Dla to be replaced by pip

youngmummy

FusionFury wrote: »

I have CP and AS where does this leave me? can anyone help I'm really worried reading this

do you mean cerebal palsey

i have cerebal palsey. and have been told it wont get any better, most likely worse in time. im in constant pain, struggle to walk, left a lovely house for a ground floor flat because i struggled with the stairs and the size of the property. (2 up 2 down). i dont have strength in my upper body. can't even lift a kettle with anoth water in to make 1 drink. im 19, and it sometimes gets me down that if im like this at 19 what will my life be like in the future, but i put a smile on and make out everything is ok.

i dont know how this change will effect us ???

Shaun66

Brassedoff wrote: »

Sorry, but you are so far left of field as to being out of order. There are many claiming DLA who putting it simply are swinging the lead. Too many claim illnesses as being disabled as a simple way to top up other benefits.

To many, so under 1% is to many? I think the governments own figures recently released showed a 0.5% rate of fraudulent claims, and it is sweet FA compared to the over payments THEY make, maybe telepathic manipulation to get it fraudulently?

Now be a good chap and climb under your rock and read the Torygraph and Hate-mail like a good right winger...

p999j

So tired-brief reply. Couldn't read thru all previous comments, so sorry if replicated or off-subject.

UK government guilty of disability discrimination by stating that the change from DLA to PIP is to reduce expenditure by a fifth.(Target the weakest in society who often cannot fight back).

This is against equality Act 2010.

Forget the multi-millions of bankers, and the claims from MP's for their moats. Does anyone know how a legal action can be taken against the government from an appropriate organisation, but with support from a network of disabled people?

Us?

rogerblack

Simply reducing any service to the disabled may not come under the equality act.
Doing it without a clear rationale, or 'disproportionately' may be.
But simply spending less on a better targetted service ( which will be their argument.) Is not, unless you can prove that this was not the sole aim.
And doing this will be nigh impossible.

p999j

rogerblack wrote: »

Simply reducing any service to the disabled may not come under the equality act.
Doing it without a clear rationale, or 'disproportionately' may be.
But simply spending less on a better targetted service ( which will be their argument.) Is not, unless you can prove that this was not the sole aim.
And doing this will be nigh impossible.

Thanks RogerBlack!

'Nigh impossible' is a challenge. Few laws/gov proposals have been changed by a motivated group (women getting the vote?).
In fact only by serious action can anything change.

It needs a disability organisation to take on board a request. Avaaz is great to get support in serioud number.To primarily or secondarily discriminate does come into Equality Act 2010, but as you say, they prepare their political answers with the attentin that those views will not be challenged.

My disability is digestive/depression although it affects most of my life, there aren't many employers who would tolerate the limitations I have. Pain relief is by horizontal heated respite.

I am likely to have my DLA-PIP from some income to none. I need support with cleaning, gardening, money advice, food and drink. My income is less than a quarter of my outgoings. Looks like I will lose my house.

I am so angry that the government seems to be able to victimise those with no energy to fight- it cannot be left to pass by apathy.

Silence equates to acquiesance.

I just need to do something constructive in order to FIGHT those with no realistic alternative as to how I am going to live, possibly homeless, with a digestive disability.

Am I alone in being ANGRY that this TORY gov is practicising eugenics?

rogerblack

p999j wrote: »

T
It needs a disability organisation to take on board a request. Avaaz is great to get support in serioud number.To primarily or secondarily discriminate does come into Equality Act 2010, but as you say, they prepare their political answers with the attentin that those views will not be challenged.

Pick your fights.
To win the argument that the equality act is a valid challenge would require a judicial review.
These have a very high burden of proof required.
In general, it has to be proved that there is no way the law is compatible, not that it might not be.
Then you have the issue that a judicial review is an expensive process, and if you fail, you pay the governments costs.
Which will be significant.

At the moment, the exact implementation of PIP is not crystalised enough to make a complaint against.

DWP procedure and the administration of the ATOS contract can make it go all the way from a mostly reasonable change, to an arbitrary slashing excercise.

heater

The Government has said over and over that by changing DLA to PIP they intend to cut the bill by 20%. Please sign and share
Pat’s Petition which is climbing steadily, now number 9 outof 11,986 petitions!
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20968

Brassedoff

Shaun66 wrote: »

To many, so under 1% is to many? I think the governments own figures recently released showed a 0.5% rate of fraudulent claims, and it is sweet FA compared to the over payments THEY make, maybe telepathic manipulation to get it fraudulently?

Now be a good chap and climb under your rock and read the Torygraph and Hate-mail like a good right winger...

Yawn! And not just because I have been awake all night having my needs sorted, or because I have a tad bit of worry for my second op in five days, once again yawn!

Brassedoff

rogerblack wrote: »

Pick your fights.
To win the argument that the equality act is a valid challenge would require a judicial review.
These have a very high burden of proof required.
In general, it has to be proved that there is no way the law is compatible, not that it might not be.
Then you have the issue that a judicial review is an expensive process, and if you fail, you pay the governments costs.
Which will be significant.

At the moment, the exact implementation of PIP is not crystalised enough to make a complaint against.

DWP procedure and the administration of the ATOS contract can make it go all the way from a mostly reasonable change, to an arbitrary slashing excercise.

As you have said, no one in their right minds would go after HMG, the risks would be too great. You cannot even rely on a decent political opposition as all this mess was started by Liebour.

No charity is going to do it as they rely so much on central funding they will not risk it.

I hate myself for thinking stopping aid program's, but a small proportion of the £8.45bn foreign aid budget spent at home on the disabled people who (some) contributed towards it would not be too much to ask? Especially as one country will receive £1.5bn, but has a space program, is building three new aircraft carriers costing £11bn and has placed an order for 80 Airbus A320's at £80m a pop costing £15bn.

We chop £2bn from our welfare budget by bringing in PIP for DLA, ESA for IB, yet give a foreign country that is spending an amazing £28bn on Planes, Aircraft Carriers and a space program £2.3bn over the next few years!

Something's wrong with the whole crooked house. Any chance of a Judical Review? Not on your nelly, nor mine to think of that.