h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The short(ish) version of my life story used as an introduction to "My Space" was actually taken from a submission I had made to my local County Council back in late 2005 as part of a "consultation" on changes in the basis of charging low income disabled service users for any "social" care they received from Social Sevices.

Addendum to charging consultation questionnaire October 2005

A Detailed History – Peter J. Farrington (Born 20-1-53)

My story starts in early 1950’s Hertfordshire as the second child of a family whose father had left the scene shortly before my birth. Inevitably we were relatively poor but those were the days when community stood for something and so we got by.

We lived in a small post-war prefab provided by the local authority in Cherry Close, Knebworth, and later moved to a council house a few 100 yards away in Wadnall Way, after my mother remarried a few years later. This was to be my home until I eventually left to make my own way in the world at 17 years of age.

I had by then achieved a good range of “O” and “A” passes but financial constraints led me to go to college rather than university, initially taking a business course and part qualifying as an accountant, but I later moved from this to an interest in overseas trade and eventually became a graduate member of the Institute of Export in 1976.

By this time I had also married and already brought my first home. As some of you may recall this was a time when a theme of government was “export or die” and I was answering that call by working hard to promote and sell British products largely to customers in North Africa and the Middle East. In fact as an employee of Polycell I had even earned a curious distinction by effectively having sold sand to the Arabs.

My life was going well and by the end of the 70’s I had been appointed as the area manager for the Middle East by Wolf Electric Tools and was by then anticipating the birth of my first child. Sadly, fate was to intervene, and on one of my frequent trips to the region I contracted an extremely serious form of dysentery during a visit to North Yemen.

This would lead to my being locked away in an isolation hospital and being unable to work at all for almost a year. Clearly I survived this but sadly, probably as a result of the stress, my wife had had a miscarriage. I was also then warned that I would have to cease international travel as I might not survive a similar illness again.

To their credit Wolf Tools had been extremely supportive and kept me on at full pay throughout this year and so I had not needed to fall back on the benefits system at all and in fact had continued to be a net contributor via the tax system. Never being one that liked to be dependent on others I then chose to rebuild my life by my own efforts and started a new career in UK sales and was fortunate to be appointed as a district information officer by Kompass, the business directory publishers.

Over the next ten years my career once again flourished. By the end of the 1980’s, after a variety of executive posts with various companies and eventually even starting my own business, I had achieved many of my life’s goals. I was the father of two wonderful children and owned a very nice semi-detached house, right in the heart of Purley in Surrey, complete with its own driveway and a very large garden.

A good life by any measure and I counted myself very fortunate indeed. Importantly I did not resent at all the fact that my good fortune meant that over the 20 years I had worked I had certainly paid more than twice the tax an average wage earner in the same period would have done. I have always believed firmly in the fairness of the notion, “from each according to their means and to each according to their needs”.

Little was I to know just how relevant that belief would later become.

During 1990 the main company I did business with went into administration leaving me with a shortfall in income of over £10,000 at the same time I, like others, was already having to cope with the cost of inflation and the 15% interest rates at the time.

To add to my problems I was also having to cope with increasing bouts of strange physical symptoms, then put down to stress and depression linked to my change of fortune.

Eventually this manifested itself in an almost comical way whilst out playing golf one day as each time I attempted to take a full backswing I would fall over. The laughter stopped, however, when over the next few weeks I began to exhibit all the classic symptoms of having suffered a major stroke but spread out a symptom at a time over that period.

By 1991, not being able to work at all, I had been forced to sell my house and move into rented accommodation. No explanation was found for my increasing disability but I was then being seen by the National Neurological Hospital in Queen Square as it was suspected I might have multiple sclerosis.

By early 1992 the strain on my marriage had reached breaking point and I finally separated from my wife and moved back to Knebworth, to live with my mother and stepfather. Initially living on basic Income Support, after a short battle with the DHSS I was eventually awarded sickness benefit including the additional pension element based on previous earnings and this was later supplemented by an initial award of the lower rate care DLA.

After a protracted divorce where I sought to gain a residency order in my favour, as was common at the time, my ex-wife was awarded care of the children, the remaining funds from the sale of our old house and later an £8,000 award of child support funded by my being forced to cash in the proceeds of my only remaining asset in the form of endowment life policy after being granted my decree nisi in 1994.

I was, left with no assets other than my basic benefits and sole responsibility for the one main outstanding debt of the marriage in the form of a bank loan totalling about £16,000.

Although still unable to work I was by then regaining some mobility and decided that even though doctors confirmed I could not manage gainful employment I could turn my talents to good use by doing voluntary work as and when I was able.

This resulted in my helping out occasionally at Leyden House, a day centre for adults with learning difficulties, and also the NCH family centre also based in Stevenage.

It appeared I didn’t just have some talent in this area, but had also found my vocation. Following recommendations from the heads of both the schemes I decided to retrain as a Social Worker and began my degree course at the University of Hertfordshire in 1993.

My attendance on the course was approved by the DHSS doctors at Luton and was supported by the normal student grant from HCC plus a special equipment grant to cover the cost of a computer to enable me to function on the course. This support was later supplemented by assistance in examinations in the form of emanuensis. Further help was also provided by my fellow students on the course and by being provided on-campus accommodation for the full duration of my course by the University.

Despite my disability, and possibly because of it, I flourished on the course and I hope also contributed something back by participating in the antidiscrimination group run by the faculty and also by organising the day to day support for a fellow member of my own course who was blind. I also tried my best to be a support to other members of the course by acting as a “tutor” in the subjects where I was particularly strong.

Having successfully completed the first year I was given the exceptional privilege of being the first ever student nominated to undertake my first practice placement with a front line children and families team with responsibility for child protection.

This placement was with the London Borough of Barnet (East) Duty Team under the direct supervision of one of the senior members of staff. This proved to be an immensely challenging but ultimately rewarding experience and I believe I acquitted myself well. My practice teacher and managers certainly felt I did so and more importantly so did many of the clients I was lucky enough to have worked with during my time there.

In addition to my work directly related to child protection, which had included many home visits and even an intensive “orange book” assessment, I was also involved in providing support to families requiring help in other ways. Again, possibly because of my own disability, this included working with two families where disability was a key issue for them. Inevitably a factor for these families was the part that welfare benefits played in their lives.

This led me to work closely with the Hertfordshire Money Advice unit, even though I was not working in Hertfordshire at the time, as the manager, Jo Liney, had offered this service as part of the University of Hertfordshire Social Work degree course. In addition I was also making use of the service provided by the Welfare Benefits Unit of the London Borough of Barnet. During the placement I had some notable successes and my articles on these were eventually published in the spring and summer editions of their bi-monthly newsletter called appropriately “Money Matters”.

The cases from these articles would later form the basis of the UK chapter of the pan European reference work “Social Work and Social Security in a Changing Society” Co-written by myself and Dr Roger Green, currently the research leader of the Social Work & Social Care Research department at University of Hertfordshire. The prime focus of our work was the clear need for social workers to provide help in a way that empowers clients rather than increasing dependency and where possible promotes the clients ability to act as their own self-advocates in the future.

My ideas on the practical applications of empowerment and self-advocacy would be developed further in my final year placement with the Deposit Guarantee Scheme run by Shelter in St Albans. The scheme involved helping those on benefits gain access to privately rented accommodation and was a joint project of special interest to the then Mayor and so involved a great deal of direct work with the local council as well as the benefits agency.

A measure of my success in this placement is the fact that for the latter part of the placement I was actually running the scheme and was eventually appointed as its manager albeit for only a brief period at the end of my placement.

Throughout the three years I was at university my health had continued to deteriorate and I was under constant review by the National Neurological Hospital who thought I was suffering from a progressive neurological condition, possibly Multiple Sclerosis.

To balance this, it was during the 95/96 academic year that my son had voted with his feet and decided he wanted live with me and he joined me, sharing my room in the shared house I then still occupied in Roberts Way, belonging to the University.

This presented some unique challenges, but with the support of help from a special fund run by the university and with practical help from my fellow housemates we managed quite well, until that is the spring of 1996.

By this time I had become well used to having minor falls, where the biggest dent was usually only to my pride. The fall I sustained at that time was of an entirely different nature.

I was alone in the house at the time and, even though only yards from a phone, was unable to call for assistance for nearly three hours. Fortunately I did eventually manage to call for help and a doctor was then called out to see me. Following this “adventure”, the regular brain scans I had been having then also included my cervical spine and it was discovered I was also suffering from a stenosis of the spinal cord.

Shortly after I moved into my current accommodation, with my son, as I had by then completed my studies so was then ineligible for the student accommodation at the university.

I must give special thanks here to North Herts District Council for having treated me as a special case and providing a ground floor flat with level access as this has proved to be a godsend over the years. This also allowed additional support to be provided to me by my parents who still lived locally and also allowed my son to continue his education in Stevenage.

By then it was clear I needed surgery to address the stenosis. As this coincided with the tail end of my placement it prevented my finalising the last piece of work for my degree, in the form of my practice placement assignment, and this had to be delayed until I had fully recovered from this operation which I had in autumn 1996. This was also why I could only run the Deposit Guarantee scheme for just a few short weeks.

I had informed the Benefits Agency about the newly diagnosed cervical stenosis back in 1996 but this had not led to an increase in the level of DLA I received and so I appealed that decision and was finally awarded the higher rate Mobility and middle rate Care components in February 1997 and this award was backdated to April 1996. One unexpected effect of this was I was then forced to apply for “Child Support” but the result was a corresponding reduction, pound for pound, in my newly awarded Income Support so the government not my child benefited from the “child” support.

Sadly by the summer of 1997 it had become clear that the operation on my spine had not provided the hoped for clinical benefit and so I appealed the duration of the DLA award beginning a series of reviews and appeals which is still ongoing some eight years later. As the original award ceased in April 1998, and the appeals process had not gone as far as an actual appeal hearing, all my DLA, and the related Income Support, Severe Disability premium, ceased at that time.

To add insult to this injury the benefit I received for my son was also reduced after he became 18 in May of that year. My income was thereby halved overnight and I also lost all “gateway” benefits linked to Income Support like free prescriptions. In desperation, I swallowed my pride, and contacted my old friends at the Money Advice Unit only to be advised that due to cutbacks they could only provide help to those currently in receipt of DLA which, of course I was no longer receiving.

Left with no other option I set about completing my degree eventually submitting my practice placement assignment just before the two year deadline expired. The lateness of submission meant a pass/fail mark but at least I had finally graduated, albeit with a 2.2 rather than the 2.1 or even a 1st I had originally hoped for.

However, as I also gained my diploma in social work, I was able to seek employment and I applied for a post with NCH. Sadly, halfway through the initial interview it became clear I could not cope physically even with a simple job interview let alone a return to work even part time.

My only remaining hope was the outstanding DLA appeal but it would take a full year to reach the Independent Tribunal which temporarily restored my DLA, making an award for the 5 years 1996 to 2001 but reducing the care component to the lower rate at a hearing on 7th April 1999.

As the level and remaining duration of the award left much to be desired I appealed this decision to the Commissioners. Interestingly when I later contacted the Money advice unit for help with this appeal I was then advised that the goal posts had been shifted yet again and now one not only had to be getting DLA but also had to be classed as “elderly”, and clearly I was not.

The strain of attending that independent tribunal in April 1999, combined with the impact of having had to live for a full year without the appropriate level of benefits, had taken its toll, and I suffered another major fall on the return journey back to Knebworth that day.

This appeared to start a chain of medical complications which have affected me from that day to this. Importantly it also prompted me to make a fresh application for DLA in July 1999 based on this change in my circumstances at that time. In fact such notification is mandatory under the current DLA regulations.

In theory at least, this should have provided a way to avoid the need for my case to be heard by the Commissioner and ensure my correct entitlement was agreed without delay, but what followed was more akin to an episode of the “Twilight Zone”.

The subsequent reaction by the DLA was to completely withdraw all entitlement to DLA as from November 1999. This decision was notified to me by phone, the day before Christmas Eve 1999, by an individual that found my clear distress a reason to laugh.

To make matters worse my son was going through serious emotional problems at this time, partly linked to the animosity created in the family by my having had to involve the Child Support Agency earlier, and partly because of the additional domestic stress a year in extreme poverty had created.

He had by then decided to quit his course at the local college to begin full time work because of the impact of that poverty on his life and, possibly, also a belief his being at college was placing an undue financial burden on me. My own belief was that circumstances had led to me failing in my duty as a father to care for him rather than the other way around.

It was therefore against this broader background that my then GP made the initial urgent referral to Adult Care Services in January of 2000. This being the only practical “prescription” for my health and wellbeing he was able to offer at that time.

It was clear I was in a rather desperate situation and this was now impacting directly on both my own and my son’s health. My new GP, who took over later in the year took a more proactive approach to my healthcare which eventually would lead to the correct diagnosis of the various additional medical conditions which now explains both my disability and continuing ill health but which were still uncertain at that time.

The assessment was carried out in February 2000 and it was agreed I needed five hours of care a week to supplement that already being provided by friends, relations and neighbours. It was also agreed to fund this under the Direct Payments scheme as this would enable me to retain a degree of control and self respect and tailor the care to my own needs.

It is difficult if not impossible to calculate the full beneficial impact this assessment had. In simple terms it literally saved my life as without the provision of this care and the restoration of my self respect it allowed I seriously doubt I would have had the heart to carry on at all.

The provision of this care not only saved my own life though, as it would ultimately also allow my son the freedom he needed to set out on his own to make his way in the world, something which thus far he is doing extremely well.

In theory at least this assessment, together with the finding of the 1999 tribunal and the mounting medical evidence which was then available, should have prompted the DLA to fully restore my original entitlement, but this was not to be the case. Instead their reaction in May 2000, after obtaining a biased and later discredited report from their own Examining Medical Practitioner, was to confirm the denial of all benefit.

The injustice I had suffered was clear to all, including my MP Barbara Follett and she provided a letter in support of my appeal. This was to be of no avail though but my case was referred to the Ombudsman for investigation.

At this point we were also still awaiting the result of my earlier appeal to the Commissioner and so it would be the summer of 2001 before all these appeals would actually be ready to be heard. In the intervening period my new GP had started a series of new referrals to specialists to try to pin down the precise cause of my continuing health issues but, as will be seen later, this process was to eventually take a total of five years.

By the time the Commissioner gave his decision, which was to uphold my appeal and remit the case back to a newly constituted tribunal, the Ombudsman had also reported back confirming that both the DLA and the Appeals service accepted there had been maladministration in the handling of my case.

They were, however, prevented from investigating my case fully as it was still awaiting a fresh hearing by a tribunal. They did find there had been exceptional delays but, that given all the appeals were then due to be heard in July that year, this was just within the acceptable time limits at least in terms of the appeal of the key decision to stop benefit from November 1999.

In effect there were three separate but linked appeals due to be heard by a tribunal. The first was my appeal of the duration of the original award which ran from April 1996. The second was my appeal of the decision not to renew the award in 1998 and the third was my appeal of the decision to withdraw all the reinstated benefit awarded by the first tribunal held in April 1999 in the decision of the DLA in December 1999.

The first and second appeals were essentially about the same issue i.e. should the award of higher rate mobility and middle rate care have extended beyond April 1998. The key difference though was that the first appeal was subject to the old rules and the second came under the revised rules which came into force after the 1998 Act.

Under the revised rules tribunals could no longer take into account later evidence up to the date of the tribunal. Given the complexity this introduced the DLA had been told they must provide a Presenting Officer on the day but in the end failed to do so.

What the DLA did do, prior to the hearing, was convince the tribunal not to hear the third appeal of the decision to withdraw all benefit from November 1999 at all. The argument they put forward was as follows. This decision was in effect a revision of the fresh award made by the 1999 tribunal.

As I had successfully appealed that earlier decision anything linked to it was then invalidated. Ergo, as the decision that had been made was no longer valid I could not appeal it. I am still struggling to understand the twisted logic of that argument given I had won at both the original tribunal and in my appeal to the Commissioner but was still left without benefit or any right of appeal.

If this was not bad enough at the start of the hearing, even before my evidence was presented, the chairman declared it was impossible for me to obtain any extension of the original award beyond April 1998 which was of course the basis of the remaining two appeals. If you recall Gerard Hoffnung’s famous “Barrel of Bricks” story, told to the Oxford Union, this was the point at which I lost my presence of mind and let go the rope. I refused to proceed with the first appeal on that basis as it was manifestly unfair to exclude the possibility of extending the original award in this way.

The very reason for my having retained the first appeal was that it was the only one which allowed evidence beyond 17th March 1998 to be taken into account, as had been the case when it had been heard by the first tribunal heard in April 1999, and this was supposed to be a re-hearing of that tribunal under the same rules. To do otherwise would make the harsh provisions of the 1998 Act and 1999 regulations retrospective.

The chairman was unconvinced by this argument and had clearly decided ahead of the hearing that she only wanted to hear one appeal that day and that was the renewal appeal based on the evidence available as at 17th March 1998. It was also clear that she had already formed a very strong view as to the outcome of that appeal even before hearing my own evidence. That view had been fostered by the conversations she had had with the DLA regarding not hearing the third appeal and the flawed evidence that had been provided by the DLA in respect of that appeal.

The original evidence provided by the DLA to justify the removal of all benefits from the end of 1999 had been based on the discredited medical report by a SEMA doctor who hadn’t even had the statutory minimum of 5 days of disability awareness training required.

The report was discredited after my official complaint against it was upheld as it contained clear misrepresentation of facts and even outright lies. The evidence confirming this, together with updated medical reports had been given to the tribunal a week before the hearing but had not been read.

In fact rather than supporting my case it had proved to be a source of annoyance to the chairman as it did not fit in with her preconceptions about the case. I was admonished by the chairman for expecting them to take this additional evidence into account and all these disputes at the start of the hearing set the tone for the entire hearing which ended up being more like a scene from the Spanish Inquisition than an independent and fair hearing of my case.

Ultimately they would still make an award of lower rate care till April 2003 but no award of mobility. It was clear from the statement of reasons issued later that this was based on a belief that my disability was due to nothing more than depression but they accepted that I qualified under both separate grounds for lower rate care.

Interestingly this belief my disability was largely all in my head was later to be proved somewhat ironic as it has been recently confirmed I had almost certainly been suffering from transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) throughout the entire period from 1990.

Needless to say I immediately set in motion the appeals process but also lodged a formal complaint with the Appeals Service regarding the entire conduct of the tribunal and in particular that of the chairman.

The complaint was referred to the regional chairman but was put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal process via the High Court, Commissioners and Court of Appeal. Despite several follow up requests since that process ended in April 2004 an official response to this complaint is still awaited; although I was advised in March and July of this year it is still under investigation.

I had contacted the DLA by phone a few days after the tribunal to ask why they had not even provided a Presenting Officer and informed them of what had gone on at the hearing partly as a result of that omission. I also pointed out that the consequence of the tribunal refusing to hear the first appeal under the old rules, combined with their blocking of the third appeal, was a situation where none of the evidence regarding my increasing disability between 17th March 1998 and July 2001 had been considered.

As the Commissioner had already ruled the original reviews of December 1999 and May 2000 were invalid I begged for a fresh review of this period. This included my fresh claim in July 1999, which had had no valid decision and also my subsequent submission in March 2000 confirming the Adult Care team assessment. This request appeared to have fallen on deaf ears as I heard nothing further from them at the time. As unbelievable as this sounds that review, to assess my entitlement to benefit based on my actual level of disability during the period, is still pending a decision even now.

The unusual step of seeking judicial review rather than relying on a normal appeal to the Commissioner was prompted by the unusual circumstances of the case as it was clear many of the issues involved were outside the remit of the usual appeals process. It was also the only way to avoid the inordinate delay I knew would be involved given my past experience with such an appeal.

Although ultimately I would fail to secure a judicial review I was complimented on my presentation of the case by the Judge who heard the application in July 2002, at least giving a moral victory for my belief in self-advocacy. The fatal flaw he found was that he agreed with the DLA submission that all the issues could still be addressed by an appeal to the Commissioner.

This being the case I immediately applied to the Commissioners appealing each of the three separate cases which had originally been scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal in 2001. As anticipated, this process would take a considerable time not least because at some point in the process the DLA had completely destroyed all the documents in the case files despite the existence of the ongoing appeals.

Fortunately I had made sure to retain a copy of the case file and so was able to provide a full set of documents to the Commissioner. The case was eventually heard by the Commissioner in June 2003 with his decision being notified on 19th August 2003.

His decision on the first appeal was that he had no jurisdiction as the net effect of all that had gone on at the tribunal had led to that case not being heard. He did, however, confirm that the appropriate course would have been an application for judicial review as only the High Court could rule on the legitimacy of what had transpired.

On the second appeal which the tribunal had reached a decision within his jurisdiction he found he could not fault the decision on a point of law. He pointed out that he, like them, was prevented from taking any of the evidence available after 17th March 1998 into account and in any case they were entitled to make whatever decision they liked based on the remaining evidence even if it flew in the face of common sense.

His ruling on the third appeal was that as the decisions under appeal had been ruled invalid and of “no effect” this effectively resulted in the appeal of them not surviving either.

He accepted that there was clear evidence that my disability had increased but unless there was a valid decision in place there was no right of appeal. Clearly the only solution to this would be to obtain a valid decision from the DLA for the period in question, which of course I had already requested following the July 2001 tribunal.

Given the Commissioners ruling on the first appeal vindicated my earlier application for a judicial review in 2002 and his decisions on the remaining two appeals raised important points of law I immediately appealed all three cases to the Court of Appeal.

My applications for leave to appeal were eventually heard before Lord Justice Latham on the 2nd of April 2004. Although appreciating the “Catch 22” created by the High Court deciding the Commissioner had jurisdiction and the Commissioner deciding the High Court had jurisdiction regarding the first appeal, he ruled I was now out of time to apply for such a judicial review.

Once again I was complimented on the clarity my presentation of the arguments in what was a very complex case but he was unable to find a fault in law with the decisions of the Commissioner in respect of the remaining two appeals and so dismissed my application for leave to appeal all three cases.

Having exhausted all the avenues of appeal in the UK I then reapplied for DLA on 6th April 2004. As I was still in the position that my entitlement to DLA for the six years from April 1998 to April 2004 had still not been properly assessed on the actual level of my disability I once again also asked for this outstanding review to take place.

Perversely the initial decision by the DLA was to only award the higher rate mobility which had earlier been refused but deny the care component which had been awarded previously. This inconsistency was accepted on review but only the lower rate care was added to my award in their final decision of 8th July 2004. I then instigated the appeals process in respect of that award on the basis it was clear I should be receiving the middle and not lower rate of the care component.

I had still not received any response to my request for what was now the earlier 1998-2004 period to be reviewed. In view of this I advised the DLA that I intended to make an application to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis this failure to consider my entitlement for the period based on my actual level of disability breached my rights under Article 6.1 of the Convention as it also denied my right to an independent review of the consequences of that omission.

The Department for Work and Pensions then “discovered” they had reviewed my case back in 2001, following my telephone call a few days after the tribunal hearing in July of that year. However, they accepted that this had never been properly acknowledged and that the resulting decision dated 9th October 2001 had also not been received by me and therefore I had an automatic right of appeal of the decision itself.

I, of course, welcomed this and requested that both the current award and the 2001 decision be referred to an Independent Tribunal. When I later informed the European Court the cases were then due for an independent hearing they vacated my application to them on the basis my rights under article 6.1 had then not been breached.

The case was eventually heard by the tribunal on the 14th February 2005 and they found in my favour on both applications. My current award was increased to middle rate care and higher rate mobility and extended to run till 2008.

The same award was made for the period from 16th July 2001 to the start of the current award but because the DLA decision had been in response to my phone call of 16th July 2001 they could not backdate the award beyond that date. They did, however, state very clearly that in their opinion I had clearly met the criteria for the award well before that date.

Whilst extremely happy with the result, as it vindicated my unwavering belief in the justice of my claim and also my decision to act as a self-advocate, this still left two matters unresolved. The first of these was settlement of my claim for compensation for losses sustained as a result of the errors by the DWP and the other being the still unanswered request for the period from April 1998 to July 2001 to be reconsidered.

The compensation claim, which includes the Income Support and related benefits I would have received had the claim been dealt with correctly in the first place, has already been denied. The DWP are now maintaining that their only mistake was in admitting they had not informed me of the October 2001 decision until August 2004.

As I pointed out to them they not only didn’t inform me of that decision they also omitted to inform the High Court, Commissioner or Court of Appeal. In their view the resulting delay of nearly four years to obtain justice was my fault because I had not appealed a decision I was not even made aware of until they admitted their mistake.

I am still waiting a final response on whether they will now reconsider the outstanding claim for the missing three years from 1998-2001. In the event they do carry out such a review this will also restore my rights of appeal for the period. If they instead decide not to carry out a review this will be a decision not to decide and as such will at least be subject to a right of judicial review.

In view of this I am holding off taking further action at the High Court in respect of the refusal to agree compensation in case this other aspect of my claim needs to form part of that application for judicial review. I am also currently trying to secure a meeting with either the Secretary of State or the appropriate Minister in the hope this might allow common sense to prevail but, so far, have not met with any success.

I feel such a review of my case by the Secretary of State or the Minister would help to inform the current debate on reform of the disability benefits system as a whole, but the key reason I am trying to avoid the need for further court action is the severe toll this seven year battle has already had on my state of health. I now have serious doubts about my ability to cope with the strain of yet more hearings and appeals and in truth feel I should not have to.

As already mentioned earlier, recent brain scans have confirmed I have Cerebral Arteriosclerosis / Atherosclerosis (hardening and furring up of the blood vessels in the brain) and this rather than MS is the likely cause of my various neurological problems not least as the same condition is almost certainly also effecting the blood supply to my various limbs as well.

It is also likely that my past episodes of severe worsening of my condition over the last ten years are down to suffering a series of Transient Ischaemic Attacks (mini strokes). The good news is my spinal cord is OK and the cervical stenosis I suffered prior to the operation to repair this in 1996 has not yet returned so at least my spinal cord is safe for now, although the severe arthritis in my spine is still progessing nicely, but I didn’t need a scan to tell me that.

Despite all this additional stress my other chronic dibilitating condition, Hidradenitis Suppurativa, is behaving but I have had a few new early warning signs in my armpits so I hope this continues to be the case. I have already had to have the whole of my right groin removed after the stress of the 2001 tribunal exacerbated the condition.

I still have some other tests to undergo including an ultrasound of my testes and also a further gastroscopy, as they now also suspect I may have an ulcer to go with my hiatus hernia, reflux oesophagitis and the chronic diverticular disease in my bowel. At least I don’t have to go for another colonoscopy till next spring so that’s something to be thankfull for.

It has been a long and often painful process to finally pin down the specific causes of my disability and illhealth but at least now I have answers to most of the questions and this should allow me to get on with my life and make the best of things. It is a shame, however, that the long delays in finding these answers also played a part in the deplorable treatment I have received from the Department for Work and Pensions.

So there you have it, a fifty year journey to travel fifty yards from one side of Cherry Close to the other. Despite my current inability to work I feel it has been a worthwhile journey and that I have in some small way already justified my existance. In fact I am one of the lucky ones as life has presented me with the oportunity to enjoy many prosperous years along the way. Others have been far less fortunate, being struck down by disability and illness before they have even been able to share in the benefits of our collective wealth as a nation by being able to work.

What Tony Blair, and the government as a whole, seem to have forgotten is that the value of an individual is not diminished by an inability to work, each of us contributes something to the whole regardless of our situation. My own experience working with the wonderful people at Leyden House (a centre for adults with severe learning difficulties) taught me that.

My first project as a volunteer way back in 1992 was a survey of the clients to seek their views on improvements that could be made to the service provided. To a man and woman the first response was not what would help themselves but what they knew might benefit others. As bad as their own situation might be the overwhelming desire was always to help others. One of the main reasons centres like this work is that it is the users who end up providing a large amount of the care for each other.

Yes it is true that removing the obsticles to work is the best chance for the disabled to escape from poverty. And yes removing any disincentives to work is part of that. But to do so in a way that only serves to discriminate against those still unable to obtain or be capable of such gainful employment is unaceptable in any civilised society. The acid test of any society is after all how it treats its weakest members.

I apologise for the length of this detailed history of how I ended up where I am now but hope it will serve to explain my responses to the Care Charge Questionaire you have asked me to complete.

Peter J Farrington.

(Sevice user and unofficial benefits advisor.)

I would, of course, also extend that same apology now to any fellow H2G2's who may have taken the trouble to read this undoubtedly rather long(ish) version of my original introduction. LOL

As time allows I will up-date this entry with the missing information from 2005 till now but as I am sure you will realise working on such a project takes someone like myself a lot of time and energy when both are in short time because of our various disabilities.

As the dear old Beeb used to say after many radio programs:

"If you have been - Thanks for listening"

Peter aka "Sociable"

"Go placidly..be gentle with yourself..strive to be happy"

NB Also see the latest update detailing the key points of the long awaited but now imminent judicial review to be held at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in the next few weeks.

Hi Peter

>>"If you have been - Thanks for listening"<<
Break time

We're the same age, 56.
We're getting there!

I know you're very busy preparing for your fight in the High Court.
Perhaps 'see' you later, when things calm down a bit.

from everyone

Hi Sociable

BUMP 21 Jan 2009
OUCH! has been closed since last night

Hi Warner,

Just logged in to check how things were going and yes looks like it may be a while before it's up and running again.

Would have tried to quieten things down yesterday but was otherwise engaged as it was my birthday and actually I doubt any of us could have done much to stop it escalating the way it did in the end anyway.

I have sent a quick email to Damon and Co (the Hosts) offering my support for the decision and letting them know we are all ready to help in any way we can to restore some peace and calm back to the boards as and when it reopens.

Oh well life goes on and at least it will give me some extra time to prepare for the hearing next week. LOL

I see you like a good long read so feel free to check out the latest addition to my journal in the form of a copy of the Skeleton Argument I have lodged with the Court for next weeks hearing which detail the case and how I will be presenting it over the three days (if it takes that long).

All the best and hope to see you back on the main boards soon

Peter aka "Sociable"

I'm following your case with great interest ..

And congrats on your birthday
One of my favorites!