Type 1: Prescription fine

[CarbsRok]

I replied to this earlier, but the mods appear to have taken down my useful answer. Type 1s used to have blanket exemption just like the over 60s and under 16s until 2002,

This isn't quite correct, you still had to have an exemption certificate before then. I had one back in the 1970's

 

[catherinecherub]

I replied to this earlier, but the mods appear to have taken down my useful answer

The Mods did not take down your "useful answer" but edited the parts that broke forum rules.
If you do not agree with a post then please do not resort to name calling.

 

[towerhil]

Yes but it would have been issued once and that was it. Even so, they have never had the legal right to raise this fine without proving knowing deception. They should make it a blanket exception, repay the money they have wrongfully taken and apologise for their letters threatening people's credit rating.

 

[rubold]

Yes but it would have been issued once and that was it. Even so, they have never had the legal right to raise this fine without proving knowing deception. They should make it a blanket exception, repay the money they have wrongfully taken and apologise for their letters threatening people's credit rating.

I've not heard of this threat to credit ratings, have you had a letter? If so it is totally illegal to threaten this when it does not actually involve a credit agreement. You could take them to the cleaners over this.

 

[towerhil]

Yeah there isn't a threat to credit ratings ....not yet anyway (it might come to that if the publicity/wheels set-in-motion do not act quickly enough)
.

They sent me a letter specifically threatening my credit rating.

 

[rubold]

Most definitely show any letter, that threatens a credit rating, to a solicitor. Anyone that issues such, in the absence of a credit agreement being breached, must be taken to task. I still can't believe that any organisation would have the nerve or stupidity to issue such a letter

 

[towerhil]

You must be further down the line than I am then. Write to them and ask for their legal basis, under the logic in #530.
I am going to write to them on that basis, along with all the other information in this thread. My printer could be very busy LOL

I know what basis they think it is, but they happen to be wrong about it. That's why it's so weird - 'I'm going to give you free medicines even when they're not for diabetes, but put a foot wrong and I'll fine you £150, take you to court and wreck your credit rating' is the stuff of abusive relationships!

 

[towerhil]

Most definitely show any letter, that threatens a credit rating, to a solicitor. Anyone that issues such, in the absence of a credit agreement being breached, must be taken to task. I still can't believe that any organisation would have the nerve or stupidity to issue such a letter

I know, right! I had a letter lined up demonstrating how their actions were illegal, but am rejigging it today so it becomes a prelegal.

 

[softgirl123]

The response from your MP will be that the minister cannot act, You have a right to fight this. Tell them about your circumstances and ring repeatedly until you get the result you want.

Pasted from below

No, the rules changed in 2002, but they didn't inform people who used to have blanket exemption before that point. In 2002, the info wasn't available online, so they'd have had to write speculatively to DH to ask if an irrational rule change had occurred. Diagnosis before 2002 would mean they didn't get reminder letters either. Finally, it's illegal for them to raise a charge if the individual didn't knowingly deceive the NHS. Section 122 of the Health Act 1999, or 194 of the NHS Act 2006 (same wording). Stop defending an indefensible, illegal act and stand beside your fellow diabetics. It is depressing that you acquiesced so quickly to this unfair victimisation of other people. Are you really that much of a pushover?

If anyone would like to know how to get around it, simply point out that the pharmacist never asked you for your certificate. My charge was waived as a misunderstanding and I'll now fight for a blanket exemption, such as is enjoyed by those under 16 and over 60. Easily administered in those cases, as it should be in the case of incurable conditions.



Edited due to offensive remark about another poster.

CC.

hi i did what was advised.i never got asked for card for 7 years after my card run out.but they have not waived mine as a misunderstanding.pointed out the acts u stated.they said they said it they didnt think it was a fraudilent act.but still get a charge as it was out of date.

 

[towerhil]

Charge is smaller, yes?

 

[Spiker]

Some claims are being made on this thread that need to be substantiated. Otherwise people relying on them in good faith could make their situation worse.

"no exemption certificate was required before 2002" - from my own experience this is untrue

"before 2002 an exemption certificate was for life and didn't expire" - does anyone have evidence of this, eg a scan of a pre 2002 card?

"a new certificate is automatically sent out when the old one expires" - not in my experience but does anyone have proof of this?

 

[Spiker]

Also I have had medical staff tell me I was exempt but I have never had medical staff tell me specifically that I don't require a certificate. Anyone relying on this defence would need to show evidence. Does anyone have any evidence of ever being told this? Frankly I doubt it.

 

[iHs]

Who re imburses pharmacies for the prescriptions they dispense foc when a valid medical exemption certificate hasn't been seen by the pharmacy staff?

 

[donnellysdogs]

Good point @iHs... If people are being charged the penalty and cost of drugs on top....thats odd..

 

[softgirl123]

The response from your MP will be that the minister cannot act, You have a right to fight this. Tell them about your circumstances and ring repeatedly until you get the result you want.

Pasted from below

No, the rules changed in 2002, but they didn't inform people who used to have blanket exemption before that point. In 2002, the info wasn't available online, so they'd have had to write speculatively to DH to ask if an irrational rule change had occurred. Diagnosis before 2002 would mean they didn't get reminder letters either. Finally, it's illegal for them to raise a charge if the individual didn't knowingly deceive the NHS. Section 122 of the Health Act 1999, or 194 of the NHS Act 2006 (same wording). Stop defending an indefensible, illegal act and stand beside your fellow diabetics. It is depressing that you acquiesced so quickly to this unfair victimisation of other people. Are you really that much of a pushover?

If anyone would like to know how to get around it, simply point out that the pharmacist never asked you for your certificate. My charge was waived as a misunderstanding and I'll now fight for a blanket exemption, such as is enjoyed by those under 16 and over 60. Easily administered in those cases, as it should be in the case of incurable conditions.
this people should be trained or told of changes.


Edited due to offensive remark about another poster.

CC.

Some claims are being made on this thread that need to be substantiated. Otherwise people relying on them in good faith could make their situation worse.

"no exemption certificate was required before 2002" - from my own experience this is untrue

"before 2002 an exemption certificate was for life and didn't expire" - does anyone have evidence of this, eg a scan of a pre 2002 card?

"a new certificate is automatically sent out when the old one expires" - not in my experience but does anyone have proof of this?

 

[towerhil]

No, you needed one before 2002, but it was issued once and didn't expire. A reminder to renew was sent out only to people diagnosed after 2002.

 

[softgirl123]

I don't think that anyone can prove that.

I thought that was the situation too, but after many days of searching I found my paper-card from the 1970's and it had a start date, and an end date 5 years later.

If anyone attempts to say that they had a card pre-2002 that was issued once and did not expire, NHS BSA will ask for proof.

Basically, they think that they have us by logic, which is
1. if you tick box E then you are saying that you do have an exemption certificate
2. if you say that you have one that never expired then you have to prove it

but it seems that they accept that no attempt at fraud was being made, so I would say to them that if they accept that, then what is the logical basis for the fine.

In other words, if someone ticked box E but never would have qualified for an exemption certificate, then fraud can be implied. But if someone ticked box E who would have qualified for an exemption certificate, then fraud cannot be implied. If fraud cannot be implied, then there is no logical basis for a fine.

they have said i am getting the fine for it being out of date.

 

[rubold]

Also there is no legal basis for a fine unless it is specified in the relevant legislation. Govt. departments, contractors etc. cannot arbirtrarily decide to levy a fine at the whim of some manager. There needs to be clearly laid down rules somewhere. Which legislation would be used to take a fine defaulter to court and which court would be used - magistrates or county?

 

[mike@conisbrough]

The first thing to realise from the wording in that screen shot is they are not fining anyone but are applying a penalty charge - in law there is a difference!

A Fine is issued by a court.

Penalty Charges are a sum decided by an organisation that claims that you have offended and they are inviting you to pay. If you decline payment they can take you to court for payment.
Take a look at internet articles about 'Parking Penalty Charges' and you will see the difference.

 

[Lex_Ley]

I saw this interesting post from another Facebook user with type 1 diabetes "I just got my BSA prescription fine waived and it appears it was illegal because one has to knowingly mislead the NHS - section 122 of the 1999 Act they're referring to and 194 of the NHS Act 2006. I've made Diabetes UK and Jamie Reed [Shadow Minister for Health] aware, and raised it with the diabetes lead for NHS England. Mine was waived because I've never been asked by a pharmacist to produce a certificate in 30 years of being type 1." I imagine this applies to many people.