Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
dsp
Oct 28, 2012 9:49:10 GMT 7
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2012 9:49:10 GMT 7
just a thought,but if a goverment department c/l put you on dsp,and then a few yeras later called you in and decided that you were no longer disabled enough for dsp so put you on new start yet nothing had changed with your health, then that means they were wrong in giving you dsp in the 1st place,which means you could have been working all those years earning good money,so you should be compinsated 4 all those years ,they c/l were wrong,what do you think.
|
|
|
dsp
Oct 28, 2012 10:01:41 GMT 7
Post by Banjo on Oct 28, 2012 10:01:41 GMT 7
Basically we have been "grandfathered" under the old rules/assessment process. What happened this year is that to get the new portability we had to apply to be reassessed and it was pointed out to us that the new impairment tables would also be applied to our DSP. It was a case of go away and shut up or we'll take your pension off you.
Suing governments for compensation has always been hard work, you need a serious legal team prepared to work for nothing to even stand a chance. Centrelink would claim they were within the law of the time and they couldn't make it retrospective... unless they wanted to like they have with residency of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
dsp
Oct 28, 2012 10:41:12 GMT 7
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2012 10:41:12 GMT 7
yes,they make sure they have there ase covered.
|
|