|
Post by murphy on May 21, 2016 9:38:25 GMT 7
Gized, I too would like to hear about a case starting from receiving letter of review. I suppose we'll hear more cases post-election. I'm pre-2008 and over 35 but the legislation appears (to me) to indicate that review under new tables will apply, with CITW less than 15hrs. Just no PoS for me. Yeh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Murphy correct 100%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% This is what will be looked at for those who received DSP between 2008- 2011 and not under 35. They ONLY requirement to be met is the CITW. Thats not hard to get to retain the DSP. The Dr needs to say, it will not make any difference as you cannot be retrained, or keep a job for 26 weeks, due to your illness/disability. It will not change in the next 2 years. You cannot endure 26 weeks work with only 1 month of in the 26 weeks. Guys and girls, are we starting to see the picture here/ Well done Murphy!!! Gized But Gized, over 35 and granted under old tables will still need to attract at least 20 points under the new tables? (PLUS CITW we just discussed).
|
|
|
Post by krystal on May 25, 2016 16:34:33 GMT 7
Krystal, were you successful on appeal? Is the 20 points on one table just for unlimited portability or is it to (continue) to qualify for DSP full stop? Murphy I have 20 points on one table (I have a total of 45 points), I have a CITW to work 15 hours a week, I cannot work without a Program of Support in place. The claim was denied on the "training within 2 years" clause by the last level of the Administration Appeal Tribunal. (Even though when my claim was heard it had been 2 years and I hadn't been able to do any training in that time). The decision read "there is no persuasive evidence that I can't do training". So no, I was not successful in the appeal and was denied Disability. Was just trying to point out a technicality they will go to if no-one in the doctors/specialists reports mention it.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on May 25, 2016 18:10:30 GMT 7
Yes Krystal you are spot on. Centrelink have some of the best barristers and lawyers in the coutry on administrative law. They know it inside out. The only way to beat them is to get an independent one who is there equal and who will help with an injustice. I am sure thousands of dsp applicants have been dudded by their lack of legal help against the monster. When anyone is appealing a decision I can't implore them enough to seek legal help as it is just as important as the medical reports. Whether that is a disability legal centre, legal aid or doing as I did, finally, and went to the law institute who helped me find a specialist pro bono lawyer who won the day. If you are in the right then never give up because that is what they set out to achieve in the first place. most people give up thinking the monster is right. sadly the monster is often wrong or just plain deceitful. Every successful appeal means the monster got it wrong in the first place and it is usually by incompetence at best or deceipt at worst from my experiences.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on May 25, 2016 20:50:38 GMT 7
Krystal, were you successful on appeal? Is the 20 points on one table just for unlimited portability or is it to (continue) to qualify for DSP full stop? Murphy I have 20 points on one table (I have a total of 45 points), I have a CITW to work 15 hours a week, I cannot work without a Program of Support in place. The claim was denied on the "training within 2 years" clause by the last level of the Administration Appeal Tribunal. (Even though when my claim was heard it had been 2 years and I hadn't been able to do any training in that time). The decision read "there is no persuasive evidence that I can't do training". So no, I was not successful in the appeal and was denied Disability. Was just trying to point out a technicality they will go to if no-one in the doctors/specialists reports mention it. Thank you very much for sharing this information. I have certainly added this statement to my checklist of what quacks must write. (i) and (ii) you mention in your first post puzzle me, as they seem to be alternatives: "or, ii) if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity—such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years." You're in a program of support, so (ii) would seem to apply...you might be able to complete a training activity but not without a program of support (as further evinced by the last 2 years)? The logic of the AAT astounds me, just as their refusal to anonymize your case disgusts me. Have you considered appeal to the Federal Court? Was your matter an initial claim for DSP, or a review of your DSP eligibility?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2016 10:44:07 GMT 7
No the new measure will have POS requirements. It said it extends an existing policy that targeted under 35s. That means likely the POS requirements which is in the current criteria will be extended to probably 35 plus. If it is to people granted between 08 and 11, it will require those 35 plus people to then be in a POS because that's what it means by extending existing policy. The reason it doesn't need legislation to be extended is because it already exists via the POS requirements to under 35s previously. But again I will quote if no one saw it in another thread. The election and your vote is ever so critical now. The budget measures aren't enacted until the app bills supplying them pass parliament which they have not before parliament dissolved.
|
|