Budget - tougher for DLA claimants

krisskross

broxiebear1 wrote: »

ill tell you why i am worried
i met my partner 4 years ago she has a mobility car high rate for life to see her you would think there is nothing wrong with her i even asked how she had a mobility car as i thought only people in wheel chairs had them well she has asthma (is going on a machine next week ) gluchomia some times severe thats problems with her eyes
problems with her hip spine in severe pain at times waiting to see a specialist as pain clinic cant help her when she picks up her prescription she needs a carrier bag and its full with drugs etc.
yea im worried as i said to look at her nothings wrong with her
now lets say they put her off dla says shes fit for work .she then goes on jsa how the hell is she going to get a job ,then IF she gets a job what happens when shes off work sick because of the pain
she will get fired
I THOUGHT WE DEFETED HITLER THIS COUNTRY IS THE PITS
im from scotlamd give us our independance NOW:mad:

I honestly don't understand your point here.

If your partner has a valid claim then she won't be affected. It is only right though that people should prove they are entitled to these quite large sums of money. Plus it isn't even due to start for 3 years.

DX2

broxiebear1 wrote: »

im from scotlamd give us our independance NOW:mad:

We will never get independance

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

I honestly don't understand your point here.

If your partner has a valid claim then she won't be affected. It is only right though that people should prove they are entitled to these quite large sums of money. Plus it isn't even due to start for 3 years.

It's not that simple though - for those of us with varying conditions, what happens if we have our medical on a better day?

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

It's not that simple though - for those of us with varying conditions, what happens if we have our medical on a better day?

I assume you will have completed the DLA forms on the basis of fluctuations in your condition. If you have completed based solely on your worst day then you may well come unstuck.

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

I assume you will have completed the DLA forms on the basis of fluctuations in your condition. If you have completed based solely on your worst day then you may well come unstuck.

Of course. They are aware that my conditions do vary.

jennie-jack

Who said about carers doing 5 hours a day, could i please request day hours. i have one child who only just got their feeding pump going as he has been jumping around his room since 8 o'clock and another one laying in my bed after retching her feeds back. i have a feeling it is going to be a long night and im tired. we have been to one pump alarming once already and youngest has had a bed change plus tube venting and meds. id gladly hand the money back if someone could do the night shift for me.

deeplyblue

jennie-jack wrote: »

Who said about carers doing 5 hours a day, could i please request day hours.

I think the 5 hours came from the requirement that carers' allowances are for those who spend at least 35 hours a week as carers (over and above normal family life). 35 Hours/7 days in a week = 5 hours a day.

db

NeverInDebt

I think its a case of she is a old battle axe that resents many disabled getting benefits they are entitled to but doesn't mind getting them for her husband and then using it for other things or giving it to charity

headcone wrote: »

Your poor husband must feel very neglected unless, he is attached to you by a cripple sling.

You are never off here!!!

Where do you find the time to care for him Angel?

headcone

NeverInDebt wrote: »

I think its a case of she is a old battle axe that resents many disabled getting benefits they are entitled to but doesn't mind getting them for her husband and then using it for other things or giving it to charity

Judging by the majority of his/her posts I doubt that this person has any concept of what giving for charity means.

I am not disabled but have firsthand knowledge of the difficulties and disadvantages that disability brings.
I can only imagine the misery that certain conditions cause.

I am humbled to see so many disabled people amongst our society struggling and succeeding in a way which by definition Krisscross would like tilted against them.

It is a greedy and selfish attitude.

You can be assured that most people in society pay less tax than me,but i don`t begrudge one penny if it enriches the lives of the dissadvantaged amongst us.

deeplyblue

krisskross wrote: »

I honestly don't understand your point here.

If your partner has a valid claim then she won't be affected. It is only right though that people should prove they are entitled to these quite large sums of money. Plus it isn't even due to start for 3 years.

There is a fear that the assessments will not try to establish who is or is not entitled to DLA according to the law and will not be impartially and intelligently administered. Consider:

The Budget figures set out a target saving of (IIRC) 20%. The DWP believe that fraud accounts for 0.5% of claims. Let us suppose (just for the moment) that both these figures are correct.

Let's go a little further and say that a further 4.5% of the money being paid out has been done so on over-generous grounds by the old system. I made that figure up completely - the record suggests that they might find at least as many who are not getting what they're entitled to.

Suppose the re-assessment catches every fraudster, and everyone who was judged too generously. That makes a total cut in the budget of 5%.

If the DWP think that they can achieve savings of 20% in the DLA budget - where is the other 15% coming from?

Options:

1. They re-assess everyone and eliminate 5% of the budget, and say "Oops" when George Osborne's boys drop round.
2. They cut the total amount given to all DLA recipients by 15%
3. They move the goalposts, and say that in the new economic reality we can only give this money to those who are are further up the scale - the rules of 5 years ago don't apply. For example, one of the standard tests by which eligibility for LRC is given is if you can prepare a main meal if someone else has got the ingredients for you. (i.e. not being able to shop - no go; not being able to cook LRC). They could say that that test no longer qualifies you. And re-align the other tests similarly (how far you can walk etc)
4. They can simply decide that every 7th person is disqualified, and put something which essentially says, "Either they are lying or they hysterical and in either case they fail on all grounds." If they have a clear visible disability, then take the next one.
5. They can define the "soft targets" - this usually starts with people with mental health problems, fluctuating conditions and conditions like fibromyalgia which have some opponents in the British psychiatric community. Get rid of them, and maybe the rest will sort itself out.
6. They can use something like the ATOS Can Do test. If the whole thing is being done by a script-driven, computer-moderated interview, then saying things like, "Yes, I can do that, but it leaves me in a lot of pain," get changed into, "Yes," on the computer screen. This is the sort of thing that got ATOS such a bad write-up in the ESA trials. See http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=34214907&postcount=34
   
   for an account of the ATOS way.
7. At the moment, the DLA rules accept that you can't or shouldn't do something if it causes excessive pain or fatigue. Simply re-calibrate. "Will it put you in hospital? No? Then it's not unreasonable to expect you to do it 8 hours a day."

What is worrying a lot of people here is the uncertainty as to which method, or methods, the DWP will use. There must also be a lot of doubt as to whether they will tell us which method they are using.

There must be a suspicion that whatever those methods are they will not be directed at achieving the best, the fairest results for the limited amount of money, but those methods which will deliver the targets in the fastest and cheapest way.

This was the strategy adopted by the Child Support Agency, faced with targets which were impossible to meet by any fair means.

And as for the "Why worry now?" query. It makes sense to me to consider how you will manage if, in three years time, your income is going to be substantially diminished, or you will lose your car. If you suspect that one person in 7 is just going to be dropped in it, or if you know that having M.E. leaves you very vulnerable to computerised assessment, then it makes sense to start your financial planning now.

db