Dla to be replaced by pip

cit_k

Brassedoff wrote: »

Proof? There isn't? Glass backs, cannot face the world, kids with some condition that hides bad parenting or that they are little gits?

The above is not a generalisation. There is an overall majority that are genuine. Do you really beleive every claim is 100% genuine, if so, you are naive at best....

How many discontinue a claim when either questioned or caught who do not appear in the fraud stats? Anyone who reads or takes part in these boards and thinks every claim is 100% genuine are on another planet.

Below is an extract of a response following a FOI Act request made asking for figures of actual known fraud for ESA, JSA and DLA. The response tells you that they do not know :

The principle behind the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act is to give people rights to access information held by public authorities (unless it is exempt). However, that right to information must be balanced by the public authority's duty to deliver its front-line services. The Act allows for public authorities to decline to comply with requests for information on the grounds of cost where these requests would be particularly expensive.

Section 12 of the Freedom of Information!Act allows public authorities to refuse to answer requests for information if the cost of complying would exceed the 'appropriate limit' prescribed in the Fees Regulations (SI 2004/3244). These regulations set out the appropriate limit for costs which for a central Government Department as £600.00, and allows that in considering this cost staff time will be taken as being £25.00 an hour. The cost is therefore £600 or 24 working hours of staff time, or any combination of the 2.

These regulations also allow that where the same person is making multiple requests in the same area i.e. to the Department of Work & Pensions about fraud matters, those requests are aggregated for costs purposes. As such separating your requests would not affect our decision regarding this.

Upon reviewing your request, I agree with the original decision maker that in this instance your request would cost more than the appropriate limit to answer, and therefore the Department is not obliged to answer it. For example in you last question asking for “How many fraud reports were proven as fraud, and of those, how many, as an absolute and a percentage, were against people who have declared a disability?” we do not keep central records which would allow us to answer this question. Beyond the fact that `proven' would need to be defined to allow for a quantifiable benchmark to record, the only way we could provide these details would be to manually check every single case and extract the information required. As you would be able to see on the link provided to you previously on fraud information, answering just this 1 question would involve checking thousands of cases which would therefore breach the cost limit. When looking at all of your questions we would actually breach the costs limit several times over.

Link http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/benefit_fraud_figureshttp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/benefit_fraud_figures

However if you were to narrow down your request we may be able to identify what you want within the FoI cost limits. I would suggest that you examine the link we provided to you on your request, which is the information we collate centrally for statistical purposes, and identify what further information you wish taking into account that additional information may require manual checking of cases to obtain.

No they are not saying they do not know, they are saying the time taken to pull out and categories/sort the data would cost more than the FOI act deems reasonable.

Stats are published for benefit fraud per type of benefit, any more detailed breakdown requires staff time, and that costs money.

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely the most ridiculous aspect of DLA/AA is that you're specifically told on the notes that go with the application form that you can receive the benefit if you have care needs, even if you don't actually receive any care?

Not really, after all, for many care needs cost money, if someone is not currently in a position to afford the care they need, that would mean not having that rule would mean the poor who cannot afford care before they get the benefit, would never be entitled.

cit_k

oldestrocker wrote: »

GlasweJen wrote: »

I've mentioned on another thread saving £25 from my DLA to pay for a fall alarm, the cost of the service will come from my DLA when I can finally afford one. Local SS say that although I would greatly benefit from one I'm not eligable for support from them because I work.

Currently I get £240 every 4 weeks from DLA, it is spent on:
£70 access to work taxi contribution
If I could work and lived on my own I would need a taxi due to MH issues. As it is my wife is my driver.

£90 to Wiltshire farm foods (basically meals on wheels) this is for 5 dinners and 3 lunches per week
If I lived on my own, I would have to have meals delivered. Due to MH and physical issues I have difficulty in preparing/cooking a meal. As it is, my wife does all of this for me and cares 24/7.

£25 fall alarm savings
I have been assessed by my SS as requiring one. It was provided free of charge. I just pay for the monitoring of it.I have it next to the bed and wear a pendant round my neck.
This is only needed when my wife is visiting our children, otherwise she cares for me 24/7 and consequently I don't actually need it.

£10 dressings for wounds (from fainting)
I have a dressing pack provided free of charge by the Community Nurse.

£15 on private prescription meds (not available on NHS even though my consultant wants me on them but he's nice enough to waive his fee from the cost and I get a staff discount).
I can't afford these. I get along with what the NHS provide.

QUOTE]

And you get DLA??

Looks like I should be entitled too!! But why, I have no financial needs, my wife provides them, I have all the care I need free of charge - so what purpose would throwing money at me in the form of DLA give me that I am not getting already?

The only difference it seems is that I am married!!
Or is it that being single you have to buy the care?
So DLA is really a payment to help single people buy care that married people get for nothing - therefore all married claimants should NOT be entitled to it!

Maybe that is another way we can reduce the burden of the Welfare State.

Of course, no disabled person is married to another person with a disablilty, or is married to someone who is working long hours, or requires any care need not covered by wifely duties what ever they may be.

Nor is anyone getting DLA for mobility issues either..

cit_k

oldestrocker wrote: »

To be honest this review has been long overdue. DLA has become a National scandal as viewed by the majority of the British people.
It has been abused and used for far too long as an 'extra top up' of income as well as a key to open other doors!

I am sure that nearly everyone knows or knows of someone that is claiming this benefit illegally. Be it that the claim was exagerated or it was genuine in time gone by but is still being claimed despite an improvement in health that has not been notified.

And before you say that I don't know what I am talking about - I do, I suffer from a progressive disease myself.

This is going to be the first audit of every claimant to ensure that those who are claiming it are genuinely entitled to it.
It should be tightened, the conditions should be made more difficult, AND it should be re-tested every 12 months. One simple way of getting rid of the 'bogus' claims.

Like ESA, it was expected to show approx 25% of false claims - in fact that figure went up to close on 75%.
They expect DLA also to be approx 25%, but who knows - it wouldn't surprise me to find that the failure rate will also hit 70%+.

You know who to blame for this review - not the government - but the ones that have made a laughing stock out of this benefit!!

I welcome the changes and for once we will see some honesty creeping into the benefit system as we are seeing happening to ESA!!!!

They never expected ESA to show up 25 percent of false claims.

They did expect a percentage of people to fail under completely different entitlement rules, there is a big difference.

cit_k

oldestrocker wrote: »

You don't seem to see the bigger picture - you seem to be stuck on what has always happened, will and should continue to happen. Things change and we must change with them!

Things should change for the better though, its a bit silly implementing any change for the worst.

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

Now don't be silly. Unless of course you think Labour had grown another magic money tree to replace the one they stripped bare.

Living in England I also wish we could be free of the financial burden of the Scots. I also wish Scottish MPs were not allowed to interfere and vote on matters that only concern England.

At least now we have an English PM so perhaps there will be less emphasis on money to be chucked at Scotland. Certainly the coalition cannot perform as poorly as Labour did.

Benefit wise they can, they are just implementing labours policies mainly. Usually trying to claim credit for labours work too...

cit_k

oldestrocker wrote: »

What utter rubbish!!! Good on you and please carry on working - you are paying for my Civil Service pension that I get each month and have had since I was 60!

I am not claiming JSA - I claim ESA!!!

I can't work unfortunately, my GP says so, my Consultants say so, so who am I to believe - you or them?

As for condemning you, why should I? If you are genuinely entitled to a disability benefit - that's OK with me - If on the other hand you are defrauding the system in any way - times are a changing!

I believe that those who are genuine will have no objections to more assessments, more checks and more questions by the government if it means we clear the decks of the so called 'bad back' brigade once and for all!

Neither.

Once ATOS gets invloved, it will be them who call the shots, and they may well completely disagree with both your consultant and GP.

cit_k

sh1305 wrote: »

Because of my eye condition, my balance is affected, I have no depth perception and I am colour blind.

Im curious, why did you need cycling gloves, if the above is the case, is it not dangerous for you to be cycling?

I dont know much about your condition, so apologies if the question seems odd, but road safety is important, and Im just curious to know if you actally are cycling with bad balance, and no depth perception? That sounds like a recipe for an accident waiting to happen?

cit_k

oldestrocker wrote: »

Yes I agree with that comment. Firm and fair with regular checkups to ensure that the right amount is being paid.
ATOS are in an ideal position to give that advice to the DWP as they have that specialised knowledge.
You can always appeal if you think them wrong!

Yes ATOS is in an ideal position, I take it you have not seen all the evidence against them?

There knowledge is obviously so specialist, MPs launched this early day motion

That this House notes the Harrington Report, and its criticisms of the French multinational company ATOS, who have a 54 million contract to assess benefit claimants through medical checks; welcomes the Government's agreement with the Harrington Report and its promise to implement the Harrington proposals in full; concludes that ATOShas damaged the public perception of medical assessments, and has also created a serious risk of maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking reports on their systems in the national media; further notes frequent complaints in this regard from Harlow constituents and others; and therefore calls on the Government to act swiftly so that medical assessments are more localised, humane and sympathetic.

Obviously, they are saying the assessments are not localised, inhumane and un-sympathetic. Not to mention the serious risk of maladministration of benefits due to them.

source

cit_k

oldestrocker wrote: »

Whatever they do in their lives has nothing to do with me. But it does show that in my example the figure of fraudalent claims for DLA could be as high as 75% - not 5%.

Maybe the same could be said of those that work in the black economy - they have no morals - how many of those do you know of?
How many have worked for cash and not paid tax or NI?

Dont take up a job working in statistics please, 8 people dont correlate to a few million.