Budget - tougher for DLA claimants

crystyl

Hi someone mentioned the backdating of claims for those who might have to go through the appeals process. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but Osborne did say in the budget that backdated payments will only be made for a maximum of one month as oppossed to the previous maximum of three months!

Apologise if I am wrong but I am sure this is what I heard.

Doom_and_Gloom

crystyl wrote: »

Hi someone mentioned the backdating of claims for those who might have to go through the appeals process. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but Osborne did say in the budget that backdated payments will only be made for a maximum of one month as oppossed to the previous maximum of three months!

Apologise if I am wrong but I am sure this is what I heard.

If you go through an appeal and win they have to backdate it to the day that the claim went in (or if you asked for it to be posted to you the date you asked for the claim form although this won't be applicable when the medicals come in probably). I had a backdate of just over 6 months when I won on reconsideration (you get this before an appeal usually).

I don't think he was on about appeals to be honest with you because as I've stated above they have to backdate it from when the claim was made if you win.

crystyl

Thanks for correcting me D & G :j

covlass

digital-one wrote: »

DLA was abolished.

Theres no point sitting there thinking it wasnt.

DLA was paid to anyone who had a disability, in two components mobility and care. The main criteria was how your illness affects YOU and in essence was available to anyone who met the criteria.

The NEW DLA

Dla is subject to a medical examination where the doctor will assess what you are able to do, only the most severe cases will recieve help. DLA is due to be phased out completely and replaced by ESA. This has been the plan since the green paper circa July 2009. Its heavily suspected the switch will be February 2011, when all DLA claimants will be moved to ESA.

There will be further cuts to welfare as each department is asked to claw back some of the 25% cuts, and suggest where cuts can be further made.

=============

Need a comparison check out ESA and how fundamentally flawed that medical is - DLA will use the same medical.

The new DLA does not account for mental health, your physical ability is not affected by mental health.

Sorry but physical ability can be affected by some mental health conditions.

[Deleted User]

crystyl wrote: »

Hi someone mentioned the backdating of claims for those who might have to go through the appeals process. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but Osborne did say in the budget that backdated payments will only be made for a maximum of one month as oppossed to the previous maximum of three months!

Apologise if I am wrong but I am sure this is what I heard.

This was in reference to Tax Credits not DLA.

daska

Flibertigibit wrote: »

Well common sense would seem to say "working age" ends at retirement age, whatever that is for each individual (as it's changing currently for women and may later for men too) but I have no idea at what age it would start - what age can people start claiming JSA? That might be an indicator.

As for test cases, well I think there might be some mileage in trying to challenge the new rules from people who have been granted an award "indefinitely", but I'm only guessing on that one.

Retirement age or State Pension Age? Ian Duncan Smith appeared to be saying that companies would be prevented from forcing people to retire based on age - so in theory there could be no upper limit.

de1amo

so reading between the lines people with just a major mental health issue will be removed from DLA pretty much as standard because of the criterior for esa--is esa the same crap medical that atos uses--i can walk talk and do most normal things-i cant drive now so need to find extra money for getting the shopping home-thanks dvla

Indie_Kid

de1amo wrote: »

so reading between the lines people with just a major mental health issue will be removed from DLA pretty much as standard because of the criterior for esa

I doubt it - especially if the mental health problems affect your ability to function normally.

jenniewb

easy wrote: »

But jennie, the current system is very flawed indeed. Look how many people struggle with the forms, how many have to go to appeal. So even without having to make savings, it's time it went.

How would you do it ???

I would also point out 1 overriding fact.
THE COUNTRY HAS NO MONEY.

Yes, it would be terrific if all those people who are old, disabled, disinclined to work,haved small children to care for, etc etc etc could be financially cared for by the state.
But it can't happen. The funds aren't there.

So every area has to have some cuts, including those of us who have disabilities.

Now the govt could just say "we will save 20% on DLA by reducing the payments to everyone by 20%".
Or they can say "we will look at everyone who is receiving DLA, and see if they all need it"

Which would you prefer?

How would I do it?

Well first I'd employ a specialist team who works in the field of M/H to develop an idea for those with M/H issues. You cannot put all disabilities in one box and say "hey- here is a plan" if they do a medical interview they may at best weed out some of the more obvious cases but at worst, ever scammer known to man will apply just because they no longer need to rely on their medical history, just whats seen infront of the judge and jury.

sh1305 wrote: »

If you din't give some people DLA, they would most likely end up in care homes. These work out far more expensive.

Correct. If I relapse and am admitted to hospital, it would take £££ to put me under a mental health section as I'd not want to be admitted (if I felt there was no support for me I'd develop my own way of coping and resolving all my problems myself- where other people find it easy to talk to their friends, family and even strangers, I find it very difficult, my family are part and parcle of the problem, most of the friends- all all of the close friends I have are just like me- struggling with their own stuff and on the edge of a break down, infact I am probably further forward then many as I have sort out my own therapy).

After the M/H section, I'd be admitted to hospital. Now the current waiting lists (anything from 6-24 months) would mean I either end up in a private hospital or I am admitted to a general psychiatric until a bed somewhere comes up. This would cost the tax payer anything from £4000 to £10000 a week. And these were the details I was given 10 years ago, its likely to be much more.

My DLA is no where near this amount I should add. And a hospitial stay there is still the chance of relapse. I was admitted to hospital before and most people there were on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th,...16th admission. Hospital does not work for everyone and there is not much real therapy there to help with the original problem. People leave and don't appear to the naked eye as "sick" (they have gained weight) so are not so easily given help/therapy. The problem never gets resolved and the person relapses. Happens with a great many other M/H issues too.

Fact is, the actual hospitalisation itself is stressful, the idea of gaining alot of weight, or for those who hear voices, trialling medication, or for those that self harm, to stop self harming, stop drinking, exist in the bi-polar mood swings with regards to other M/H issues means its very difficult to even use therapy properly so intense therapy while your having to deal with other things may not be the way to go. But it does need to happen somewhere and at the moment for many of us, it just doesn't happen.

easy wrote: »

The proposals talk about having a "medical assessment" for eligibility for DLA.

Now, that term could cover many possibilities, including taking a look at the medical history/social workers reports etc for the claimant.

I'm sure your eligiblity won't be denied on the strength of a 1/2 hour consultation with a doctor, during which you don't happen to have an epilectic fit or whatever.

*This* sounds like a better idea, but I can't help but worry that it wont happen like that as the government has no money (though enough money to pay for the £nearing-million booze they drunk at the celebration party when they won...) they are likely to cut corners wherever.
As far as I see, and from how it feels, with a Conservative P.O.V, anyone on benefits is scum. They do not like or support these people, so wherever they can justify to themselves taking money, this will go first. That is what worries me. I just don't feel they care or want to help anyone who is in need of or has little money to support themselves. (Though funnily enough I have heard nothing about the London Living Wage being mentioned...)

I hope they do ask for evidence and back up, I hope the medicals they input are better then the ones I have had in the past who at best seemed clueless and at worse didn't seem like a doctor at all. I have not had to appeal in the past following medicals but do the government not see those that do appeal will also cost the tax payer more money?

Blahblahblah_2

sh1305 wrote: »

DLA isn't awarded because of expenses due to disability. Well, you can't ask for a certain rate based on needing to spend x amount on disability related things.

That's a good idea, perhaps DLA should be based on the actual additional costs incurred as a result of having a disability.

I entirely agree that people with significant disabilities should be offered some sort of monetary support from the government in order to enable them to live an independent life as possible. I do not, however, see how handing out a fixed amount of money is going to help a lot of people with disabilies in achieving that. It should not be seen as a 'compensation' payment for being ill.

If people, when applying for DLA, had to submit a claim listing exactly the additional expenses incurred as a consequence of their disability, they could, if approved, get exactly the amount of money they needed to meet those expenses. People with higher levels of need could, in theory, then get higher levels of support.

Only an idea.

DOI: I have a significant illness. On the basis of posts from other members of the forum it sounds like I could probably claim DLA and be successful. I don't as I can't imagine what specific things I would spend the money on which would help me to live with my illness any better.