swap from DLA to PIP

rogerblack

rotoguys wrote: »

But my argument is that with ESA, approx 93% of claimants have not been found sufficiently ill enough to qualify for the term ' unfit for work' They have been found to have SOME capability of a work related function. Whereas under IB, they were on long term sick - purporting to say that they are unable to work! They have been found out.

You're basically arguing that the categories are entirely sane, and perfectly reflect peoples abilities to look for work.

This is not the case.
Consider three people.
John has an epileptic fit every 5 days or so, but is otherwise fit and well-educated.
Mary has injured herself playing sports, and can't lift her arms as if to put something into a shirt pocket. (but can type, and use their arms freely otherwise)
Donald uses a wheelchair, and can't walk, he can slowly wheel himself over 200m. He can only work for 90 minutes at a time before becoming utterly exhausted. He has difficulty conveying or understanding more than simple messages from strangers. Once every couple of months has a sudden accident where he loses control of his bowels. Can barely operate a washing machine. Several hours a day he can't cope with trying to talk to new people.

Which one is in which group?
One gets no points and is completely fit for work, one gets put in the support group and is not expected to work, one is expected to perform 'work related activity'.

Most employers would disagree.

MissMoneypenny

clemmatis wrote: »

He's committing fraud. Report him.

Willingly. Who to? Benefits fraud line?

clemmatis

Presumably, yes. Though also, the motability page says

"You can report misuse to us either anonymously or, preferably, by giving your name in complete confidence so we can discuss it with you further if necessary. If you want to report something, please use the Reporting misuse form, call us on 0845 456 4566 or email [EMAIL="spu@motability.co.uk"]spu@motability.co.uk[/EMAIL] If you represent the police, a local authority or other body concerned with combating fraud, please call 01279 632233 for a guidance booklet. "

Richie-from-the-Boro

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Willingly. Who to? Benefits fraud line?

- here for a start clemmatis has given the Motability one !

rotoguys

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- here for a start clemmatis has given the Motability one !

It is well within the scheme that if the husband uses the car to get to and from a permanent place of employment and that by working and earning a salary, the disabled wife benefits in some way.

The terminology of use by the partner is that his actions or use of the car MUST provide some beneficial advantage to the wife.

In this case it does. No car, no work, no money.

With a car, goes to work, and provides beneficial financial support for the wife.

Motability will throw out a complaint like that is being suggested.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

~ snip ~ I could draw a new line and say unless you are in a coma then you are fit for work...

Just this very week, see here for all those who say its not true - including those in the page I linked you to.. .. it is as far as I'm aware and was in fact referred to a DM for an ESA50 'reconsideration'.

dibdabable

rotoguys wrote: »

It is well within the scheme that if the husband uses the car to get to and from a permanent place of employment and that by working and earning a salary, the disabled wife benefits in some way.

The terminology of use by the partner is that his actions or use of the car MUST provide some beneficial advantage to the wife.

In this case it does. No car, no work, no money.

With a car, goes to work, and provides beneficial financial support for the wife.

Motability will throw out a complaint like that is being suggested.

I don't understand your thinking. You are suggesting that there are many who shouldn't be benefiting from the Motability Scheme because they shouldn't be receiving the higher rate mobility.
Yet on the other hand you're suggesting that someone who isn't disabled can have full use of the car, because it indirectly affects his wife, which I agree with by the way.
But have you not thought about the thousands who are receiving that disability component enabling them to drive a car. Without which they will be in exactly the same situation as the husband, they wouldn't be able to work.

Think of those who can only work because they are able to drive to work park in a disabled spot and sit at their job. These same people who will not be able to catch a bus or use other public transport. How can that be good? I'd be really interested in your answer and I mean that sincerely.

rotoguys

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Just this very week, see here for all those who say its not true - including those in the page I linked you to.. .. it is as far as I'm aware and was in fact referred to a DM for an ESA50 'reconsideration'.

Talk about spin - you would do well working in government.

All that happened in that case is that the ESA50 was 'lost' somewhere.

Consequently his claim for ESA was thrown out.

It has nothing to do with being in a coma!!!

Richie-from-the-Boro

rotoguys wrote: »

~~~ cut the troll like drivel ~~~

You know nothing of this individuals 'casework' my friend, as I said its back with a DM.

kingfisherblue

dibdabable wrote: »

I don't understand your thinking. You are suggesting that there are many who shouldn't be benefiting from the Motability Scheme because they shouldn't be receiving the higher rate mobility.
Yet on the other hand you're suggesting that someone who isn't disabled can have full use of the car, because it indirectly affects his wife, which I agree with by the way.
But have you not thought about the thousands who are receiving that disability component enabling them to drive a car. Without which they will be in exactly the same situation as the husband, they wouldn't be able to work.

Think of those who can only work because they are able to drive to work park in a disabled spot and sit at their job. These same people who will not be able to catch a bus or use other public transport. How can that be good? I'd be really interested in your answer and I mean that sincerely.

My understanding (and I may be wrong ) is that if someone works and uses the mobility car for getting to and from work, but the disabled person is at home, then the worker can get home quickly should they need to do so. It obviously benefits the disabled person in terms of financial support, but if the working partner cannot get home quickly, then it could be detrimental to the disabled person.