Dla to be replaced by pip

Indie_Kid

petrolhead. wrote: »

You are wrong. The ESA50 clearly asks you to identify that aspect of your condition. So with the assessors report saying you could carry out the function and your clearly written report in the ESA50 saying that you can but with severe restrictions, the Decision Maker can see the position and make a perfectly valid decision based on both sources of evidence.

I got told that you say you can't do it. You need to be able to carry out the descriptor for most of the time - not just once.

petrolhead.

sh1305 wrote: »

What do you suggest then? Some people (such as myself) have conditions that are unpredictable. I can't say "right, I can work Monday to Thursday for 5 hours each day", because my conditions don't work like that. And then there's being able to get up and get to work.



This already happens. It does say on my DLA letter that my conditions do vary - which is very true.

Hello,
Well to be honest you have answered the question yourself!
OK, the hours aren't fixed in stone, as they can vary wildly. But the principle is that at those times that you are OK, you cannot be said to be unfit for work.
Let's say you are self employed, you could work the hours that you feel able and earn an income. That will in itself remove the total reliance on benefits - work is good for you, even if it only for therapy purposes and self esteem.

This ability to move in and out of work, should be considered in this new PIP benefit. It certainly fits in with the thinking of the Government of always being better off financially when working.

So given my example of being fit for 2/3rd of a day (4hrs) and unfit for the rest (2hrs), do you think I should be classed as being fully unfit for work or be told to claim JSA?

I am intending to do self employed contracting work from home at the times that I am able - even if it is only 4 hours in a day. All I need is a paper, pen, a laptop and a telephone.
That is why having a variable condition allows me to be ill and work.

Yes it does on the existing DLA Notice. But I think you may find that it will be considered in more detail under PIP. Maybe the use of lower rates will be more widespread for variable conditions, leving the upper rates for continual illnesses that aren't variable.

Indie_Kid

PIP & DLA have nothing to do with work. You can work and receive DLA - I've done it and there are people on here who do.

So given my example of being fit for 2/3rd of a day (4hrs) and unfit for the rest (2hrs), do you think I should be classed as being fully unfit for work or be told to claim JSA?

The average working day is around 8 hours. So you would be told to claim JSA.

petrolhead.

sh1305 wrote: »

PIP & DLA have nothing to do with work. You can work and receive DLA - I've done it and there are people on here who do.



The average working day is around 8 hours. So you would be told to claim JSA.

Hello,

I was identifying what ESA does now and how those rules could form part of the PIP decision making.

My example was a 30 hour week. For ESA purposes, being able to work for 2/3rds and be unable to work for 1/3rd would lead to being found fit for work. That is called a variable condition. I think that that is the right decision and that is what they have decided for me.

None of this 'if you are only ill for 1/3rd and it is variable therefore to be treated as being unable to work for all of the time'.
Likewise hopefully with the new PIP, the same will apply. There are two rates High and Low. The highest should go to those that don't have a variable condition and are ill all of the time, whereas the lowest should go to those that have a variable condition. Ill sometimes but not all of the time.
It's the difference between being in need all of the time or some of the time. Being able to be mobile for some of the time but not all of the time.

petrolhead.

sh1305 wrote: »

I got told that you say you can't do it. You need to be able to carry out the descriptor for most of the time - not just once.

For ESA, what you are saying is stretching the truth a little.
Are you suggesting that you are able to comply with a descriptor if you show that you can't do something some of the time, but not all of the time?
That is really stretching the point a little.
So your argument is that you may be ill and incapable for part of the day which automatically means you are for all of the day?

For PIP, I think it should differentiate between those that have a variable illness/condition and those that have difficulties 24/7.

Brassedoff

petrolhead. wrote: »

It's the difference between being in need all of the time or some of the time. Being able to be mobile for some of the time but not all of the time.

That will be a good thing for those with pyhscal disabilities, those who I believe will lose out will be the ones with mental illnesses, depression etc for example will probably not be seen as a long term thing (I know it can last years and be very severe) and the DWP/NHS be forced/then give the right support to get these groups back into work.

I assume the amount of Blue Badges/motability cars will drop down as a result of the large volume of refusals, downgrades or short term catigorising of illnesses with this new system as many who get this benefit without physical disabilities or long term illnesses will no longer qualify?

Vaila

Prinzessilein wrote: »

I am really worried about the changes. (Part of my condition predisposes me to worrying!)
=QUOTE]
hi, you might want to have a look on this forum which is specifically concerned with asd/autism
http://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/25768-disability-living-allowance-reform-public-consultation-link/

overall i feel that the media has concentrated far too much on the student protest/educational cuts than the reforms that will be made to dla . its almost like they will now disregard someones disabillity basically to save money. yes the 6 month "medical" may prove useful to those with physical disabillitys that can fluctuate but something like autism which can also carry other mental and physical disabillitys cannot be judged like that !if anything im sure many claiments with asd will feel stressed and even humiluated by the prospect of being assesed

the talk of suicide is now become a widely discussed issue on protests and forums in regards to these reforms
as usual with the tory government its those worse of either due to disabillity or financially will suffer most

anyway,sorry for my rant
check out "the national autistic society" website and the forum that i linked prinzess

cit_k

petrolhead. wrote: »

What and why I was answering the other letter is because you don't need a specialist in whatever is wrong with you to assess these descriptors. Give me a tenner and I'll do half a dozen!

If you ignore legislation, you dont certainly would not need a specialist to use LIMA (the software the assessor uses), pretty much anyone computer literate to a basic degree could use it.

If you want a accurate medical report, a specialist would be best.

petrolhead. wrote: »

They are all factual. You either aren't or don't or are and can carry them out.

Not really, you can factually and truthfully say or demonstrate that you cannot do something, and the assessor, or even the software could disagree.

In any case, the descriptors are not what ATOS look at really, they look at any old thing to try to fit the evidence around the descriptors, instead of actually looking properly to see if you fit the descriptors.

petrolhead. wrote: »

Why on earth you would need a heart specialist to assess someone who may have a dicky heart to find out if they can walk, sit, stand, pick up a coin, etc etc beats me.

Because a nurse for example may not have the skills to be able to safely disagree with what a claimaints states or demonstrates, a specialist would be in a much better position to state the claimaint was pulling a fast one.

petrolhead. wrote: »

The problem lies in the descriptors not really looking at what is actually going on in the real world. Not ATOS's fault, they have been given the tools to do the job set for them. The government should revise the checklist.

So until that is sorted out, things will go wrong.

Its worse, as the descriptors are badly implemented and badly analysed at asssessment... The software needs binning.

cit_k

petrolhead. wrote: »

Hello,
Thanks for your comments.

But then if that is the case, surely it is not the problem of ATOS, but of the Decision Maker?

For example the assessor may find that you could walk a certain distance, pick up a coin, sit down for 30 mins etc. You argument is that that does not take into consideration if you can do it repeatedly. You say only a specialist could give that guidance.

You are wrong. The ESA50 clearly asks you to identify that aspect of your condition. So with the assessors report saying you could carry out the function and your clearly written report in the ESA50 saying that you can but with severe restrictions, the Decision Maker can see the position and make a perfectly valid decision based on both sources of evidence.

What use would there be for a specialist then - only maybe to confirm what you have already written on your ESA50, in which case you are saying that the DWP routinely ignores the contents of the ESA50, or is it that you haven't completed the ESA50 as required?

If that were the case, how is it that many pass the assessment based only on the two sources of evidence.

Until such time as the DWP change their way of working and move to an evidential based assessment (which is what the new PIP benefit is doing) then we have to rely on the Decision Makers making the right decision on the evidence they ask for.

When you fill in your form, it first goes to atos who do a pre board medical on you (via your form info) and that is sent to the decision maker, it recommends to them if you need an assessment or should pass into one of the esa groups automatically....

I would be shocked if decision makers bothered reading ESA forms, same with ATOS, in fact, I know ATOS didnt on my last one...

zzzLazyDaisy

petrolhead. wrote: »

My example was a 30 hour week. For ESA purposes, being able to work for 2/3rds and be unable to work for 1/3rd would lead to being found fit for work.

What about people like me who can be bed-bound for two or three weeks at a time, needing 24 hours care, yet on other days I can drive my car and walk to the shops.

My condition comes on without warning - I can literally go to bed fine one night and be unable to get out of bed the next morning. I can be out of the house and feel myself becoming ill and HAVE to get home immediately.

I was forced to retire early from a profession that I loved and in which I was a high earner. Fortunately this enabled me to put some savings away, which are rapidly disappearing. Does anyone really think I would choose to survive on benefits if I was capable of returning to my former lifestyle????

Yes I do some permitted work - I work on average about 4 hours a week, from home giving employment law internet and telephone advice for a local company. But even this only works because they understand that sometimes they may have to wait a few weeks for contract drafting etc, because I can't risk doing that sort of work when I am unwell, owing to the risk of making mistakes, which is obviously not acceptable when working on legal documents.

At the moment I get HRC/HRM DLA and am exempt from the IB medical. However I am very worried that the only way I will be able to attend a medical will be to wait until I have a day when I am able to leave the house - which by definition will be a day when I am more likely to be able to perform the tests.

I am under three specialist consultants, all of whom have said that they will write reports explaining my conditions and why I am unable to work, but I am resigned to possibly having to sell my specially adapted house to release money to support myself, should the worst happen and I lose my benefits.

These are very worrying times. I have no faith in DWP or ATOS making the right decision in my case.