, Medical Requirements,". and "5 Medical
    Quality Assurance, 5.1 Systems for recording and reporting information
    relating to recruitment, training and monitoring.

4.  A list of the assessment software as referred in the Contract. Contract
    reference first section pages 20 and 21 of 76 covers intellectual property
    rights, 4.9 Contractor Software, 4.9.1 Ownership of all Intellectual Property
    Rights in the Contractor Software shall remain with the Contractor.

5.  For the software referred to in 4. the companies or individuals that have a
    part or whole interest in the Intellectual Property Rights that are associated
    with such software. This should include all companies or individuals that
    Atos obtains rights from for use of this software.

To clarify 4.) and 5.) the medical examination (assessment) specific software that is referred to in clauses 4.7 Authority Software, 4.8 Authority Third Party Software, 4.9 Contractor Software and 4.10 Contractor Third Party Software.

In accordance with Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, the Department is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request it has previously responded to. My letter as the Freedom of Information Officer dated * December 2011 (FOI 2551-3451) refers.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

CMMS freedom of Information Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwo.gsi.gov.uk. or by writing to DWP, Central FOI Team, 5th Floor, The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adman Street, London WC2N 6HT.Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Date: 14 December 2011

Our Ref: FOI 2581-IR 278

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 16 November 2011 that was received by DWP Adelphi and forwarded for me to respond to in my role as Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Commercial Management of Medical Services Internal Reviewing Officer. You asked for:-

An explanation for the delay in responding to FOI 2336-2367, a copy of your letter to be forwarded to the police and the amount of HCP's that Atos employ. You also provided suggestions regarding the publication of HCP details and commented on the audit of Atos.

As Reviewing Officer, I have read your letter and accepted this as a request for an Internal Review so that I can check that the information sent to you clearly and accurately answered your request. I have therefore conducted a full investigation into your original request and the information supplied to you. I have also reviewed any decisions to withhold information and in doing so I have fully considered the public interest in disclosure.

You stated that you had received an apology but not an explanation for the delay in responding to FOI 2336-2367. I can inform you that your Freedom of Information request dated 12 August was sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Adelphi and forwarded on that day to the DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services Freedom of Information Officer.

A request was made to Atos Healthcare on 7 September for the information you wanted, the reason for the delay in requesting this information was due to a high volume of FOI requests received at that time and a lack of availability of staff to process the requests. The response to this request was received from Atos Healthcare on 20 September which was then followed by a period of consultation with DWP Health and Well Being Division and DWP Legal Group; these initial discussions were concluded on 30 September.

At this stage CMMS should have informed you by letter that there was a need to extend the 20 working day time limit for issuing a response. It was necessary to extend the time limit in this case, because the information requested had to be considered under one of the exemptions to which the public interest test applies. The extra time was needed in order to make a determination as to the public interest.

An initial draft to your request was not completed until 14 October. Once this draft was completed the response was forwarded through the required sign-off procedures, and the letter was finally approved and posted to you on 21 October.

I note your suggestion that a copy of your letter be provided to the police, however DWP do not need to obtain advice from the Police, over the release of information, and a lack of instructions does not remove our obligation to the HCPs to protect them as a group from the few individuals who have at times sought out Atos Healthcare employees, and either verbally abused them, or threatened physical violence against them. Sections 38 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act would not allow DWP to disclose this information to the Police. The FOIA is in place to demonstrate that the government is open and transparent; however the Act also states there are instances where information must not be released. The Department has a duty of care towards the HCPs to ensure that their data is handled appropriately and to issue a list of the names of all HCP's, together with their General Medical Council (GMC) Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) numbers and length of service and experience would not be appropriate. The release of this information would breach the Data Protection Act (DPA) which is legislation designed to protect the interests of individuals. In coming to this decision I have considered the balance between adherence to the DPA and the public interest in releasing this information. Release of this information would be unlawful and is not therefore in the public interest to disclose.

You advised that the HCP who carried out your assessment did not give their name and did not display their credentials in the assessment room. Although this was not a subject raised within the original correspondence, I can advise you that HCP's are expected to display their name badge whilst conducting an assessment, unless there is evidence held that the HCP may be at risk, as the claimant being assessed has previously made threats against DWP/Atos Healthcare staff to physically harm or abuse them, which I'm not aware you have. If you wish to raise this issue as a complaint with Atos Healthcare you should write to the National Customer Relations Manager, Atos Healthcare, Block 1, Wing G, Government Buildings, Otley Road, Lawnswood, Leeds, LSl6 sPU.

You have stated that the figure of 847.24 employed HCP's that we provided in the response to FOI 2336-2367 does not agree with the 1700+ that is stated on the Atos Healthcare website. As stated in our previous response, the figure of 847.24 relates to full time equivalents and not actual headcount of HCP's.

With regard to the audit of Atos HCP's, I can confirm that all HCP's employed by Atos Healthcare are subject to regular random quality audit. The audits are carried out by accredited auditors using the Integrated Quality Audit System. HCP's in the DWP Health and Benefits Division (who are based at the same address as the Chief Medical Adviser) regularly validate audit outcomes.

I am therefore satisfied that the original response dated 19 October 2011 was correct, in that the Department decided not to disclose this information in accordance with Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as disclosure would breach that persons right to privacy under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as disclosure of this information could endanger the safety of the individual. I am therefore satisfied now that all the information that DWP are able to supply to you has been supplied.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Roylance, Internal Reviewing Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire Sx9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Agency/Business details - Jobcentre plus
Agency/Business details - Luton BDC

Have you already complained to the Agency/Business - Yes

Reason:
It is over a year.  I have completed in full both the Atos
and the DWP complaints proceedings and there are still matters outstanding.
I have been misled and the Minister has been misled.
For example I am still waiting for a copy of the "sound"
medical report. Maladminstration. Failure to take appropriate action
in respect of a serious assault and injury by Atos personnel
working under contract for the DWP.   

Details of Complaint:
Your Complaint:

1. This is set out in all the correspondence I have published on my website
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html

2. DWP and Atos Correspondence is published on
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosletters.html

3. Government and related correspondence is published on
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoslettersgov.html

4. The breaches of Contract, implicitly agreed by Atos, (no action by the DWP) 
   are published on
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoscontract.html#breaches

5. I have not had a satisfactory reply to my letter to Ms Isabel Letwin,
   Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group dated 10 March 2010.
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoslettersgov.html#DWP20100310T

6. I have not had a satisfactory reply to my letter to Luton BDC
   dated 11 May 2010 .  I have not had a copy of the medical advice
   provided by Atos that I requested in that letter.
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosletters.html#DWP20100511T

7. I would like you to investigate whether there is undue influence by Atos
   on the activities of the DWP.  In particular I would like you to review
   the members of the DWP who attend Atos functions such as the Atos AGM and
   whether these benefits have been declared and comply with the civil service code. 

Query Information
Your Enquiry:

1. Why is it over a year and my case is still outstanding?
2. Why does the DWP not enforce the contract between the DWP and Atos?
3. Why does the DWP not obtain from Atos refunds for the unsound medical advice it provides?
4. Why does the DWP continue to assume the medical advice it received was sound 
   when Atos has implicitly agreed that they provided unsound medical advice?
5. Why have I not received a full apology, outstanding monies owed and compensation?

How do you want your complaint resolved
Resolution:
1. I would like Atos to refund the DWP for providing "unsound" medical advice.
2. I would like the DWP to remove "approval" from the Atos
   doctor involved.
3. I would like disciplinary action taken against the individuals who misled the Minister 
   and who refused to enforce the Contract between the DWP and Atos.
4. I would like an apology, outstanding monies owed, compensation and confirmation that 
   Atos has refunded the DWP in full.
5. I would like you to recommend to the NAO to review and confirm that the ESA50 medical 
   conditions and the decision for a face to face assessment and the ESA85 produced by 
   Atos have both been produced by a medical practitioner qualified to assess the 
   particular medical condition of the patient.
6. I would like you to recommend that Atos is removed from the 99 supplier organisations 
   appointed to the ASCC Framework on the grounds of multiple breaches of contract.
   
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoslettersgov.html#DH20100122T

7. I would like you to provide a detailed explanation why a sick patient has been 
   treated so poorly.

Finally, I saw my neurologist last Friday and as my tumour has grown he is recommending 
me for immediate referral to the brain surgery team.  Please can you write to me as 
I may be in hospital.  I look to you for justice. 
   

 Thank you for responding so swiftly.

My NI number is  ....

My GP is Dr ....
My Consultant is Professor ...
Patient Hospital no: ...
NHS no: ....

At the ... Hospital, ... my
patient ref: ....

The ATOS doctor who decided in breach of contract
that a face to face assessment is unknown though
at one time under FOI I was told this was a nurse Mrs Tanya Catherine Andrews
(Nursing and Midwifery Council Practioner PIN 97C0338E).
The "Atos" Independent Tier claims not to be able to
find who made the decision that a face to face assessment
was necessary.  Thus contradicting the information they
gave to the Minister via the DWP.

The ATOS doctor who assaulted me was Dr Ludmila Semetillo,
GMC number is 6165133

Atos has not confirmed that either individuals were trained
at the time despite an explicit FOI request.  I conclude
they were not trained as the DWP were unable to provide the training
record.

Dr Ludmila Semetillo should have known that the contract
states that a brain tumour requires "Further Medical Evidence"
as specified in the Contract between DWP and ATOS.
She was not qualified to assess a patient with a brain tumour.
She knew this.  I, at the time, did not have access to the contract.
The DWP have consistently refused to publish the contract.
She insisted on the assessment which lasted 110 minutes,
it involved removing some of my clothes and physical movements
that caused me pain.  Thus she was guilty of malpractice.  This was the 
implicit finding of Atos Medical Manager Dr Bruecker who reviewed the matter
and correctly concluded he needed to contact my GP and or Consultant.
The DWP have so far refused to remove these individuals from the "Approved" 
list.

Ms RB... is the Manager for the DWP Luton BDC.
She has still NOT provided me with a copy of the sound
medical advice on which she eventually placed me in the
ESA Support Group.

Ms B..., Ms C... and Mr Brian Pepper
are the individuals from Atos Healthcare who have implicitly
admitted being in multiple breaches of  contract, misled the
Minister and attempted to obstruct justice.  Mr Geoff Hampshire
refused to comply with the NAO recommendation that
the Independent Tier should have been carried out by the ICE.
The "Atos" Independent Tier refused to consider the breaches of
contract.  This is another example of obstruction of justice.

I have originals for all the documents published on the website
except for the original ESA50 (I have a photocopy).
The website is a true, dated contemporary account of all correspondence.
All letters were scanned and optical character recognised (OCR)
to convert to text.

If there is anything more I can assist you with I would be delighted.
I must rest now as the additional pain killer I took to be able to
write this is beginning to fail.

Regards
  

Independent Case Examiner

6 July 2010

ICE Ref No: DWP00316/10

Dear Mr B...

Further to your email to this office on 5 July 2010, I am writing to provide you with an
update regarding your claim.

Once your complaint details have been processed, we will aim to contact you within
the next 25 working days. However, we are currently experiencing a high volume of
complaints, and although we still aim to contact you within that time, this might not
always be possible.

For your information, the Independent Case Examiner looks into maladministration
(poor service) by the Department for Work and Pensions and its Agencies, for
example, delay in taking appropriate action, taking incorrect action, failure to respond
adequately to correspondence, misinforming customers etc. However, this office
cannot look into complaints about legislation or policy. This includes calculations of
maintenance liability and benefit entitlement. Those matters must be challenged via
the appropriate appeal process.

Please let us know if you have any special requirements. For example, if your sight
or hearing is impaired; if English is not your first language, if you are dyslexic. (This
list is not exhaustive.) We will do our best to accommodate your requirements when
we communicate with you.

You can find out more about the Independent Case Examiner in the enclosed leaflet
"The Independent Case Examiner's Office - Our Service".

Yours sincerely

Gateway Team

Address: PO Box 155, Chester, CH99 9SA
Email: ice@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
  

Independent Case Examiner

9 July 201 O

ICE Ref No: DWP00316/10

Dear Mr B...

I am writing to provide an update in respect of your complaint about Jobentre Plus.

I should explain that before we can accept a complaint for examination, we have to
ensure that the complainant has exhausted Jobcentre Plus's complaints procedure.
This usually means that a response to the issues raised will have been received from
or on behalf of the Chief Executive.

In your case, Jobcentre Plus tells me that you have not yet received a final response
to your complaint, within the six months prior to your approach to this office. As
such, we cannot look into your complaint at this stage. We have therefore sent
details of your complaint to Jobcentre Plus Secretariat and asked it to deal with your
concerns in accordance with its standard complaints handling process.

You can reasonably expect to receive an initial response to your complaint within five
weeks, which will include details of how to progress your concerns, in the event that
you are not satisfied with the response you receive. In the meantime, if you do not
receive your initial response within five weeks, or you need any help or information
please get in touch with Jobcentre Plus Secretariat at:

Jobcentre Plus Secretariat
L6 Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NA

We would expect you to have progressed your complaint with Jobcentre Plus as
detailed in its initial response, before we would consider your complaint.

If having received a reply from or on behalf of the Chief Executive, you remain
dissatisfied with the response to your complaint please let us know, and we will
consider your complaint for examination.

If you wish to discuss this letter in more detail, please contact me in writing or on the
telephone number detailed on the first page.

Yours sincerely

Gateway Team

Address: PO Box 155, Chester, CH99 9SA
Email: ice@dwp.gsi.gov.uk   

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your email of 4 August 2010, the contents have been noted and placed on your file for information.

Can you confirm if you would like this office to take forward your complaint at this stage, as you have now received a final response from Job Centre Plus' Chief Executive. Or are do you wish to await a reply to your correspondence of 4 August 2010.

Yours sincerely

ICE REF No DWP00316/10

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for replying so promptly and placing my letter to the DWP on file.

I would like to await a reply from the DWP before requesting further action by the ICE with the following proviso. My medical condition is getting worse. I have been referred to the brain surgery team who have asked me to chase them if I have not heard from them with an appointment within twelve weeks. I could be too ill or have passed away in the mean time. Please could I ask you to take action on my case if you have not heard from me or my executor by the 1st October 2010. I do not believe my wife would be in a fit state to pursue this matter.

Finally can you clarify a point of information as soon as possible. Please can you confirm, if necessary with the NAO, that the procedure described in http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/handling_customer_complaints.aspx is applicable to the DWP, its Agencies and includes and covers the operations of contractors of the DWP including Atos Healthcare. In particular I would like such confirmation in respect of the provisions that relate to the independent tier.

Thank you in anticipation

ICE REF No DWP00316/10 Email: 6 August 2010 17:45

You have previously placed my case on file pending more information from the DWP. I would like the ICE to take up my case again. For your reference our previous correspondence, desensitized, is published on my website see Complaining about the DWP - 5 July 2010

As a summary to the situation I provide to you the evidence, as below and attachments, that I have provided to the Prof. Malcolm Harrington CBE Independent Review of WCA.

All DWP and Atos correspondence, desensitized, is published on my website see DWP ATOS Letters

Following my submission of evidence, I have received a further letter from the DWP to which I have replied. Once again I have repeated my claim for compensation and as I have no wish for the taxes and NI that I have paid over the years I have said I will waive my claim on the conditions specified.

I have copied this email to Darra Singh so that both the ICE and the DWP are clear that my request is within the timescale set by Darra Singh see attached letter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

ICE REF No DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

Further to your email to this office on 03 July 2011, we are currently processing your complaint.

Once your details have been processed, we aim to contact you as soon as we can. However, at this time, we are currently experiencing a high volume of complaints, and apologise that this might not be for some weeks.

For your information, the Independent Case Examiner looks into maladministration (poor service) by the Department for Work and Pensions and its Agencies, for example, delay in taking appropriate action, taking incorrect action, failure to respond adequately to correspondence, misinforming customers etc. However, this office cannot look into complaints about legislation or policy. This includes calculations of maintenance liability and benefit entitlement. Those matters must be challenged via the appropriate appeal process.

Please let us know if you have any special requirements. For example, if your sight or hearing is impaired; if English is not your first language, if you are dyslexic. (This list is not exhaustive.) We will do our best to accommodate your requirements when we communicate with you.

The Independent Case Examiner service is free to you as a complainant and is designed to be accessible to all. You should not need to employ legal or other third party representatives in order to benefit from the ICE service, though you are free to do so if you choose and at your own expense. You should note that, while the ICE office is happy to engage with your personal or professional representative when asked to do so, we would generally not ask the Department for Work and Pensions to consider reimbursing representatives' fees or other expenses.

If you wish to find out more about the Independent Case Examiner service and standards, details can be found at www.ind-case-exam.org.uk. If you are unable to access the website and would like a copy of our service and standards leaflet please contact us on the number overleaf.

Yours sincerely

... Front Line Administrator

ICE REF No DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

I am writing to provide an update in respect of your complaint about Jobcentre Plus.

I should explain that before we can accept a complaint for examination, we have to ensure that the complainant has exhausted Jobcentre Plus's complaints procedure. This usually means that a response to the issues raised will have been received from or on behalf of the Chief Executive.

In your case, Jobcentre Plus tells me that you have not yet received a final response, to your complaint, within the six months prior to your approach to this office. As such, we cannot look into your complaint at this stage. We have therefore sent details of your complaint to Jobcentre Plus Secretariat and asked it to deal with your concerns in accordance with its standard complaints handling process.

You can reasonably expect to receive an initial response to your complaint within five weeks, which will include details of how to progress your concerns, in the event that you are not satisfied with the response you receive. In the meantime, if you do not receive your initial response within five weeks, or you need any help or information please get in touch with Jobcentre Plus Experience Team at:

Jobcentre Plus Customer Experience Team
L6 Camon House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NA

We would expect you to have progressed your complaint with Jobcentre detailed in its initial response, before we would consider your complaint.

If having received a reply from or on behalf of the Chief Executive, you remain dissatisfied with the response to your complaint please let us know, and we will consider your complaint for examination.

If you wish to discuss this letter in more detail, please contact me in writing or on the telephone number detailed overleaf.

Yours sincerely

... Front Line Administrator

Subject: Request to progress my case

Dear ...,

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11 (replacing previous DWP00316/10).

Thank you for your letter dated 11 August 2011 which has left me in a state of some confusion.

The first point is why the existing reference number DWP00316/10 has been replaced by a new reference number.

The second point is that I have exhausted the DWP, Atos and Jobcentre Plus complaints relevant appeals procedures. If you refer to the letters I attached to my previous email, in particular the letter dated 21 February 2011 from Matthew Nicholas, Employers and Stakeholders Director on behalf of the Chief Executive and the one dated 25 July 2011 from Teresa Chammings, District Manager Jobcentre Plus, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, both letters suggest to me that the Independent Case Examiner is my only option left.

May I further clarify that after two years and two months the DWP is finally complying, as I understand the document, with the Contract between the DWP and Atos, in my case. My outstanding issues relate the period of non-compliance and the compensation I believe I am due. The DWP and Atos have implicitly agreed that they were at fault. I cannot see what will be achieved by a further DWP appeal process. As the Executive on behalf of the Chief Executive stated; if I am not satisfied I can contact the Independent Case Examiner. I would like to put on record that I am not satisfied and am seeking redress from the Independent Case Examiner.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Thank you for your email of 16 August 2011.

DWP00363/11

Your reference numbers have changed because your first complaint with this office was closed 9 July 2010. At that time you did not have a response from the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus therefore your complaint was closed. We do not keep cases open indefinitely.

You contacted this office on 3 August 2011. A new reference was allocated to you DWP 00363/11. We contacted Jobcentre Plus, we asked if a response had been issued from or on behalf of the Chief executive regarding your complaint, within the last 6 months, they advised that no response has been issued.

You emailed this office on 16 august to advise that you did have a response. I contacted Jobcentre Plus who apologised and forwarded a copy of the Chief Executive response dated 21 February 2011.

Your complaint with this office is waiting to be allocated to our Initial Action Team they will contact as soon as they can.

I hope this clarifies matters.

If you need further assistance please contact me on the number below

... Independent Case Examiners Office ...

I requested all correspondence should be via email or letter. I was told that some elements could be investigated and others were outside the remit of the ICE.

Independent Case Examiner

29 September 2011

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

1. Further to our telephone conversation of 22 September 2011, you have requested the Independent Case Examiner's office contacts you in writing only. As a result of your complaint letter, I am writing to you to clarify the elements of complaint this office will consider.

Jobcentre Plus (JCP) has failed to:

A. provide an adequate response to the complaints you have made about the service you have received from ATOS Healthcare since June 2009; and

B. respond to the request you made for a copy of the medical report on which it based its decision, made in August 2009, to place you in the Employment Support Allowance Support group.

2. The elements of complaint detailed above will form the basis of our examination. For your information, the Independent Case Examiner looks into maladministration (poor service) by the Department for Work and Pensions and its Agencies, for example, delay in taking appropriate action, taking incorrect action, failure to respond adequately to correspondence, misinforming customers etc. However, this office cannot look into complaints about legislation or policy. This includes decisions about benefit entitlement. Those matters must be challenged via the appropriate appeal process.

3. If you agree that your complaint has been accurately defined, please contact me as soon as possible, either in writing or on telephone number ....

4. If I do not hear from you by 13 October 2011, l will assume you no longer wish to use the service of this office and will take the necessary action to close your Case.

5. Once you have confirmed that your complaint has been accurately defined, we will contact you again to discuss matters further and establish your desired outcome.

6. We will then discuss your complaint with JCP and will contact you again when we have received a response from it.

7. We consider complaints in the order that we receive them.

8. We have accepted this complaint on the basis that it has not been the subject of legal proceedings or an Ombudsman's investigation. If this is not the case, you must tell me. Likewise, if you decide to take this action during our investigation, you must notify this office.

9. If you wish to provide this office with any further information or evidence in support of your complaint, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

..., Gateway Officer

To:      ..., Gateway Officer, Independent Case Examiner
Date:    2 October 2011
Subject: Complaint ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear ...

Thank you for your letter dated 29 September 2011 and the opportunity to clarify my complaint.

I would clarify my complaint as follows:

The DWP comprising the Executive, the JCP, the Commercial Management of Medical Services (DWP Commercial Directorate) and ATOS Origin IT Services Ltd (trading as ATOS Healthcare) has failed to:

A. provide an adequate response to the complaints I, Mr B..., have made about the service I have received from the DWP comprising the Executive, the JCP, the Commercial Management of Medical Services (DWP Commercial Directorate) and ATOS Origin IT Services Ltd (trading as ATOS Healthcare) since June 2009; and

B. provide correct information to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in falsely confirming that the ESA50 was correctly processed in deciding that a face to face assessment was necessary; the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) can provide evidence regarding the veracity of the information provided to the Secretary of State, resulting in failure to take timely and appropriate action by the Secretary of State to my detriment; and

C. comply with the National Audit Office Independent Tier process and thus allow ATOS Healthcare to self regulate, in particular, ATOS decides what is and what is outside their remit, ATOS disallows evidence; and

D. comply with the Contract between the DWP and ATOS Origin IT Services Ltd (trading as ATOS Healthcare) and take action over breaches despite repeated and persistent requests; and

E. respond to the request I made for a copy of the medical report on which ATOS Healthcare changed its decision, made in May 2010, to place me in the the Employment and Support Allowance Support Group when previously, in August 2009, I was, in breach of the Contract, placed in the Employment and Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group; eventually after months of delay I received the medical report relating to the August 2009 decision, I have yet to receive the medical report supporting the May 2010 decision; and

F. remove the Nurse and Doctors involved from the DWP Chief Medical Officer's approved list; and

G. discontinue the use of the terms "customer" or "client", given that the use of these unjustifiable terms belittles my medical condition, insults my intelligence and ignores my inalienable rights under Commmon and Statute Law to be treated with dignity and respect, claimant as used by Parliament and in the Contract should be used; and

H. compensate me for the actual hurt and distress caused, the denial of payments and the excessive delays.

My correspondence has been published on my website (see http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosletters.html). These confirm the maladministration I have received from the Department for Work and Pensions and its Agencies. If it assists matters I could indicate which items of correspondence are apposite.

I confirm my complaints are not concerned with legislation, policy or decisions about benefit entitlement. I further confirm that these complaints have not been the subject of legal proceedings or an Ombudsman's investigation.

I look forward to hearing from you, ideally by email. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Independent Case Examiner

12 October 2011

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

1. Further to your email of 3 October 2011, I am writing to confirm that the additional comments you outlined will be considered when we examine the elements of complaint, as outlined in my letter of 29 September 2011. We do not believe it is necessary, when defining the complaint, to identify each individual instance of claimed maladministration; our experience shows that if the complaints are too rigidly defined it prevents our examination from considering the broader context of the events in question.

2. In my letter of 29 September 2011 I proposed the following elements of complaint:

Jobcentre Plus (JCP) has failed to:

A. provide an adequate response to the complaints you have made about the service you have received from ATOS Healthcare since June 2009; and

B. respond to the request you made for a copy of the medical report on which it based its decision, made in August 2009, to place you in the Employment Support Allowance Support group.

3. The issues you outlined in your points A and B will be covered when we examine element A as detailed above. The complaint you detailed at point E will be covered within element B above. It is not necessary to change the wording of the complaints to reflect the additional information you provided in your summary.

4. This office cannot investigate complaints about legislation or policy, and as such it would not fall within the remit of this office the complaints you detailed at points C, D and G. That said when we are looking at the complaints as detailed above, we would ensure that JCP and ATOS followed the correct procedures in relation to your complaint; this may in turn lead to the ICE identifying failings in the system or procedures that need to be reviewed to try to avoid similar problems for others.

5. Within point F, you ask for the nurses and doctors involved to be removed from the approved list. It is not within the remit of this office to comment on how Jobcentre Plus or its agencies fulfil its responsibility as an employer. It is clear from your correspondence you have already made representation regarding your concerns with the appropriate authorities with regards to medical competency. At point H you detail what you would like to see as a result of our examination and are also as a consequence of the complaints you have made, we would therefore not detail these as specific elements of complaint. They will however be taken into consideration when we consider JCP and ATOS's response to your complaint and what has been done in order to put matters right.

6. The elements of complaint detailed above will form the basis of our examination. If you agree that your complaint has been accurately defined, the above explanation, please contact me as soon as possible.

7. If I do not hear from you by 26 October 2011, I will assume you no longer wish to use the services

8. Once you have confirmed that your complaint has been accurately defined, we will contact you again to discuss matters further to establish your desired outcome and the best way forward.

9. We consider complaints in the order that we receive them.

1O. We have accepted this complaint on the basis that it has not been the subject of legal proceedings or an Ombudsman's investigation. If this is not the case, you must tell me. Likewise, if you decide to take this action during our investigation, you must notify this office.

11. If you wish to provide this office with any further information or evidence in support of your complaint, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

..., Gateway Officer

To:      ..., Gateway Officer, Independent Case Examiner
Date:    13 October 2011
Subject: Complaint ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear ...

Thank you for sending me a printed copy of the letter dated 12 October 2011. I appreciate your detailed response.

I now agree that my complaint has been accurately defined however I feel there may be scope for clarification as below.

Clarification to item B: The date should be May 2010 not August 2009. In August 2009 I was incorrectly allocated to the Employment and Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group. In May 2010 I was correctly allocated to the Employment and Support Allowance Support Group. I asked to receive both medical reports. DWP failed to respond to these requests.

I leave it to you to amend item B if you wish but would like you to proceed as soon as possible.

I remind you that I have published all correspondence on my website http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosletters.html.

Regarding my desired outcome, I would like a full and detailed acknowledgement that all my complaints have been justified and truely reflect my experience. I would like the acknowledgement to include all the instances when the DWP and Atos have admitted misleading me and others in respect of my case. I would like the National Audit Office to undertake the Independent Tier audit procedure that they mandate that the DWP should undertake and following the audit provide me with the full report. I would like the DWP to compensate me in line with Independent Case Examiner case precedents. I would like the DWP to update their website to include the extract from the Contract between the DWP and Atos that they supplied to me under FOI.

I accept some elements of my desired outcome might be outside the remit of the ICE. If this is the case I would like the ICE to decide what is appropriate as an outcome in my case in line with precedents.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Independent Case Examiner

12 October 2011

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

1. I am writing to provide an update, in respect of the complaint accepted by this office on 3 August 2011 regarding the way in which Jobcentre Plus has dealt with your case.

2. Further to your email of 13 October 2011, I can confirm the elements of your complaint are as follows (with the amendment to element B as you requested):

Jobcentre Plus (JCP) has failed to:

A. provide an adequate response to the complaints you have made about the service you have received from ATOS Healthcare since June 2009; and

B. respond to the request you made for a copy of the medical report on which it based its decision, made in May 2010, to place you in the Employment Support Allowance Support group.

3. When we accept a complaint for examination, our first step is to try to resolve the issues without the need for a full examination of all the evidence. This approach can often lead to a positive and comparatively speedy outcome. Our aim is to mediate and reach an agreement with both the complainant and Jobcentre Plus the steps to be taken to address the complaint to the complainant's satisfaction.

4. Exceptionally, some cases are not suitable for progression by this method. After a review of your case, it was decided that to address your concerns, we need to see the evidence surrounding your complaints. You will wish to be aware that we wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 20 October 201 1 to request your case papers, which will be used to inform our examination of your complaint.

5. Once the evidence is received, the examination of the case will not begin immediately as cases are in a queue and dealt with in date order. Until a case officer is available we aim to keep in touch with you at least every 13 weeks. You should have received information about our service standards when you initially approached this office. If you require further information please contact us.

6. As soon as a case officer can start the examination of your complaint, he or she will contact you direct, to give you the opportunity to discuss your complaint in more detail. In the meantime, ... will be your point of contact for any matters connected with your complaint to the Independent Case Examiner. Should you need any further advice, you can get in touch with ... at the address below or telephone 0151 ... .....

7. Should you wish to provide this office with any further information or evidence in relation to your complaint, we will use the details you provide, along with those provided by Jobcentre Plus, to inform our examination of your complaint.

8. If you are still in contact with Jobcentre Plus you should continue to deal with Jobcentre Plus direct, even when our examination is in progress. This is particularly so for any new issues that may arise while our examination is in progress. It may also be that Jobcentre Plus is able to sort matters out for you in relation to your complaint before our further examination begins and, if this is the case, I would appreciate it if you would let this office know.

9. When we wrote to you on 4 August 2011, we asked you to let us know if you had any special requirements to aid communication. for example, if your sight or hearing is impaired; if English is not your first language, if you are dyslexic. (This list is not exhaustive.) You have not advised us that you require any adjustment to the way we communicate with you, but if your circumstances have changed, and you now have special requirements, please let this office know. We will do our best to accommodate your requirements when we communicate with you.

Yours sincerely

..., Gateway Officer

Independent Case Examiner

25 January 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

When we wrote to you on 20 October 2011 we advised you that we had written to the Jobcentre Plus to request your case papers, and that on receipt of this evidence, your case will be allocated for investigation as soon as an investigation officer is available.

I am now writing to advise you that although we have now received your case papers from the Jobcentre Plus we are still not in a position to commence work on your case. I acknowledge that your complaint is not being processed as quickly as you may like and I apologise for this.

We will write to you again in 13 weeks time to keep you advised of progress, however you may hear from us before this if an investigation officer becomes available, at which time, they will contact you direct, and provide you with the opportunity to discuss your complaint in more detail.

In the meantime, should you need any help or further advice, please contact me at the address below, or telephone me on the telephone number at the bottom of this letter.

Yours sincerely

... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

27 April 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

Further to my letter of 25 January 2012 I am writing to advise you that your case is still waiting to be allocated to an Investigation Officer.

I can assure you that your case will be allocated as soon as an Investigation 0fficer becomes available. If you would like to discuss any aspect of your complaint in the meantime please contact me on 0151 801 8896.

If your case is not allocated within the next 13 weeks I will write to you again to update you on the situation.

Yours sincerely

... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

23 July 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

Further to your email of 23 July 2012, I am writing to tell you that your complaint about how Jobcentre Plus has handled your case has been allocated to me. Mr L..., to start the investigation into your complaint. I apologise for this not happening sooner due to this office experiencing large volumes of work to deal with, in order of date received . I have noted when speaking to a colleague on 22 September 2011 you have indicated that because of your medical condition you find it difficult to talk over the telephone and you have requested that we contact you in writing.

My first task is to log the evidence provided to help determine what has happened in this case. I will continue to provide you with six weekly updates as the investigation continues, until such time the Independent Case Examiner is in a position to report to you. In the meantime, should you have any queries you wish to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact this office via whichever means you prefer, and I will try to help you in any way I can. Whilst understanding you have difficulty talking over the telephone, in the interest of security I would be grateful, if possible, if you could telephone this office so that password security for future correspondence can be set up with you. Our system records indicate a password was arranged with you on 21 October 2011 that was used to protect the most recent emails that were sent to you. I will try to keep any such telephone call as brief as possible. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Mr L... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

5 September 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

Further to my letter of 30 July 2012, I am writing to let you know that our investigation into your complaint about Jobcentre Plus is continuing. I am still in the process of recording the substantial evidence relating to this case. I will write to you again in six weeks time to keep you advised of further progress.

Yours sincerely

Mr L... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

17 October 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

Further to my letter of 5 September 2012, I am writing to let you know that our investigation into your complaint about Jobcentre Plus is continuing. I have logged the evidence presented in this case and some additional information has been requested from Jobcentre Plus to clarify some aspects of this case. I will write to you again in six weeks time to keep you advised of further progress.

Yours sincerely

Mr L... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

23 October 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

With regard to your complaint about hw Jobcentre Plus and Atos Healthcare have handled your case; I would be grateful if you would provide the following information:

• On what specific grounds do you feel that Atos Healthcare Professionals have assaulted you and caused you injury?
• How have you calculated the sum of £2,000 that you have requested Jobcentre Plus pay you for what you feel has happened in this case? Please provide copies of any evidence that you hold to support this figure.
• Why have you continued not to appeal the Jobcentre Plus decisions that you have disagreed with in this case.

Thank you. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Mr L... , Investigation Officer

Dear Mr L... ,

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Thank you for your letter dated 23 October 2012. The information you requested is as follows:

Assault and injury by Atos

This has been documented in the letters sent to the DWP, to Atos and in a submission to Parliamentary Inquiries. References as below.

In summary because the Doctor failed to comply with the Contract between the DWP and Atos, she compelled me to comply with her illegal instructions using the threat of loss of the allowance, she carried out an illegal examination of my person which included compelling me to undress and undertake stress positions despite my protests that was causing me severe pain. She took my blood pressure and it was so high she was taken aback. I was blacking out at times. She pushed me out of the door at the end. Due to the injuries I received it took weeks to recover to the poor state I was in before the illegal face to face assessment.

Compensation Calculation

This has been calculated as a fraction of the time and effort that has been expended in ensuring that, in my case, the DWP and Atos have eventually complied with the Contract between them.

An amount is due in respect of the illegal actions of DWP and Atos in failing to place me in the ESA Support Group and thus my weekly allowance was reduced and I was not paid the Christmas amount.

An amount is due to me for the libel by Atos in the form of the ESA85 which was fabricated and has no basis in fact.

An amount is due to the delay, deny and defer approach of the DWP and Atos which has caused me unnecessary suffering. In this year 2012, the DWP has arbitrarily withdrawn my allowance, reinstated it when I provided the last letter from the DWP which the DWP wrote a few months before and which included the calculations and confirmed my entitlement. The DWP both refused and continues to refuse to explain why the allowance was stopped, why it was reinstated and the calculation used. The last letter I received from the DWP instructed me to ignore all further correspondence from the DWP! I have not received the normal interim and mid year calculations from the DWP. I expect I will not received the Christmas amount should that be paid this year. I regard this as a calculated and a deliberate ploy by the DWP to cause me as much stress as possible to the detriment of my health. Clearly as only around 12 percent of those afflicted with a brain tumour survive five years after diagnosis it is in the interest of the DWP to delay, deny and defer.

An amount is due in respect of the over 200 items of correspondence, from 2009 to date. Each item took at minimum 2 hours to compose. Some of which incurred the cost of paper, envelope, postage and time to post. Assuming an hourly cost of 5 GBP per hour, 200 x 2 x 5 equals 2,000 GBP alone.

All Appeal Processes Exhausted

There are no appeal processes left to me. Please refer to the correspondence with Darra Singh then CEO of the DWP.

I expect the DWP would have provided the ICE all correspondence in full. If this is not the case the following are references to where all correspondence and memoranda has been published:

• All correspondence with the DWP and Atos: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosletters.html and http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoslettersgov.html
• The libelous ESA85 medical report: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosformesa85.html
• The partial Atos Independent Tier report (which agreed with my complaints in the main but my issues were outside their scope): http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosindependenttier.html
• Memorandum to Parliament in 2009: http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosmemo.html (clauses 44 - 70)

On a personal note after two years in which my brain tumour was stable and in which I had a MRI scan every four months I am now in remission and I am required to take a MRI scan every six months. I take twice daily a number of strong anti-convulsant drugs.

Finally I would like to quote from "R v North and East Devon Health Authorty, ex part Coughlan [2000] 3 All ER 850 Court of Appeal". "...Judicial review is available where a decision making authority exceeds its powers, commits an error of law, commits a breach of natural justice, reaches a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached, or abuses its powers..."

I hope the above information allows you to progress this matter. If I can assist further please let me know. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Independent Case Examiner

2 November 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

The Independent Case Examiner's Office acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 28 October 2012.

Please note I have passed your correspondence onto the appropriate officer to action as required.

If you wish to find out more about the Independent Case Examiner service and standards, details can be found at www.ind-case-exam.org.uk. If you are unable to access the wesite and would like a copy of our service and standards leaflet please contact us on the number below.

Yours sincerely

Ms K... , Front Line Administrator

Independent Case Examiner

7 November 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

I am writing to thank you for your response of 28 October 2012 which the Independent Case Examiner will consider before reporting to you.

Yours sincerely

Mr L... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

7 November 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

I am writing to inform you that with effect from Monday, 12 November 2012, my telephone number will be changing to 0151 221 6539. Our postal address and email contact details will remain the same.

Yours sincerely

Mr L... , Investigation Officer

Independent Case Examiner

20 November 2012

ICE Ref No: DWP00363/11

Dear Mr B...

1. You wrote to my office on 3 August 2011, to complain about the way in which Jobcentre Plus had dealt with this case.

2. I am aware my office has kept you informed throughout the period of this investigation. Notwithstanding this, I apologise for the delay in issuing this report.

Your Complaint

3. You said that:

A. Jobcentre Plus failed to provide an adequate response to the complaints you have made about the servlce you have received from ATOS Healthcare since June 2009; and

B. Jobcentre Plus failed to respond to the request you made for a copy of the medical report on which it based its decision, made in August 2009, to place you in the Employment Support Allowance Support group.

4. Our examination of the information provided by you and Jobcentre Plus is now complete, although I do not always mention every specific part in my report, if I do not think that it will help to explain the reasons for my findings. I have explained some of the technical issues relating to this case in the Annex of this report and will direct you to these explanations at the appropriate points. I have not upheld these complaints.

5. An explanation of the reasons for my findings in respect of each element of this complaint is given in this report. I do not investigate complaints about the credentials of Healthcare Professionals and if you have residual dissatisfactions in relation to these matters you may raise them with The General Medical Council (GMC). Your correspondence with Jobcentre Plus and ATOS Healthcare has referred at times to matters related to that. I note you were given the registration number of the Healthcare Professional with the GMC when you requested that information. You are also at liberty to raise any questions about the information provided to you in pursuit of this complaint to The Information Commissioner if you have not done so already. I find you have been given appropriate responses on both these matters.

A. Jobcentre Plus failed to provide an adequate response to the complaints you have made about the service you have received from ATOS Healthcare since June 2009.

6. On 27 April 2009 you made a claim to receive contributory based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from 11 April 2009. On 2 May 2009 Jobcentre Plus said you were to receive contributory based ESA of £64.30 per week from 11 April 2009. As part of the Work Capability Assessment (1) process, on 13 May 2009 Jobcentre Plus referred this benefit claim to its Medical Services provider. ATOS Healthcare, to consider whether a medical assessment was necessary, to help determine your capability to work. The same day an ESA questionnaire was sent to you.

7. On 15 June 2009 you returned the ESA questionnaire to ATOS Healthcare. You said that you had recently been diagnosed as having a primary brain tumour on the left hand side of your bmin and that this was causing you problems, particularlY with the right hand side of your body. You said a recent doubling of anti-fit medication was controlling your symptoms. On 17 June 2009 an ATOS Healthcare Professional decided that a medical assessment was necessary. ATOS Healthcare arranged for you to attend Highgate Medical Examination Centre on 9 July 2009 for a medical assessment.

8. You wrote to ATOS Healthcare on 28 June 2009 to complain (2) about the appointment arranged for 9 July 2009. You asked why a medical assessment was necessary and said information you had provided relating to your heath condition appeared to be getting ignored. You said the suggested journey time of 108 minutes for you to travel to the relevant Medical Centre exceeded the recommended maximum of 90 minutes each way by public transport journey times published by ATOS Healthcare.

9. On 3 July 2009 ATOS Healthcare rearranged the appointment for 9 July 2009 to 24 July 2009 and notified you of this. On 24 July 2009 I note that you attended that appointment and an ATOS Healthcare Professional undertake a medical assessment with you. A medical report relating to that assessment was completed and sent to Jobcentre Plus. The medical report said that your medical condition would be expected to improve with time and with appropriate treatment.

10. On 29 July 2009 a Jobcentre Plus Decision Maker decided that you had a limited capability for work and placed you in the Work Related Activity Group from 11 July 2009, the 92 day of your claim to receive ESA. You were paid the work related component of ESA of £25.50 per week from the same date. Jobcentre Plus notified you of that decision and of your right to appeal the decision.

(1) Please see Annex for an explanation of Work Capability Assessment process.

(2) Please see Annex for an explanation of ATOS Healthcare complaint process.

11. On 29 JulY 2009 you wrote to the Customer Relations Manager of Highgate Medical Examination Centre. You claimed that the Healtcare Professional who had undertaken the medical assessment with you on 24 July 2009 had not been privy to your medical histoy. You said in your opinion the medical assessment had been a waste of time and resources and had been of no medical benefit to you. You said that your appointment, scheduled for 3:30pm, had started 40 minutes late and that your journey to and from the relevant Medical Centre had left you feeling exhausted. You claimed the facilities at the Medical Centre were bleak in nature and you alleged that the waiting room not having any hand cleaning facilities breached Health and Safety regulations. I note you said you had no complains about the Healthcare Professional who undertook that medical assessment, who you said had worked well in difficult circumstances.

12. On 14 August 2009 Jobcentre Plus received a letter from you (dated 11 August 2009). You said you disagreed with the decision of 29 July 2009 to place you in the Work Related Activity Group. You said you wished to defer any decision about whether to appeal that decision pending you receiving a copy of the medical report relating to the medical assessment of 24 July 2009. On 15 August 2009 you asked Jobcentre Plus to provide you with a copy of the medical report of 24 July 2009 and an appeal form. You said you would decide whether to appeal the decision of 29 July 2009 within one month of you receiving the requested documentation. Jobcentre Plus delayed in providing you with a copy of the relevant medical report until 23 November 2009 and an appeal form was not sent to you at that time. You did not appeal the decision following receipt of the medical report (I consider this matter under element B of this report).

13. On 22 September 2009, ATOS Healthcare issued a comprehensive reply to your letters of June and July 2009 and apologised for the delay in doing so. ATOS Healthcare told you that it had not initially referred your letters to the correct department to deal with and that it had taken longer than anticipated for it to gather the necessary information to reply to all the matters raised by you. ATOS Healthcare apologised for this and for any inconvenience this had caused you. ATOS Healthcare accepted that it had not explored other options for conducting the medical assessment as your travel time to the medical assessment centre was outside of 90 minutes; apologised and explained why there was a wait of 4O minutes in you being seen and that this had been explained to you on the day; explained the facilities available and why these did not breach Health and Safety regulations; and why access to your NHS medical history was not part of the medical assessment. While outside of the published response time I find that this letter responded to the matters raised by you.

14. On 24 and 28 September 2009 you wrote to ATOS Healthcare. You asked whether it was acceptable for an ATOS Healthcare Professional to make a diagnosis without a patient's medical history and claimed that the medical assessment that had been undertaken with you on 24 July 2009 was not valid. ATOS Healthcare told you on 7 0ctober 2009 that its Senior Medical Adviser would be reviewing matters in light of the comments you had made.

15. On 9 October 2009 your MP, Mr Charles Walker, wrote to the Secretary of State for the Departmemt for work and Pensions (DWP), enquiring on your behalf about the validity of the medical assessment. On 28 October 2009. Mr Jonathan Shaw MP, Minister for Disabled People, wrote to you and explained the Work Capability Assessment process and the purpose behind its implementation. He said that ATOS Healthcare Professionals received relevant training before undertaking medical assessments and that checking systems were in place to ensure high standards were met. He explained to you that it was important to recognise that such medical assessments were function based, rather than condition based, and focused on a claimant's ability to perform work related activities rather than their particular illness or disability.

16. On 7 January 2010 ATOS Healthcare replied to your letters of September 2009 and apologised for any poor service you considered you had received. ATOS Healthcare told you that it had undertaken a valid medical assessment with you on 24 July 2009 and explained to you that there was no requirement for it to have had your NHS medical records at that medical assessment. You were given a further explanation that such a medical assessment was not a diagnostic consultation in relation to your illness. ATOS Healthcare told you that it considered that it had not breached any statutory requirements in dealing wim this case. ATOS Healthcare said it recognised that the arrangements it had put in place for your appointment, particularily with regard to travelling time, had not been well managed and it offered to make a Special Payment(3) of £100.00 to you to reflect that. This payment was sent to you on 6 MaY 2010 following receipt of your signed acceptance of that payment by ATOS Healthcare.

17. 0n 11 January 2010 you expressed dissatisfaction with ATOS Healthcare's response of 7 January 2010 and on 22 January 2010 this case was referred to the Independent Tier(4) for investigation.

18. On 27 January 2010 another Healthcare Protessional who had reviewed the medical assessment completed in this benefit claim said that ATOS Healthcare Professionals had dealt with this case within stipulated medical standards and procedures and in a professional manner, and that the ATOS Healthcare Professional who had undertaken that medical assessment with you on 24 July 2009 had completed a detailed medical assessment with you under difficult circumstances. It was noted that you had said the same thing on 29 July 2009.

19. You emailed ATOS Healthcare on 1 Februay 2012 and alleged that the ATOS Healthcare Professionals who had considered and had assessed this case had assaulted you and had caused you injury by their actions (I note that claim was completely contrary and at total variance to what you had said on 29 July 2009, as noted in paragraph 11 of this report).

(3) Please see Annex for an explanation of Special Payment.

(4) Please see Annex for an explanation of Independent Tier.

20. On 3 February 2010 I note that the Independent Tier fully support ATOS Healthcare's handling of your complaints, accepting that there had been some delay in ATOS Healthcare responding to your concerns within its published timescales for doing so. The Independent Tier notified ATOS Healthcare of its medcal and administrative findings on 9 February 2010 and you were provided with copies of the same information on 15 February 2010. ATOS Healthcare told you that the Independent Tier had fully supported how it had handled the medical assessment and that its complaint process was now concluded. ATOS Healthcare referred youu to the Chief Exexcutive of Jobcentre Plus if you remained dissatisfied.

21. You wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 22 March 2010 and said that your medical condition had deteriorated. On 19 April 2010 Jobcentre Plus referred your letter of 22 March 2010 to ATOS Healthcare, to assist in a review of your work capability situation. An ATOS Healthcare Protessional liaised with your GP and your GP said that your brain tumour had not yet reached the criteria for being classified as a terminal illness. Your GP confirmed that your medical condition had deteriorated and said that this posed a risk to you. On 23 April 2010 an ATOS Healthcare Professional noted that the circumstances of this case met the special descriptors for you having a limited capability for work and limited capability for work related activity.

22. On 5 May 2010, Jobcentre Plus reviewed your entitlement to receive ESA and placed you in the Work Related Support Group for 12 months from 29 April 2010. Your entitlement to receive the worked related component of ESA was increased by £5.45 per week effective from 29 April 2010. Jobcentre Plus notified you of that decision that day and of your right to appeal that decision.

23. You wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 11 May 2010 and asked for a copy of the ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2010. You claimed that the same conclusion reached in that note should have been reached in July 2009. You asked Jobcentre Plus to make this happen and to pay you a sum equivalent to arrears of ESA trom July 2009. You said that you would make a decision about whether to appeal the decision of 5 May 2010 once Jobcentre Plus had dealt with your request.

24. On 16 July 2010 Jobcentre Plus asked ATOS Healthcare to look again at the medical assessment undertaken in 2009. ATOS Healthcare told Jobcentre Plus on 22 July 2010 that it had taken appropriate action in 2009 which had been fully supported by the Independent Tier. ATOS Healthcare said that in helping Jobcentre Plus to review your work capability situation in April 2010, it had given consideration to you and your GP saying that your medical condition had deteriorated and posed a risk to you.

25. Jobcentre Plus wrote to you on 29 July 2010 and apologised for any delay in doing so. Jobcentre Plus said that on receipt of your letter of 11 August 2009, indicating your disagreement with the decision of 29 July 2009, even though you had said that you wished to defer appealing that decision, it ought to have reconsidered that decision at that time. Jobcentre Plus told you that it had now investigated the decision of 29 July 2009 and that it was unable to change that decision. Jobcentre Plus told you that it could send your letter of 11 August 2009 to the Tribunals Service for consideration and that it would be up to a Tribunal to decide (if accepting a late appeal from you) if there were grounds for the decision of 29 July 2009 to be amended. Jobcentre Plus provided you with a copy of the ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2009 and told you that it was unable to add anything further to the investigation that had already been completed by ATOS Healthcare and the Independent Tier into your claims about the service you had received.

26. You wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 4 August 2010 and claimed that the ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2009 was poorly written. You asked for that note to be rewritten in an acceptable format and for you to be provided with a copy of any rework. You said you would then consider if you wished to appeal the decision of 5 May 2010.

27. On 6 August 2010 Jobcentre Plus gave you a Special Payment of £75 in recognition of it not dealing with your correspondence of August 2009 properly; its delay in providing you with a copy of the relevant medical report; and delay in investigating your claims about the service you had received from ATOS Healthcare.

28. On 3 September 2010 Jobcentre Plus told you that it considered that the ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2010 was fit for purpose and you were given the General Medical Council number of that individual. Jobcentre Plus asked you to provide proof of any communication costs you had incurred in pursuing your complaints.

29. Jobcentre Plus wrote to you on 6 September 2010 and told you that it was unable to change the decision of 29 July 2009 and that if you wished to appeal that decision, it would support any case there might be for the Tribunals Service to accept a late appeal from you.

30. You wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 29 September 2010 to disagree with its letter of 6 September 2010. I note you said that you would continue to deter appealing the decision of 29 July 2009 until such time you received what was, in your opinion, a medically sound copy of the medical report that was completed in 2009, which you continued to allege was not valid. You said your incurred costs up to September 2010 were difficult to calculate. You said you would accepl a nominal sum of £2,000 from Jobcentre Plus in respect of ATOS Healthcare Professionals allegedly assaulting and injuring you and for any communication costs you had incurred.

31. On 31 December 2010 Jobcentre Plus replied to your letter of 20 September 2010 and apologised for any delay in doing so. Jobcentre Plus told you that it would not review this case until it received an appeal from you. You emailed the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus on 1 February 2011. Jobcentre Plus told you on 21 February 2011 that you had a right to appeal any decisions that it made. Jobcentre Plus asked you again to provide proof of your alleged costs of £2,000. You told Jobcentre Plus on 15 March 2011 that you would not provide such proof and that in your opinion Jobcentre Plus should pay you this sum without wasting any further public resources. Jobcentre Plus told you on 18 April 2010 that it considered that it had fully investigated your concerns and referred you to my office if you were dissatisfied.

32. You emailed Jobcentre Plus on 31 July 2011 and asked it again to pay you £2,000. You said you were willing to waive this request if Jobcentre Plus took steps to remove the approval of the ATOS Healthcare Professionals who had considered and assessed this case in 2009. On 12 August 2011 Jobcentre Plus asked you again to provide proof of your alleged costs of £2,000. You did not provide Jobcentre Plus with any proof of your alleged costs and you brought this complaint to my office on 3 August 2011.

33. From June 2009 onwards you contacted ATOS Healthcare on many occasions to complain about the service you were receiving. Your complaint about ATOS Healthcare was your contention that you felt that a medical assessment should not have been required at the start of this State benefit claim because of the information you had provided about your medical condition. You sought to claim that the medical assessment that was undertaken and the related medical report were not valid.

34. All claimants making a claim to receive ESA may be required to participate in the Work Capability Assessment process. The purpose of that process was made clear to you by ATOS Healthcare and by Jobcentre Plus. ATOS Healthcare explained to you that it had considered and had undertaken the medical assessment with you on 24 July 2009, to assess your capability to work in relation to your illness and your claim to receive ESA, and not to reassess your medical condition or to challenge any information you had provided. Your medical condition was not under dispute. ATOS Healthcare followed procedures in considenng and undertaking a medical assessment with you, and in completing a medical report relating to that medical assessment. That was a valid process.

35. As part of ATOS Healthcare's complaint process you asked the Independent Tier for an Independent Healthcare Professional to investigate such matter. I note the Independent Tier found that ATOS Healthcare Professionals had correctly followed procedures and had acted professionally. It was noted that the ATOS Healthcare Professional who had undertaken the medical assessment had worked well with you and had completed a detailed medical report in difficult circumstances. I note that you had come to the same conclusion on 29 July 2009 before changing your position on 1 February 2010 and alleging that the same individual had assaulted you and when you sought to purport that individual had caused you injury. You alleged that the ATOS Healthcare Professional who had considered that medical assessment was necessary was also wrong.

36. ATOS Healthcare sent appropriate and comprehensive replies to your complaints. There was some delay in ATOS Healthcare doing that. Part of that delay is attributable to the volume of information that ATOS Healthcare had to gather to reply to all the matters raised by you. I note that the Independent Tier found this to be the case when investigating how ATOS Healthcare had handled your complaint. I note the Special Payment of £100 that ATOS Healthcare gave you for that delay and to reflect where you were required to attend for that medical assessment to be undertaken with you.

37. In March 2010 you asked Jobcentre Plus to investigate the service you had received from ATOS Healthcare. During the course of Jobcentre Plus investigating your claims I note ATOS Healthcare assisted Jobcentre Plus in reviewing your capability to work, the result of which was that Jobcentre Plus placed you in the Work Related Support Group from 29 April 2010. I note your subsequent comtention with Jobcentre Plus that it should have reached the same decision in July 2009. Jobcentre Plus made enquiries with ATOS Healthcare and considerd your letter of 11 August 2009. I note Jobcentre Plus gave you a special Payment of £75 for not dealing with that letter in a proper and timely manner and for not reconsidering the decision of 29 July 2009 at that time. Having done that. Jobcentre Plus found that there were no grounds for it to amend the decision of 29 July 2009. That decision was based on the evidence provided at that time and the decision made in April 2010 had regard to you and your GP having provided new information relating to your medical condition having deteriorated.

38. I note that in your letter of 11 August 2009 you told Jobcentre Plus that you wished to defer appealing the decision of 29 July 2009. until such time you were provided with a copy of the medical report of 24 July 2009 relating to that decision. You said once you were in receipt of the requested document you would decide within one month if you wished to appeal the decision of 29 July 2009. There was a delay before Jobcentre Plus, in November 2009. provided you with a copy of that medical report, which I consider later in this report. Having been provided with a copy of the relevant document by Jobcentre Plus, I note that, despite that, yDu have never sought to appeal the decision of 29 July 2009, despite Jobcentre Plus telling you that it would support any case that there might be for the Tribunals Service to accept a late appeal from you. This is because you have sought to claim that the relevant medical report is not a valid document and you want that medical report amended to reflect your view on matters. That medical report of 24 July 2009 is valid. It was for you to appeal that decision if you wished to challenge that decision made as a result of the medical report and for the Tnbunals Service, if such an appeal had been made by you, to decide whether there were grounds for accepting a late appeal from you. You have never lodged such an appeal and I note that the absolute 13 month time limit for you to submit a late appeal to the Tribunals Service for consideration has expired. I note that you have adopted a similar position with regard to you exercising your right to appeal the decision of 5 May 2010, based on you wanting the ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2010 to be rewritten, which I also consider later in this report. That note is a valid document. It was for you to appeal the decision of 5 May 2010 within the relevant timescales included in the notification accompanying that decision. You did not do so.

39. I have found that ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus have both responded to your complaints in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. I have noted the redress ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus made to you to reflect the delay in responding to you as noted in this report. I do not uphold this complaint.

B. Jobcentre Plus failed to respond to the request you made for a copy of the medical report on which it based its decision, made in August 2009, to place you in the Employment Support Allowance Support group.

40. It was in July 2009 (not in August 2009) that Jobcentre Plus decided to place you in the Work Related Activity Group, after considering the medical report of 24 July 2009, rather than you being placed in the Work Related Support Group, as stated under this element of complaint. You asked for a copy of that medical report on 15 July 2009, which was not provided to you until 23 November 2009. Jobcentre Plus acknowledged that delay in the apology and the £75 Special Payment that it gave you in August 2010.

41. Following Jobcentre Plus deciding in May 2010 to place you in the Work Related Support Group from 29 April 2010. You asked Jobcentre Plus on 11 May 2010 to provide you with a copy the relevant ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2010 relating to that review. On 29 July 2010 Jobcentre Plus provided yoU with a copy of the ATOS Healthcare Professional's note of 23 April 2010. On 4 August 2010 you alleged to Jobcentre Plus that that note had been pooly written and you asked for it to be rewritten in an acceptable way for you. Jobcentre Plus told you on 3 September 2010 that the relevant note was fit for purpose and no rework was necessary. That note from the ATOS Healthcare Professional has been considered as part of the investigation of this complaint. While there are grammar and spelling mistakes in that note, the message conveyed in it about your medical condition is clear. Jobcentre Plus has provided you with copies of the particular medical report and note that were completed by ATOS Healthcare in this State benefit claim. There were delays in doing so. Jobcenlre Plus gave appropriate redress to you to reflect those delays and offered to support any appeal to the Tribunals Service for any perceived delay due to a copy of the medical report not being sent to you earlier. Jobcentre Plus reviewed the State benefit decisions made on your State benefit claim and decided they were not to be changed. You were told the appropriate way to challenge those decisions was by you making an appeal to an independent Tribunal if you wished to contest those decisions further. You were given two opportunities to appeal the decisions made in this case and took neither. I do not uphold this complaint.

42. You have said that you want Jobcentre Plus to pay you £2,000 for ATOS Healthcare Professionals having allegedly assaulted you and for purportedly having caused you injury by their actions, and for alleged communication costs. I note you said that you were willing to waive this request if Jobcentre Plus took steps to remove the approval of the ATOS Healthcare Professionals who had considered and had assessed this case in 2009.

43. One of my investigating officers wrote to you on 23 October 2012 and asked you to expand on the allegations you have made. You replied on 28 October 2012. You allege that, despite your protests, the ATOS Healthcare Professional carried out what you claimed to be an illegal examination of your person on 24 July 2009. You said you were compelled to undress and to take up stress positions that caused you pain. You allege that you were blacking out at times during the medical assessment and that the ATOS Healthcare Professional pushed you out of the door at the end of that medical assessment. You alleged that the medical report of 24 July 2009 is libellous towards you.

44. You said that the £2,000 payment that you want Jobcentre Plus to pay you is based around a fraction of the time and effort that you allege you have expended in trying to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions and ATOS Healthcare complied with the contract between them. You allege that to the present day you have correspondence with ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus on more than 200 occasions and that each item of correspondence took you two hours to compose. You allege that Jobcentre Plus should pay you £5 per hour the composition of correspondence.

45. I make it clear to you that the ATOS Healthcare Professional who undertook the medical assessment with you on 24 July 2009 and completed the associated medical report followed a valid and legal process in completing that medical assessment. Five days after the completion of that medical assessment I have noted that you said that you had no complaints about the conduct of the ATOS Healthcare Professional, who you said had worked well in difficult circumstances. I find the allegations you are now making about the conduct of that ATOS Healthcare are not credible.

46. Dunng the course of a claim to receive ESA I would expect to see a certain amount of correspondence between a claimant and Jobcentre Plus and ATOS Healthcare, regarding a claim to receive ESA. You made your position clear at the outset with ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus and you asked to be provided with substantial information by both ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus, particularly with regard to contractual matters. There was delay in you receiving a reply to those requests, for which ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus have apologised to you several times and given you redress of £175. I find that you did receive comprehensive replies to matters raised by you and that you also received the information you asked for. Any further correspondence you entered in to is as a result of you continuing not to accept the explanations that you haue been given that both ATOS Healthcare and Jobcentre Plus have followed procedures in dealing with this State benefit claim. The correct route for you to have challenged the decision made on that State benefit claim following the medical assessment in July 2009 was through the appeal process. You were told that and given the opportunities to appeal the State benefit decisions as noted in this report. I find your claims that Jobcentre Plus pay you an additional £2,000 are spurious, as do I find your allegation of assault upon your person by ATOS Healthcare.

Closing remarks

47. If you need any further information about this report, please contact us at the telephone number on the first page. However, if you are dissatisfied with any aspect of service, or wish to provide any feedback regarding our service please write to our Customer Service Team.

48. We welcome feedback on our service and we regularly contact a sample of complainants either by telephone or in writing to seek their views. These views are important to us and ensure that the high standad we aim to reach is being achieved.

49. I may raise issues ansing from the investigation of complaints with senior Jobcentre Plus Managers. I may also refer to cases in my Annual Report without naming the parties involved.

50. A copy of this report has been sent to Jobcentre Plus.

Yours sincerely

John Hanlon, Independent Case Examiner

Complainants who wish to take their complaints further can ask a Member of Parliament to approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The Ombudsman would then consider if an investigation is appropriate. More details can be obtained from: Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP or at www.ombudsman.org.uk. We would co-operate with any future Ombudsman investigation by providing a copy of our report and other relevant information.

Annex

1. Work Capability Assessment

To be entitled to receive ESA a claimant must have a limited capability for work. related to their physical or mental condition. The Work Capability Assessment determines whether a claimant has limited capability for work (LCW) and limited capability for work related activity (LCWRA). The work Capability Assessment is completed by questionnaire and a face to face medical assessment where necessary. The Department for Work and Pensions has a contract in place with its Medical Services provider, ATOS Healthcare, to complete that process and to conduct such a medical assessmem where it has been determined more information is required relating to a claim to receive ESA. When undertaking a medical assessment, a Health Care Professional assesses the effect a a claimant's illness or injury has on their ability to perform a range of everyday activities. Where it is determined that a claimant has LCW, they will receive a component of ESA from the 92nd day of their benefit claim. The type of component a claimant receives depends on whether or not it has also been determined that they have LCWRA, in addition to LCW. Claimants assessed as having LCWRA are placed in the Work Related Support Group and receive the Support component of ESA. They are not required to participate in work related activity as a condition of their entitlement to receive ESA, although they may participate in such matters if they so wish. Claimants assessed as having only LCW are placed in the work Related Activity Group and receive a Work Related Activity component of ESA. They are required to attend Work Focused Interviews (WFI) to continue with their entitlement to receive ESA.

2. ATOS Healthcare complaint process

ATOS Healthcare aims to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within two working days. The first stage of the complaint process is for a Customer Relations Manager to conduct an investigation into all the issues raised and where possible, to try to provide a written response to the customer within 20 working days. If the customer remains dissatisfied with that response, the next stage of the complaint process is for the complaint to be passed to either a Medical Manager to respond to a complaint relating to the service provided by a Healthcare Professional or to a Site Manager to respond to a complaint relating to administration matters. If a customer remains dissatisfied on receipt of the final response from ATOS Healthcare, a customer can request that their case be referred to the Independent Tier for consideration.

3. Special Payment

ATOS Healthcare can make a Special Payment for financial loss caused by its maladministration. It can also make Special Payments for maladministration which has caused gross inconvenience, serious distress or gross embarrassment. These payments are exceptional, and cover the more serious cases where errors were persistent, or over a protracted period of time. Special Payments are not large, and do not put a value on the distress suffered. They are made to acknowledge and apologise for very poor service and are made in accordance with Treasury Guidance.

4. Independent Tier

The Independent Tier considers whether ATOS Healthcare has adhered to its complaints process in dealing with the complaint. The Indepedent Tier will consider whether ATOS Healthcare has properly identified, investigated and addressed the customer's complaint relating to the elements of service under its control. A parallel independent medical quality review will be conducted by another qualified Healthcare Professional in cases where issues relating to the medical quality of the medical report produced have been raised.

On the afternoon of Friday 24 July 2009, I attended a medical appointment at the Atos Origin, Highgate Medical Examination Centre, 1st Floor, 1 Elhorne Road, Upper Holloway, London N19 4AL. This medical facility is run by Atos Origin as part of a multi-year, multi-million medical contract they have been awarded by the Department of Work and Pension. I feel the health and safety environment did not meet the highest standards I expect for doctor's surgeries and clinics which deal with patients.

I did not see a health and safety notice saying when the premises were last inspected. There was a complete absence of cleansing gels and wipes. In the office used by the doctor, I did not see separate waste facilities for medical waste. I spent some hours there and noticed sick and coughing patients. I did not see any evidence of a regular cleaning routine every few hours which I expect to see in such places. I mentioned my concerns to the Doctor I saw. I formally wrote a letter of complaint on the 29 July. I have had no response on the matter from Atos Origin.

It may be my experience is atypical. I would interested to know when you last conducted an audit of the Highgate Centre and the other medical facilities set up by Atos Origin as medical examination centres around the country. The DWP publish statistics that in February 2009, Atos Origin handled 176,000 ESA cases and they handle other non ESA related medical cases. I would be interested in the results of the audit. I am not sure if you are allowed to put the details of this information into the public domain but I am sure the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions should be made aware. I would be happy to receive an assurance from you that audits show there are no problems or that you have found improvements are needed and you have served the appropriate notices.

On a personal note, I worked for twenty years as a senior manager for L.... I am very familiar with how important HSE issues were regarded and rightly so. Any incident was reported at Board level. Everyone was given annual HSE improvement targets. Between 1982 and 2002 when I left the company the HSE culture of the company changed for the better. We became health and safety aware. I may be wrong but I did not get the impression at Atos Origin that HSE issues were high on their priorities. I look to you for reassurance.

I refer to the complaint you made about the Atos Origin offices at the Highgate Medical Examination Centre, 1st Floor, Elthrone Road, Upper Holloway, London N19 4AL through the Health and Safety Executive's Infoline Service and received by this office on the 18 August 2009.

This letter is to advise that your complaint has been taken forward and someone will contact you in due course. We have written to Atos Origin in connection with your concerns about the standards of cleanliness and the disposal of clinical waste as that falls under the remit of the HSE.

If you have concerns regarding patient welfare, you should direct them to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). I have included contact detaiIs for the CQC at the end of this letter.

In response to your question, the HSE have no record of any audit having been carried out at the company concerned at this time.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. Please quote Case No 4177247 in any correspondence with or any phone call to the Health and Safety Executive.

Regarding your letter dated 4 September 2009. I received a letter from Ms B..., Customer Relations Manager, Atos Healthcare dated 22 September 2009 which followed a letter from her dated 10 August which followed my original complaint in a letter dated 29 July 2009 which raised my concerns regarding Health and Safety issues at the Highgate Medical Examination Centre (MEC).

Ms B... writes in her letter paragraph 10 "...the Site Manager has advised that as the MEC is not a GP surgery or hospital, it does not have alcohol rubs for people to use in the waiting room, but soap and washing facilities are available in the toilets...". No mention, in her letter, was made of cleaning regimes or the disposal of clinical waste.

My understanding is that the Medical Examination must conform to the Welfare Reform Act 2007, relevant Acts and relevant Case Law. It is seems reasonable to assume that the intention of Parliament was that the Medical Examinations covered by this Statute should be consistent with existing (NHS) Medical Examinations and in quality to be as good as or better than existing.

NHS Medical examinations are carried out at the local GP surgery or hospital, by qualified medical practitioners with access to the patient's history, in locations that meet Health and Safety Rules for such places and take into account difficulties in travel and accessibility. Parliament has not clearly expressed, in the above Statutes, a wish that lesser standards should apply generally or in particular in Health and Safety issues.

Please can you consider whether you agree with this interpretation of above Statutes and if so instruct Atos Healthcare to comply with the legislation. Hopefully Atos Healthcare will comply and it will not be necessary to petition the High Court to rule on whether, under Administrative Law, an abuse of process has taken place and to seek an order of mandamus to compel Atos Healthcare to comply with the legislation.

I can provide full copies of correspondence if necessary. I would be willing to give evidence in court if required and if I am able. The latter is dependent on the progress of my brain tumour. I look forward to hearing from you.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974

I refer to the complaint you made and received by this oMce on the 18th August 2009 about the Atos Health Care offices located at the Highgate Medical Examination Centre, 1st Floor, 1 Elthorne Road Upper Holloway, London N19 4AL and your latest correspondence dated 24th September 2009.

Following our enquiries about your concerns, we have received a response from the company's Regional Manager. With regards the disposal of clinical waste; we were advised that the Centre does not carry out any "invasive" surgical or medical techniques such as blood tests etc requiring medical waste facilities. The Centre assesses people's functional ability through consultation, discussion and simple physical tests (e.g. reflex) and only generates standard office rubbish so does not require a dedicated clinical waste facility.

The issue regarding cleanliness; the cleaning regime at the Centre takes place once a day; in the Highgate Centre, this begins at approximately 17:30, at the end of the working day. Additional cleaning periods are not considered necessary but procedures are in place should further cleaning be required.

Hand gels, tissues and cleansing wipes are supposed to be available to all staff at the Centre, together with soap and water for use by visitors in the public toilets. The cleaning contractors check the toilets throughout the day and a card, which is displayed in the toilets, signed after each inspection.

Your letter of 24th September cites various legislation relating to the running and organisation of medical centres and attendant practitioners. The Health and Safety Executive are not in a position to comment on this legislation, as we are not the enforcing authority in these matters. We advise that you speak to Care Quality Commission (CQC) or the General Medical Council (GMC), who are qualified to discuss these concerns. I have included contact details for both these organisations at the end of this letter.

The HSE are satisfied with the response by the company in matters relating to health, safety and weIfare in the Centre and do not propose to take any further action. However, the company have been advised that we may consider reviewing this decision should further evidence be presented on this matter.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. Please quote Case No 4177247 in any correspondence with or telephone call to the Health & Safety Executive.

    To:      enquiries@geo.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Equality and the DWP
    

Dear Sir,

I would like to formally complain about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in respect of how they have implemented the Welfare Reform Act and in particular the language they use for patients and claimants with English as their first language. I further would like to complain that I have been treated poorly.

I refer you to the Equalities Act 2010. The DWP have failed in respect of:

• Making information accessible for disabled people

• Treating disabled people poorly, without a good reason

I attach my letter to the DWP dated 11 March 2010. I have not received a reply. I believe this is evidence regarding making information accessible and in treating me poorly.

I am terminally ill with a primary brain tumour. I have published all correspondence on my website http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html. If you review this correspondence, I believe that this provides evidence in respect of treating disabled people poorly.

I would like you to investigate this matter and assist me in receiving an explanation from the DWP as to why I have received such a service from the DWP. I would like your assistance in receiving compensation.

Thank you

Yours faithfully

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your email of June 15th. As the issues you raised did not fall within the remit of the Government Equalities Office, I passed on your letter to the Department for Work and Pensions for a response. I understand that they have now replied to you and you should be in receipt of this. If you are not satisfied with their response, can I recommend you contact your local MP who can escalate the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Yours sincerely

Kimberley Reed

Government Equalities Office

Ms Christine Connelly, Chief Information Officer for Health

The Department of Health, Head Office, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

7 December 2009

Dear Ms Connelly

Ref: Shortlisting of Atos Origin for IT Services Contracts

I understand from media reports that you have shortlisted Atos Origin as a potential supplier for future projects in particular "...procurement of systems for the South.... The procurement will cover 29 acute trusts, 21 community trusts and two mental health trusts, which will be offered a limited choice using the Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC) framework catalogue...".

I would like to draw your attention to the oral and written evidence submitted to the recent Parliamentary Inquiry "Decision making and appeals in the benefits system" The House of Commons, Works and Pensions Committee. I submitted a memorandum to this Inquiry and have published my experience with links to the Parliament website on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html".

I believe my case alone provides strong evidence of poor management, poor quality and systematic failure. When my case is added to the evidence submitted by the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, judges et al, I think, at the least, you should ask Atos Healthcare to justify their actions and explain what actions they have taken to ensure that future contracts are not so blighted by legal actions. I would like you to reconsider shortlisting Atos Origin for future work.

Previously, while working for a major energy utility company, I had senior involvement in outsourcing major IT contracts and monitoring performance and quality. I take this opportunity to make a few suggestions.

We defined a standard contract that all suppliers had to use. This was revised from time to time when particular legal issues arose. I recommend using the Contract between the DWP and Atos as the starting point, review it and improve it. Initially suppliers were not happy to use our contract but our business was so important they quickly agreed.

Award initial pilot work areas to the top two (or three). Award subsequent areas to the one with the best performance and quality. This continues until the roll-out is complete. If, after rollout, the performance of an area declines another supplier can take over. You have built in business continuity, continual improvements etc. There is a slight increase in initial setup costs but these are tiny compared to year on year savings. Atos UK profit margins on their DWP business suggest a sole supplier benefits the supplier not the customer.

You should ask Atos to comment on my particular case by 24 January 2010 which is six months after my medical examination. You could ask them why not once has the two day and twenty day targets been met. You could ask them why you should rely on their assurances for the new applications.

Finally I do believe in outsourcing if and only if the performance metrics and remedial actions have been fully defined before contracts are signed. Every sole supplier outsourced contract I have been involved in has been poor for the customer and great for the monopoly supplier. Awarding contracts to multiple suppliers results in a win-win for all parties.

I look forward to hearing from you and in particular confirmation that you have considered the matters I have raised here. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Office of Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics and Chief

Information Officer for Health, Room 537, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

Tel. O20 7210 5228

10 December 2009

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your letter to Christine Connelly dated 7 December 2009.

A considered response is being prepared and we will reply to your letter in due course.

Kind regards

Martin Newkirk

martin.newkirk@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Office of Christine Connelly, Department of Health, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall

0207 210 5692

Office of Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics and Chief

Information Officer for Health, Room 537, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

Tel. O20 7210 5228

18 December 2009

Dear Mr B...

Re: Short listing of Atos Origin For IT Services Contracts

I am responding to your letter, of 7 December, concerning Atos Origin and our framework Agreement for Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC).

The ASCC framework was established in 2008, by NHS Connecting for Health, for use by a broad range of qualifying Public Sector bodies. The procurement competition for the ASCC framework was conducted in accordance with the Public Sector Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC and the UK Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (the Regulations). A total of 99 supplier organisations were appointed to the ASCC framework, of which ATOS Origin IT Services UK Limited , is just one such organisation.

Appointment to the ASCC framework was a result of each organisation demonstrating their capacity and capability to meet the requirements for participation. On appointment each organisation signed a standard, pre-agreed set of contract terms and conditions, based on UK Government "current best practice". However, appointment neither results in the award or guarantee of award of any business to any participating organisation.

Therefore, Atos Origin have not been awarded a specific contract for business as a result of the framework procurement. They have only been "shortlisted" in so far as they have been selected to compete for services in various categories of the framework. A further competition is required in all cases before an award of any business can be made, This competition shoutd take into account all relevant information in connection with the requirement issued and any award of business would be on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender received, taking into consideration the business, technical and service merits of each tender, as well as the charges for that service.

The ASCC framework provides any qualifying Public Sector body with a procurement route, which is additional to those which were previously available to them. It is, however, the responsibility of each Public Sector body to select the most appropriate procurement route for the services they require to procure. No Public Sector body is under any mandate to use the ASCC framework in preference to any other procurement route.

I have noted your comments about the practice of procurement, however, I cannot become involved in any questions or grievances that you may have with Atos Origin's handling of your particular case. If you are dissatisfied, you should contact the relevant government department and request information as to whom and how to escalate your questions.

I trust this letter has made clearer the basis of our ASCC framework.

Yours sincerely

Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics

Ms Christine Connelly, Chief Information Officer for Health,

The Department of Health, Head Office, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

22 January 2010

Dear Ms Connelly

Ref: Shortlisting of Atos Origin for IT Services Contracts

Thank you for your letter dated 18 December 2009 which followed your letter dated 10 December 2009 which followed my letter dated 7 December 2009.

I am familiar with the ASCC Framework. Thank you for comfirming that Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited is one of the 99 supplier organisations appointed to the ASCC Framework. I accept that inclusion on this list neither results in the award or guarantee of award of any business to any participating organisation.

Previously I mentioned that I have published my experience on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html". A reasonable person, if they reviewed this information and in particular the admissions by Atos Healthcare, would conclude that Atos Origin should neither be shortlisted for any business nor be included in the ASCC Framework supplier list.

Please consider the advice in January 2010 of the Atos Healthcare Medical Manager Dr Bruecker; "that the pathology of your condition is not clear from the available evidence". Note how long it has taken to get to this point. It seems clear that Atos Healthcare have admitted using unqualified healthcare professionals and have admitted being in breach of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare. I believe the Minister has instructed a review be undertaken. I believe the consequences will be that Atos Healthcare will have to pay compensation, redo a large number of assessments, repay large amounts to the DWP and may have their accounts qualified.

Even if you feel that the evidence of my case and the actions of the Minister is insufficent, I would like you to consider the following:-

• The adverse impacts of the increased costs on the DWP. Review actual costs against the budget figures Atos Origin supplied when they were awarded the contract. What credence can you give to Atos Origin projected budgets and costs on your projects?

• The number of recent cases of injured service personnel being denied benefits though what may turn out to be illegal medical assessments carried out by unqualified healthcare professionals may build into a media storm bigger than the recent Ghurka campaign. Please refer to the Yorkshire Post lead story 20 January 20010. Do you really think a close association with Atos Healthcare will improve the standing of the Department of Health?

• http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1003/1003729_900_patients_to_be_recalled_for_scans.html

  Up to 900 people are to be recalled for medical scans after a series of blunders by a private company. NHS bosses last month suspended tests being carried out by Atos Origin at centres in Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Stockport, Oldham, Wigan and Liverpool, after discovering technical and administrative problems. Now regional health bosses are set to write to the 900 patients who had ultrasound tests to investigate conditions like kidney, prostate and abdominal problems at Atos centres to offer them the chance to be re-scanned at NHS hospitals or private companies. NHS North West managers have already recalled seven people after problems were identified with Atos' magnetic resonance or MR scans.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4995078.stm

  Almost 80,000 sick and disabled people a year are being wrongly denied benefits, according to a BBC investigation for Radio Five Live.

• and there are so many other examples.

I find it hard to believe that a company that is being investigated because it is believed to have acted illegally, is believed to be in breach of contract and whose accounts are likely to be qualified can still be included in the ASCC Framework supplier list. Please can you provide me with information on Who is able to remove Atos Origin from the ASCC Framework supplier list?

I would like to put on record I have no desire for you to be involved in the handling of my case by Atos Healthcare. As a professional IT Consultant who has handled multi-million procurements in the past and who knows the importance of reviewing actual performance against optimistic claims of suppliers and who is concerned that my 30 years of paying tax and NI are not wasted, I have previously suggested you ask Mark Bounds to explain his actions.

Finally I would like to confirm I am happy for my correspondence to be made freely available whether through a Freedom of Information Request or otherwise. In particular should this matter be subject to Judicial Review, my correspondence and your considerations in response will make clear that your decision has been made following due diligence.

I look forward to hearing from you that Atos Origin has been removed from the ASCC Framework supplier list. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Department of Health, Chief Information Officer for Health

Dear Chief Information Officer for Health

Ref: Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding.

I wrote to Ms Christine Connelly, the then Chief Information Officer, in a letter dated 7 December 2009 pointing out the many failures over the years of Atos Orgin and subsidaries, in particular Atos Healthcare, and requested that Atos Origin be removed from shortlists for projects with Government funding. In particular I was concerned at "...procurement of systems for the South...". I attach a copy of the letter.

I have published all correspondence on my website (see http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoslettersgov.html#DOH)

I received a reply which confirmed that ATOS Origin IT Services UK Limited was appointed to the ASCC framework in 2008. I replied in a letter dated 22 January 2010. I attach a copy of this letter. The delay is due to an increase in the focal fits caused by my brain tumour, my condition deteriorated and though weak I am now better able to address outstanding matters.

You are aware that Atos Healthcare pulled out, after three years of a 10 year NHS contract to run a GP surgery in East London. This was reported in the Guardian on the 12 April 2011 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-privatisation-future-policy).

Judge for yourself how important have been the failures of Atos to the UK economy and society; Cancer patients threatened in December 2009, De Beers sues Atos for millions in April 2009, Loss of confidential data in November 2008, Patients recalled for scans in April 2007, Clinic faces second investigation in November 2006, Errors block benefits in May 2006 et al.

Given the above please can you confirm that Atos Origin has been removed from the ASCC frameworks and that you have advised the Government that Atos Origin should be removed from all projects which receive or are likely to receive some Government funding. I suggest this ban should last until the ten year contract was due to expire i.e. until 2016.

Finally I would like you to set up an Inquiry on the actions of Ms Christine Connelly and in particular, what seems now, as her partiality towards Atos Origin. I am interested in whether there is evidence of undue influence by Atos Origin or organisations such as the Commercial Occupational Health Providers Association Ltd (COHPA) which receive significant funds from Atos Origin. Did she attend for example the COHPA black tie events? Did she attend events outside the UK funded by Atos Origin? Were these declared and available for review by other suppliers competing for contracts?

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

To:      ...
From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    14 September 2011 15:42

Subject: Response to your Query :
         - Ref:DE00000641479 
         - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding.

Our ref: DE00000641479

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your correspondence of 1 September about Atos Healthcare. I have been asked to reply.

I regret this is not within the Department of Health’s remit. After considering your email, I would recommend that you forward your correspondence to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions where staff would be better placed to answer your queries regarding Atos Healthcare. The contact details are:

 
Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London 
SW1H 9DA 
 
Website: www.dwp.gov.uk
Email: ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
 
I am sorry I could not be of more assistance on this occasion.  

Yours sincerely, 
  
David Segar 
Customer Service Centre 
Department of Health 
    

Date:    16 September 2011 10:17

Subject: Re: Response to your Query :
  - Ref:DE00000641479 
  - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding.
  
Dear Mr Sager,

I would like to reword my request to matters that I believe are solely within the remit of the Department of Health.

The Department of Health must be aware that Atos Origin IT Services Ltd pulled out, after three years of a 10 year NHS contract to run a GP surgery in East London. This was reported in the Guardian on the 12 April 2011 ( see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-privatisation-future-policy).

Please can you confirm that the Department of Health is the Government department charged with overall responsibility for overseeing the activities of the NHS and thus oversight for this contract for running a GP surgery. If this is not the case, please inform me of the Government Department responsible for the NHS. If this is the case, as I believe it is, please inform me what actions the Department of Health are considering to take or have taken against this unreliable contractor. Please can you confirm the additional costs to the Department of Health, due to the failure of Atos Origin IT Services Ltd, have been recovered in full with interest.

Finally under the Freedom of Information Act please can you supply me the information requested above and in addition the minutes of the discussions that have taken place by the Department of Health and other bodies regarding this failure by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd (who also trade as Atos Healthcare). Please can you supply me the value of the contract, as described above, and the amounts recovered. I would prefer web addresses to the relevent documents but I am happy to receive printed copies.

My concern is that the repeated failures by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd over the years, some of which I listed in my previous emails will taint the excellent reputation of the Department of Health and in particular the NHS if future contracts are awarded to this unreliable company.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    30 September 2011 16:08   
Subject: Response to your Query : - Ref:DE00000645091 - FOI Foll/up 641479 
         - Removal of Atos Origin from Govt. project shortlists

Our ref: DE00000645091

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your FOI email of 16 September to the Department of Health. Your email has been passed to me for reply.

In particular, you submitted the following request:

The Department of Health must be aware that Atos Origin IT Services Ltd pulled out, after three years of a 10 year NHS contract to run a GP surgery in East London. This was reported in the Guardian on the 12 April 2011 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-privatisation-future-policy).

Please can you confirm that the Department of Health is the Government department charged with overall responsibility for overseeing the activities of the NHS and thus oversight for this contract for running a GP surgery. If this is not the case, please inform me of the Government Department responsible for the NHS. If this is the case, as I believe it is, please inform me what actions the Department of Health are considering to take or have taken against this unreliable contractor. Please can you confirm the additional costs to the Department of Health, due to the failure of Atos Origin IT Services Ltd, have been recovered in full with interest.

Finally under the Freedom of Information Act please can you supply me the information requested above and in addition the minutes of the discussions that have taken place by the Department of Health and other bodies regarding this failure by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd (who also trade as Atos Healthcare). Please can you supply me the value of the contract, as described above, and the amounts recovered. I would prefer web addresses to the relevant documents but I am happy to receive printed copies.

My concern is that the repeated failures by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd over the years, some of which I listed in my previous emails will taint the excellent reputation of the Department of Health and in particular the NHS if future contracts are awarded to this unreliable company.

Firstly, I apologise for the Department's response to your original email (ref: DE00000641479) which incorrectly referred you to the Department for Work and Pensions.

It may help to explain that the role of the Department of Health is to provide strategic leadership for public health, the NHS and social care in England.

However, the NHS is managed at a local level by local NHS bodies such as primary care trusts (PCTs), NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. These bodies have responsibility for running local NHS services on a day-to day basis and for managing local NHS budgets. They have responsibility for local procurement, recruitment of staff and the structure of local health services. More information on the role of the Department of Health and the structure of the NHS can be found on the weblinks below:

www.dh.gov.uk/health/about-us.  
www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhsstructure.aspx. 

With regard to your specific requests under the FOI Act regarding Atos Healthcare, the Department does not hold this information. As explained above, the Department sets policy direction, however it does not oversee or performance manage the local NHS.

You may therefore wish to contact Tower Hamlets PCT. As public body in their own right they can be sent FOI requests directly. The relevant webpage can be found at: www.towerhamlets.nhs.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information.

I am sorry I cannot be of more assistance.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above, in any future communications.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to:

Head of the Freedom of Information Team 
Department of Health 
Room 317, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS 
   
Email: freedomofinformation@dh.gsi.gov.uk 

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Department. The ICO can be contacted at:

   
The Information Commissioner's Office 
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF 
  
Yours sincerely, 
  
..., Freedom of Information Team, Department of Health 
    

Date:    16 October 2011 15:00
Subject: For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Please can you forward to Mr Sager.

Ref: DE00000641479 - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for 
                     projects with Government funding.
  
Dear Mr Sager,

I have received a reply on 30 September 2011 which addressed the FOI aspects of my request. Unfortunately this did not deal with the substantive matter i.e. that of removal of Atos Origin from eligibility to be selected for projects with Government funding.

You may recall the letter dated 18 December 2009 from Ms Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics in which she stated "The ASCC framework was established in 2008, by NHS Connecting for Health, for use by a broad range of qualifying Public Sector bodies.... A total of 99 supplier organisations were appointed to the ASCC framework, of which ATOS Origin IT Services UK Limited, is just one such organisation."

I believe, as the DoH appointed Atos to the ASCC framework, it is within the remit of the DoH to remove Atos from the ASCC framework. Atos are an unreliable company. Atos failed the NHS in Tower Hamlets. Atos have a history of failure in technology and in healthcare. Atos pulled out of the NHS ten year contract (awarded in 2007) in Tower Hamlet after three years. It seems reasonable that Atos are excluded from all projects which receive Government funding until at least 2017.

Please can you confirm that Atos are excluded or if not explain why the Doh continues to place trust and waste money with such an unreliable company as Atos.

From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    27 October 2011 10:16
Subject: Response to your Query: Ref:DE00000651869
         - For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Our ref: DE00000645091

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your further correspondence of 17 October about the removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding. I have been asked to reply.

I have discussed this with Departmental officials, who have stated that the matters described in your email do not give the Department of Health the right to terminate the ASCC Framework Agreement in accordance with the terms of the same.

Yours sincerely,

David Segar, Customer Service Centre, Department of Health

Date:    28 October 2011 17:30
Subject: For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Please can you forward to Mr Sager.

Ref: DE00000641479 - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for 
                     projects with Government funding.
  
Dear Mr Sager,

Thank you for your email dated 27 October 2011 responding to my request that the DoH should remove Atos Origin from shortlists of projects that receive Government funding.

I apologise if I implied that existing contracts should be terminated. For existing active contracts I do suggest that those contracted to Atos should be subject to rigourous oversight and audit. These should be allowed to end as defined in each contract.

My concern is for new contracts and the renewal of existing contracts. Due diligence suggests that these should not be awarded to Atos for the reasons and for the period I have suggested in previous correspondence.

I am pleased to note that Atos failed to be asked to submit detailed proposals in the recent "GP Commissioning - the GP Payments Calculation Service (GPPCS)" project.

I believe Atos was appointed to the ASCC Framework Agreement in 2008. I believe this ends in 2012. This is the time (November 2011) for the DoH to formally write to Atos that their appointment to the ASCC Framework Agreement will not be renewed in 2012 for reasons that Atos have proved unreliable as a company.

My understanding is from the following press release from ... and others:

... announced that it is delighted to have been appointed to the Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC) Framework agreement to provide a wide range of Information products and services to the NHS.

The new ASCC framework contracts are for a four year duration. This will allow NHS organisations and other NHS funded establishments a faster and easier route to procure IT systems and services from suppliers who have demonstrated experience in the health sector. ASCC can be used to support both the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) related work and wider IT related projects.

...

I hope this has helped to clarify matters. Nobody can be in favour of signing additional contracts with such an unreliable supplier as Atos.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    8 November 2011 12:53
Subject: Response to your Query: Ref:DE00000655128
         - For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Our ref: DE00000655128

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your further correspondence of 31 October about the removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding. I have been asked to reply.

The Department can confirm that the performance of all of its contracts are monitored and managed and that the services performed under each contract conclude in accordance with the terms of the contract. All economic operators are treated equally and new contracts are, in all cases, awarded in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations and, due to the scope of the business awarded under the contracts, are awarded to 'the most economically advantageous tender.'

The procurement for the GP Payments Calculation Service project has not yet concluded and it is not Departmental policy to comment on procurements during their conduct, or on the performance of individual tenders.

Please note that the ASCC framework was let in 2008 for a period of four years, the maximum allowable duration, and so it is due to expire in 2012. As a result, the framework will not be extended.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

David Segar, Customer Service Centre, Department of Health