New Post Advanced Search

Welcome to the new MSE Forum!

If you were registered on the old Forum BEFORE 6th February 2020, you will need to reset your password (here) before you are able to log in. When you've reset your password, you can close this message with the 'X' in the top-right corner to make it disappear. If you need any help getting started, click here.

DLA fraud check

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Disability Money Matters
403 replies 29.2K views
1181921232441

Replies

  • sh1305 wrote: »
    They're making it harder (from what I've heard) to claim. They haven't implied (from what I've heard) that the 20% who will be kicked off are committing fraud.

    Dwp press release sent out to accompany the budget announcment.
    “Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was originally designed to give those with severe disabilities extra help so they could live with dignity and independence in their own homes. While we are absolutely committed to supporting vulnerable disabled people, over the last decade the system has become open to abuse and the numbers claiming has steadily increased. In just eight years the numbers claiming DLA have risen by more than half a million.”

    They are indicating the system is being abused.
    So they are going to test everyone to see if they are abusing the system.

    Fraud rates are 0.5 percent...

    They have set the target of 20 percent...

    If its not to do with fraud, why release a statement like that?

    They could have just relased a statement saying we think the rules are to lax, and need to be toughened up. But no, they released a statement blaming fraud.
    [greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
    [/greenhighlight][redtitle]
    The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
    and we should be deeply worried about that
    [/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)
  • Given that the number of people on DLA has increased by 200% in 18 years, reducing the current numbers by 20% doesn't seem unreasonable.
  • Given that the number of people on DLA has increased by 200% in 18 years, reducing the current numbers by 20% doesn't seem unreasonable.

    Considering the many millions of unclaimed pounds of DLA from people who should be claiming, but are not, it is unreasonable.

    Considering, if everyone that is getting it (minus 0.5 percent fraud) is eligible and meets the criteria, how is it reasonable to pick 20 percent of those people and no longer pay them?

    Considering the growth of the internet over the last decade, its not suprising benefit takeup has increased as more people are aware of what they can claim.

    edit to add: also, they should just say that they want to reduce the numbers, for cost reasons, not blame a fraud rate that does not exist.
    [greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
    [/greenhighlight][redtitle]
    The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
    and we should be deeply worried about that
    [/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)
  • WhiteHorseWhiteHorse
    2.5K posts
    Forumite
    cit_k wrote: »
    Considering the many millions of unclaimed pounds of DLA from people who should be claiming, but are not, it is unreasonable.
    Good point. We hear a great deal about fraud, but rarely anything about the millions that go unclaimed.

    Where do they get these figures anyway? They can only make a statement like '20%' after the investigation has finished. Anything else is pure speculation.

    Or emotive propaganda ...
    "Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracy
    seeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"
    Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.
  • WhiteHorseWhiteHorse
    2.5K posts
    Forumite
    krisskross wrote: »
    Perhaps the economy simply can't afford the cash for all the DLA claims. That's the way I thought it was.
    That's what they would have us believe, certainly.

    On the other hand, if they can afford billions (of our money) to bail out corrupt and incompetent banks, hundreds of millions to prop up the most loathsome foreign regimes, and incalculable amounts spent on wars of conquest ...
    "Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracy
    seeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"
    Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.
  • WhiteHorseWhiteHorse
    2.5K posts
    Forumite
    cit_k wrote: »
    perhaps they should pay carers national minimum wage...
    Interesting idea.
    "Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracy
    seeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"
    Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.
  • WhiteHorse wrote: »
    Interesting idea.

    If carers were to be paid minimum wage then I reckon DLA would be reduced to pay for it.

    There have been huge strides made in the last couple of decades to help disabled people financially but it honestly seems as if some people will never ever be satisfied and always looking for more.

    Even disabled people have to accept that the money available for benefits is finite and needs to be shared out.
  • Indie_KidIndie_Kid
    23.1K posts
    Forumite
    krisskross wrote: »
    If carers were to be paid minimum wage then I reckon DLA would be reduced to pay for it.

    DLA is already a pittance. Carers save this country millions each year. Why doesn't minimum wage apply to them?

    If DLA has to be cut to pay for this, so should AA.
    Sealed pot challenge #232. Gold stars from Sue-UU - :staradmin :staradmin £75.29 banked
    50p saver #40 £20 banked
    Virtual sealed pot #178 £80.25
  • edited 28 July 2010 at 10:30AM
    krisskrosskrisskross PPR
    7.7K posts
    PPR
    edited 28 July 2010 at 10:30AM
    sh1305 wrote: »
    DLA is already a pittance. Carers save this country millions each year. Why doesn't minimum wage apply to them?

    If DLA has to be cut to pay for this, so should AA.

    I'm sure that is another dig at me but as I don't claim carers it wouldn't affect me.

    DLA is not a pittance. Where did you get that idea from? It can be £71 a week plus a completely free car or up to £125 a week. None of this is counted in other benefit payments or taxable. So there would presumably be IS or ESA plus perhaps housing benefit and council tax benefit. And carers allowance.

    All this can add up to a not inconsiderable sum.

    I think the disabled are reasonably well provided for in this country. You are so darned ungrateful. You have never had to live and provide for yourself in the real world that most of us inhabit. You obviously live in some sort of Utopia with a money tree in the garden.

    You presumably have never had a job or supported yourself yet thanks to the benefit system you are able to afford to be online constantly to complain about the poor deal you think you get.
  • Indie_KidIndie_Kid
    23.1K posts
    Forumite
    krisskross wrote: »
    DLA is not a pittance. Where did you get that idea from? It can be £71 a week plus a completely free car or up to £125 a week.

    You mean this "free" car they pay £50 a week? And can pay thousands in adaptions for? £18.95 IS a pittance. Somehow, that has to cover at least 5 hours care per week. When I used to live in London, it would cover 1 hour, with some change left over.

    Where did you get the idea from that the car is completely free? if it was completely free, then tose people with the motability cars would also have the £50 cash per week in their hands.
    Sealed pot challenge #232. Gold stars from Sue-UU - :staradmin :staradmin £75.29 banked
    50p saver #40 £20 banked
    Virtual sealed pot #178 £80.25
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms