Why am I being penalized?

daska

The real kick in the teeth is that they do assess you financially so they already know that if you hadn't paid your NI you would qualify for help.

But there is a gap in the clouds every now and then. I've just had a phonecall to tell me that my husband has finally been awarded DLA. Yippee! Another battle won in the long war to get him back on his feet.

Bubbles911

daska wrote: »

So I've written to my MP. Anyone else care to join me?

Daska could you pm me along the lines of what you have wrote? I have thought a few times of writing to mine but just cant seem to put it across right.

daska

Dear xxxx

This letter is to make you aware of the iniquitous treatment of some ESA recipients and to request that you bring this to the attention of people who are in a position to remedy the situation.

The DWP accepted my application for ESA and sent me an award letter stating "We call this Contribution Based and Income Related ESA". My support worker and I struggled to understand what this meant so between us we have made several calls to the ESA helpline in an attempt to establish exactly what I have been awarded. We have variously been told that I get Contribution Based ESA only, Contribution Based ESA with an underlying entitlement to Income Related ESA, that I am entitled to free prescriptions, that I am not, that I have to apply using an HC1 form, that I'm entitled, and now, today, that I'm not. It seems that the call-centre staff are not adequately trained to offer correct advice and are judged by how many calls they answer rather than by the accuracy of their answers - this creates additional work for the staff, wastes tax-payer's money and, speaking personally, causes great distress for the DWP's so-called 'customers'.

Having finally had a call back from a lady who appears to have found someone who understands the rules; this is the situation for someone qualifies for both Contribution Based ESA and Income Related ESA:

1. ESA (CB) exceeds the amount awarded for ESA (IR): no additional benefits because you're not on a low enough income.

2. ESA (CR) and ESA (IR) are equal because the customer has paid sufficient NI contributions: no additional benefits

3. ESA (IR) exceeds the amount awarded for ESA (CB) because the customer hasn't made sufficient NI contributions (unemployed or self-employed): free prescriptions, cold weather payments etc.

Why does someone who hasn't paid sufficient NI Contributions get these additional benefits. According to the 'decision maker' it's because entitlement to ESA (CB) takes precedence over entitlement to ESA (IR). And the reason for giving precedence to ESA (CB) is not to do with the 'customer' but to do with making sure the money comes out of the correct 'pot'.

So, for purely administrative reasons two 'customers' in exactly the same current financial position will be treated very differently: 'Customer A', as a direct result of paying NI contributions, suffers a financial penalty (e.g. no cold weather payments) and has greater costs (no help with healthcare) than 'customer B' who has never worked a day in their life.

By being denied their entitlement to ESA (IR) the same people can be denied other advantages such as reduced price leisure facilities because the judgement on their financial wellbeing is based entirely on the name of the benefit rather than their financial health.

So then come the excuses:
"You can always apply to the NHS for help with healthcare costs". Yes, but this creates additional work and distress for the 'customers' as well as additional work for the NHS - why should the customer and the NHS have the burden of assessing claims again when the DWP has already collected the relevant information and confirmed that there is an entitlement?
"If you're on a low income you're probably claiming another benefit that allows you to qualify." Yes again, but not everyone is claiming another benefit that qualifies and the DWP has already collected the information and confirmed that there is an entitlement.

Making this benefit fairer to all (including the DWP call centre staff and the NHS and ultimately the tax-payer) would surely be very easy. I can think of two simple options off the top of my head: either make ESA (CR) 1p less than ESA (IR) or allow for an 'underlying entitlement' that prevents people who have paid their NI contributions from being discriminated against.

Please, make a stand to help everyone - simplify the system, a single place to access help and support with the nightmare of applying for all benefits. We are not lazy we are ill and we need help.

I hope that you are able to address the issue above for the benefit of all who are struggling as a result of an administrative decision.

Yours Sincerely

NASA_2

Nice letter but it will never happen.

If your husband has been awarded DLA you should be entitled to the Disability Premium though which will lift your ESA(IR) above the rate of ESA(C) meaning you are now entitled to the means tested part of the benefit.

That is assuming that your husband is on your claim. If he isnt, he should be, if he is, and he is out of work and no other income, then your ESA(IR) should already be above the ESA(C) rate.

daska

Nothing changes if people won't make any effort. I'm not expecting any major legislative change as a result of my letter but if everyone in the country bothered to write to their MP to challenge this then that would almost certainly bring about a change in policy. Economically this system is so far from being cost effective that making this change would save money because there would be less administration to implement it, less energy consumption etc.

Personally I don't believe that people should get more money because they've worked. Benefits should be based on need not greed. I have high costs because I'm disabled and have a young child and I'm very grateful for the help I get but I don't believe I should get more than I need just because I was lucky enough to have a good income when I worked.

RE the DLA and ESA claims in my husband's name. We're separated but it's amicable and I'm happy to help him where I can. I doubt he'll be eligible for ESA because he part-owns a flat that's rented out, - his support worker has helped him with the application forms but 5 months and counting they're still asking for information.

NASA_2

Its still much cheaper to deny ESA(C) (And IB) claimants the perks that ESA(IR) (And IS) customers get.

daska

So how many other perks are there?

yellowduck_2

Daksa your letter is great, I have often considered writing something similar to my MP, It angers me that having worked for over 35 years and paid NI and tax I then get less than someone who has not worked and contributed. The other thing that got me mad was council tax benefit when I was on very reduced wages due to sickness, in the month I took home £540 I was entitled to £4 92p off my council tax,meaning I was taxed at over 10% while my friends on the same street as me with a joint take home income of £2, 600 were taxed at 3.8%. I was going to write to my MP about this too, but to be honest having met him, I think I would be wasting the postage.

ChishyChoshy

Those jammy income related sods they get everything don't they?

Unless they have too much in savings then their benefit goes down.
Or if their partner works and that's deducted from their benefit.

Still they get £25 when it's cold! Swines

NASA_2

ChishyChoshy wrote: »

Those jammy income related sods they get everything don't they?

Unless they have too much in savings then their benefit goes down.
Or if their partner works and that's deducted from their benefit.

Still they get £25 when it's cold! Swines

Being expected to live off savings when you can claim other peoples tax money?

Horrific stuff.