I fear this will be long. That's not my only fear, of course. But I will attempt brevity. Me um word good.
Last week I received the first of two letters from the DWP. Instantly I knew. Senses honed through years of dealing with the DWP have taught me to know. Something about the particular shape or shade of the envelope; the sound it makes on the doormat through the letterbox. Even the time of day the postman arrives. These are all tells. You just know.
I have what will now be attempt #4 at a WCA on the 19th at 9am. I also have a WFI (work focussed interview) on the 23rd. The latter is at the jobcentre, a place no longer served by a direct bus route. Not that such facts are taken into consideration of course. These appointments are booked without consultation on your behalf.
In the case of the former I was supposed to get what would be the second attempt at a home visit. This was agreed after WCA attempt #1 failed due to the correct 'healthcare professional' wasn't on hand. I was, they weren't. Of course their system simply cannot process the consequences for the subject in such a circumstance. They are of course apologetic, as statite requires, but it means nothing when you have to go through it all again. I asked instead for a home visit to be considered.
At first that wasn't the case, until it was. They sent me another assessment centre-based appointment and then told me, upon arrival, I wasn't supposed to be seen there and that I was to get a home visit. that visit didn't happen until over a year later, this March. That's when the fun begins, so it would appear.
They were supposed to rebook the appointment. When I contacted them to find out why they didn't arrive the human facsimile I spoke to passively aggressively gave me two choices: either rebook (it's all so simple, just like a minor calculation, no emotion required), or have my case referred back to the DWP. Clearly the former, in the context of a Hobson's choice, was preferable.
Only that didn't happen. It turns out that, despite my preference, they chose the latter. The DWP received it in April and sent it back to the WCA people in May with one exception. They attached what I've just discovered is a "PV marker". What's that you ask? It means "potentially violent"! At the risk of virtue signalling, this has left me gobsmacked. Not once have I ever behaved that way to the DWP nor the WCA. (Of course they themselves operate through violence: the violence of poverty.)
The DWP have, for some reason, decided that home visits are now verboten because of this marker. It didn't exist before when a home visit was meant to happen. It cannot happen now. They won't tell me why this has been attached without a written letter of request (I need to request a "Dataprint"). The WCA won't tell me why they referred it back claiming that the DWP know why, but they don't. When pushed (because they are obviously caught in a lie) they said that they can choose to refer cases back to the DWP instead of rebooking regardless of the subject's preference. What I wanted didn't matter and, as a result of their decision, I now cannot get the home visit they agreed and indeed booked two years ago. Had they even bothered to attend (and I still don't know why that never happene) this would all have been done and dusted. I have lodged a formal complaint.
Unfortunately none of this changes the fact I am compelled to attend. If I don't I will need to give satisfactory reasons and if they aren't satisfactory enough, my benefit will be stopped. Likewise if I don't attend the WFI.
The WCA people have screwed up royally and cost me the preferred method of resolving this for no good reason. Or at least no good reason they are willing to offer. The only explanation I can find for why this PV marker exists is because, on my ESA50 form, among the mental health issues outlined was an expressed tendency to frustration and upset in situations I find difficult (such as getting the royal runaround from the DWP/WCA). But that wasn't enough to warrant this marker being placed at any point prior. At least not to my knowledge. If it had I wouldn't have gotten a home visit in the first place.
It doesn't really matter. This process isn't about support. How can it be when people that have violent tendencies are automatically denied the right kind of assessment? What if such a person has other conditions (prevailing Psychosis of Schizophrenia for instance) that preclude a centre based assessment? Are they supposed to just turn up and that the staff are ok because Big Dave the security guard will protect them if the subject kicks off? What does that say about how we are still treating people with severe mental health issues of the kind just described? It's akin to institutionalising them.
Then of course there is the power disparity; one of the biggest failings of this system. Our entire system, not just benefits, is predicated on it. The ruling class versus the 99%. The working class versus the capitalists, and the latter are in control with a system modelled on archaic notions and concepts. A person in a corporate suit with a clipboard determines the validity of your experience on the basis of a tick box exercise, one they can deploy as they see fit with no accountability. Sure I can make a complaint (and have done), but to what end? What compels them to honour that? If our system doesn't encourage good honest and moral (in the sense we don't let the poor struggle) conduct, then black and white rules mean nothing. Not when the subject has no power but to implore to the party he's accusing to abide by them. They police themselves with no interest in jeopardising their position. I might get an apology, perhaps even a couple of quid. To them it will mean nothing, just a few expenses they can write off. To me it will mean nothing because I can't live on it.
This power disparity must be challenged and dismantled. It cannot be justified. Mental health is experiential in my view. It isn't like a broken leg: something that, while painful, can be seen and measured in a very real sense. You can't see emotional distress, tension, frustration, psychosis nor schizophrenia. You can't measure paranoia. You can't weigh the struggle a person feels at the 'wrongness' he experiences in his life. You have to listen to that person, accept them, and work with them. That starts with building a society that accepts an honours that experience and makes it part of the social fabric. Not a society that marginalises and denies them participation in the most fundamental and necessary of ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment