We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
New PIP Rules
Options
Comments
-
I was misdiagnosed with reactive depression and borderline personality disorder, after seeing my psych during a hypermaniac episode i was reassessed as having bipolar.Rocko_Peebles wrote: »Well said. I experienced a Mixed Episode which was initially DX as Anxiety and Depression. I got I'll very quickly and was sectioned and DX with Bipolar, this was 15 years back but I'll never forget the scary feeling.
They can get it wrong. I'm sure i9 read an article saying those with Bipolar can take years to be properly diagnosed
It certainly took many years before disgnosis and appropriate treatment began. This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
rockingbilly wrote: »I don't understand what your problem is with this.
There is no need for consultation. All that is happening is that the government are introducing legislation to counter what the judges decided. There will be no change to the rules for PIP - what was the case in 2016 will still be the case in 2017. You simply cannot have judges making up new rules for PIP.
If the wording of the descriptors are being changed to exclude people with certain conditions who would have otherwise received a higher score, surely this is a change to the rules? In which case, it's not the judges making up new rules, it's the DWP.
What I can't understand (and I may be wrong) is how this can be portrayed as simply stopping a widening of the criteria. Is the current wording of the PIP descriptors not those that were agreed by parliament and underwent consultation with charities and experts? If so, surely the judges are merely correcting the wrong interpretation by DWP, not widening the criteria or changing the rules. It sounds more like the judges are properly upholding who should receive the points based on the wording originally drawn up and now the DWP want to restrict the wording so less people qualify.0 -
If the wording of the descriptors are being changed to exclude people with certain conditions who would have otherwise received a higher score, surely this is a change to the rules? In which case, it's not the judges making up new rules, it's the DWP....
It's a change to the interpretation of the wording of the rules set by the UT. Which was a change to the interpretation of the wording of the rules that the DWP (or the government if you prefer) originally intended. Since it was the DWP who originally set the wording of the descriptors, one can only assume that they knew what they meant to say, so now they have changed the wording to make it clearer...What I can't understand (and I may be wrong) is how this can be portrayed as simply stopping a widening of the criteria.
Because that's what it is... Is the current wording of the PIP descriptors not those that were agreed by parliament and underwent consultation with charities and experts? If so, surely the judges are merely correcting the wrong interpretation by DWP, not widening the criteria or changing the rules. It sounds more like the judges are properly upholding who should receive the points based on the wording originally drawn up and now the DWP want to restrict the wording so less people qualify.
The DWP clearly intended the rules to mean one thing. In terms of mobility activity 1, the intention was that 'overwhelming psychological distress' should be a factor in some descriptors and not in others. They believed that by simply not specifying psychological distress in the wording of certain descriptors that they were excluded from consideration. The UT disagreed.
And thus we have now have a new wording of certain descriptors that goes, “For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot”, which makes the original intention so clear that even the UT can't quibble.
This sort of thing happens from time to time. Parliament creates new legislation. People argue about what it means, and sometimes ask the judiciary to settle the argument. If Parliament doesn't like the result it can create new legislation.
You can argue about what the criteria for PIP should be, but someone has to decide what they should be. That's what governments are for.0 -
If the wording of the descriptors are being changed to exclude people with certain conditions who would have otherwise received a higher score, surely this is a change to the rules? In which case, it's not the judges making up new rules, it's the DWP.
What I can't understand (and I may be wrong) is how this can be portrayed as simply stopping a widening of the criteria. Is the current wording of the PIP descriptors not those that were agreed by parliament and underwent consultation with charities and experts? If so, surely the judges are merely correcting the wrong interpretation by DWP, not widening the criteria or changing the rules. It sounds more like the judges are properly upholding who should receive the points based on the wording originally drawn up and now the DWP want to restrict the wording so less people qualify.
In this context consultation with charities and experts is largely a way of the govt claiming to listen to "the people" then willfully ignoring it. They've also ignored their own equality impact assessments and that of the United Nations.
As ever, they've done what suits their own agenda - looking after their own.0 -
I understand the argument that it may not have been the original intention of the DWP. The error is their doing though. The judges are merely upholding the current descriptors.
What I question is whether the Government (not parliament) can come in and just change the wording that will restrict the criteria.You can argue about what the criteria for PIP should be, but someone has to decide what they should be. That's what governments are for.
This gets the heart of my question. I also thought it was parliament who passes the legislation? If they passed the original legislation and its wording, and that was the wording that everyone consulted worked with, should there not be some level of scrutiny / debate instead of the government being allowed to just change wording when they realise more people are eligible than they intended?0 -
I understand the argument that it may not have been the original intention of the DWP. The error is their doing though. The judges are merely upholding the current descriptors....
If the DWP made an error, it has now been corrected...What I question is whether the Government (not parliament) can come in and just change the wording that will restrict the criteria.
The answer to your question is, yes they can...This gets the heart of my question. I also thought it was parliament who passes the legislation? If they passed the original legislation and its wording, and that was the wording that everyone consulted worked with, should there not be some level of scrutiny / debate instead of the government being allowed to just change wording when they realise more people are eligible than they intended?
Parliament passed the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This gave the Secretary of State the power to issue regulations, originally laid out in the The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, since revised.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377/contents/made
What level of scrutiny and or debate do you want?0 -
my middle grandson contracted viral encephalitis at the age of 18 months.
he went from a normal toddler to a little boy that couldn't sit, stand, walk, talk, feed himself or anything else apart from roll over ( and that took him 2 years to master) he sadly passed away a month short of his 4th birthday.
he received high rate for both components of DLA.
i am blind, but otherwise physically fit, and yet i receive high rate mobility DLA.
i am undoubtedly not as disabled as my grandson was, but just because i am not AS disabled, doesn't mean that i should find walking around easy! you are choosing to minimise anothers problems just because you perceive your daughters problems to be 'worse'.
it is a slippery slope when you start playing the 'my disability is worse than your disability' game.
the award rate is based on the individuals needs, and not on their needs compared to someone else
But when those who have the needs that arise out of alcoholism and/or the taking of illegal drugs AND they are awarded the highest awards of DLA or PIP, it does make the system look sick.0 -
.
As ever, they've done what suits their own agenda - looking after their own.
Not at all. their agenda with PIP was twofold.
1. To ensure that ONLY those that THEY say should get it.
2. And in doing the above meet the financial constraints put upon the Welfare Budget.
If people had their own way the amount of money that is being paid out to DLA/PIP recipients or even benefits in general would only go one way - skywards!
And the likes of me and thousands of others would see their tax bills rise year on year.
Even at 67, I probably pay more tax in a year than most workers on the NMW pay! I do not want to pay any more to support an ever increasing Welfare budget.0 -
rockingbilly wrote: ».
Even at 67, I probably pay more tax in a year than most workers on the NMW pay! .
Yeah right Of Course you do.:rotfl:0 -
Like I have said before, some people have no incentive to get better because they would end up on Jobseeker's Allowance and that would have an impact on Housing Benefit. Some people manipulate the system and that has an effect on people with genuine conditions. I know I can get a well note from a understanding doctor and be signed off work very easily, get given antidepressants by the GP, say I'm unable to leave the house etc. And within some months I would of built up a case saying I'm really disabled by my condition. That is without even seeing a psychiatrist or secondary mental health services. And there are loads of people doing it because it's easy. More then you think.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards