is incapacity benefit going to means tested?

babyboysmommy

Thank you for that. So am I right in thinking that at the moment they are moving you over when your IB naturally comes up for reassessment? They are as of today not fast tracking it?

bertiebat

babyboysmommy wrote: »

Thank you for that. So am I right in thinking that at the moment they are moving you over when your IB naturally comes up for reassessment? They are as of today not fast tracking it?

Yes I think that will probably be the case still. I was just playing around at being cynical, but I think it's unlikely for them to change that part of things.

sunnyone

I read in the paper last week that they havnt decided what to do with those of us on IVB because as our benefit isnt affected by private pensions we are recieving and its also not taxable.

What I dont get is why arnt we getting the transitional protection that we have had since IB was introduced, we have had it for 15 years so far (since 1995).

bertiebat

sunnyone wrote: »

I read in the paper last week that they havnt decided what to do with those of us on IVB because as our benefit isnt affected by private pensions we are recieving and its also not taxable.

What I dont get is why arnt we getting the transitional protection that we have had since IB was introduced, we have had it for 15 years so far (since 1995).

To be truthful, I see no reason since they are changing the rules of entitlement to IB claimants as well, why we shouldn't now all be in same boat.

Not saying the changes are right (they're not in my view), but see no reason why IVBs should get more protection than anyone else.

sunnyone

bertiebat wrote: »

To be truthful, I see no reason since they are changing the rules of entitlement to IB claimants as well, why we shouldn't now all be in same boat.

Not saying the changes are right (they're not in my view), but see no reason why IVBs should get more protection than anyone else.

We claimed a benefit at a point in time and we have remained eligable for that benefit since that time, when the benefit was done away with we were offered protection to make sure we were no worse off and I cant see why thats diffrent for us now OR IB claimants.

Its not just IVB claimants that have had favorable treatment since 1995 when our benefits ended, thats the way things were (and until now are....)

The indesicion on IVB was since the spending review btw.

bertiebat

sunnyone wrote: »

We claimed a benefit at a point in time and we have remained eligable for that benefit since that time, when the benefit was done away with we were offered protection to make sure we were no worse off and I cant see why thats diffrent for us now OR IB claimants.

Its not just IVB claimants that have had favorable treatment since 1995 when our benefits ended, thats the way things were (and until now are....)

The indesicion on IVB was since the spending review btw.

OK I'm with you on the protecting where you are now basis. I thought when I originally read the details that everybody was going to be no worse off. I will try and find the link but I think the details may have now have changed.

I just now wondering whether they intend to protect us against the 1 year WRAG rules (but suppose that would be too much to hope for). Wonder whether any legal people have looked into this?

sunnyone

bertiebat wrote: »

OK I'm with you on the protecting where you are now basis. I thought when I originally read the details that everybody was going to be no worse off. I will try and find the link but I think the details may have now have changed.

I just now wondering whether they intend to protect us against the 1 year WRAG rules (but suppose that would be too much to hope for). Wonder whether any legal people have looked into this?

I IVB started to reduce in April 2009, they are taking my extra amount paid on top of IVB which was an additional pension based on my NI contributions I had made up until I was forced onto IVB due to disability but thats been glossed over.

cyclonebri1

bertiebat wrote: »

• where people who are eligible for ESA receive more on existing incapacity benefits than the appropriate ESA rate, their existing rate of benefit will be frozen at the point of conversion;
• where people who are eligible for ESA receive less on incapacity benefits than the appropriate ESA rate, their benefit will immediately be increased to the ESA rate on conversion;

www.dwp.gov.uk/adviser/updates/ib-reassessing-claims/

Thanks for that Bertie, very usefull but still confusing. (I have deleted most of your quote leaving the bit I refer to).

In my case of having my IB reduced by 3/4 due to pension income I would be better off??? Which is wierd and wrong, I'm not seeking higher benefits. And this is for 1 year only?, what happens then?

BLT_2

bertiebat wrote: »

Because for as many years as I can remember if you were employed and therefore paid National Insurance contributions at a certain level for the previous 2 years before having to claim, then you were entitled to claim incapacity benefit for as long as you qualified for it. The clue's in the title of National Insurance.

If this system had not been around, then people may have chosen to get another insurance policy instead. The rules should not have been changed retrospectively.

I'm pretty sure the government don't subscribe to that policy - unless it impacts on their own rights :rotfl:

However the issue remains that if you exempt IB from the savings rule then you must exempt all other benefits for those in need - you should not have one rule for one section of the society and a different rule for others.

If you have 20,000 in savings you are not needy until that runs out. If you are Joe Public with a wife and two kids and lose your job, with 20,000 in savings, you will not get benefit. Is this individual any less needy than a person on IB ?

If applying for social housing you are not homeless until you are evicted or have notice of eviction. The social fund is there to help those who have NO ability to fund themselves.

cyclonebri1

BLT wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the government don't subscribe to that policy - unless it impacts on their own rights :rotfl:

However the issue remains that if you exempt IB from the savings rule then you must exempt all other benefits for those in need - you should not have one rule for one section of the society and a different rule for others.

If you have 20,000 in savings you are not needy until that runs out. If you are Joe Public with a wife and two kids and lose your job, with 20,000 in savings, you will not get benefit. Is this individual any less needy than a person on IB ?

If applying for social housing you are not homeless until you are evicted or have notice of eviction. The social fund is there to help those who have NO ability to fund themselves.

So how do you factor in and allow for the fact that responsible people are just that, and will make provisions?

You are simply saying don't bother?, the state takes over?. Errrrrr, it's just been said in the last 2 weeks it won't?