swap from DLA to PIP

zippy1969

Hi,

I've posted on here before relating to a friend who claims DLA. She gets high rate care and low rate mobility.

She's very scared about these proposed changes and will almost certainly remain so for the amount of time it takes to come into force.

We were discussing it last night and one thing really worries both of us. The Government and previous Governments are always right behind the NHS and constantly strive to convince us all how wonderful it is. Now I would say that one of the foundations that this claim is based on is the faith and trust put in GP's. And yet, increasingly, successive Governments appear to be ignoring GP's when they deem a person to be unfit for work. Your GP signs you off work, and yet to claim ESA you then have to be assessed by ATOS...this course of action, in effect, completely disregards the decision your GP has made. And now with PIP, it will be the same again. GP's will deem that someone needs help to maintain an adequate life, but the Government will say "we don't believe you" and then send you off to ATOS for someone else to make the decision. Surely this means the Government have no faith in GP's, one of the cornerstones of the NHS, to make decisions regarding peoples health. A paradox of monumental proportions.

I'm feeling that this will go the same way as ESA. People will appeal the decisions and then evidence from GP's will have to be considered...and there will be a huge 'turnover' rate. All of this will cost the Government money, there will be 12-month waiting lists for appeals as there are with ESA, and all because Governments insist on 're-inventing the wheel.' The 'wheel' is already there...it's called a GP.

Okay, so overhaul the benefit and bring in changes...but why discount the opinions of GP's who know their patients and have intimate knowledge of their issues and needs.

This is going to cause my friend alot of stress and anxiety over the next two years or so...not because she is a 'fraud' and doesn't deserve or need the benefit, but because she cannot help it.

Is there some sort of 'online petition' against these changes that I could sign on her behalf?

FBaby

GPs only have 10 minutes to assess a patient, sometimes having hardly ever see them for months. Many GPs do not know their patients and it is understandable that a GP will never challenge what a patient will tell them. So if you see your GP and say you are too poorly to work, a GP will accept this as a fact. Add to this the fact that GPs are not trained to consider whether a patient can work or not, they are trained to diagnose and provide treatments. How is a GP supposed to be able to assess that a patient can work or not, hardly knowing what requirements the job entails, all this in a 10 minutes session (if that!).

GPs are known to issues sick notes very easily based on what the patient say because they don't consider it their job to assess whether one's workplace is an acceptable environment depending on their health status.

rotoguys

Am I hearing this right, that the HOL has now passed the DLA reform to bring in PIP, albeit with a small majority and a few minor changes that mean very little?

Thank goodness they have seen sense at last. DLA is widely abused (the government can only estimate and quote figures of fraud), that if the reassessment of DLA claimants follows the same pattern as the IB to ESA percentages, I feel that everybody will be shocked at the number of actual claimants that are found to be taking the michael. What is it - only 7% of previous IB claimants have been found to be genuine and be given the corresponding level of support within ESA and that includes those that have won at a Tribunal!

No wonder they call us 'sicknote' Britain.

moose1982

rotoguys wrote: »

Am I hearing this right, that the HOL has now passed the DLA reform to bring in PIP, albeit with a small majority and a few minor changes that mean very little?

Thank goodness they have seen sense at last. DLA is widely abused (the government can only estimate and quote figures of fraud), that if the reassessment of DLA claimants follows the same pattern as the IB to ESA percentages, I feel that everybody will be shocked at the number of actual claimants that are found to be taking the michael. What is it - only 7% of previous IB claimants have been found to be genuine and be given the corresponding level of support within ESA and that includes those that have won at a Tribunal!

No wonder they call us 'sicknote' Britain.

I don't think it would be a fair assumption though to say that if you were able to gain X level of DLA but not able to gain that level on PIP then you were taking the wotsit. I only say that because the goalposts have changed and it will be harder to claim PIP than DLA. If the criteria for claiming PIP and DLA were the same, then I would agree with you, but sadly, they aren't.

rotoguys

moose1982 wrote: »

I don't think it would be a fair assumption though to say that if you were able to gain X level of DLA but not able to gain that level on PIP then you were taking the wotsit. I only say that because the goalposts have changed and it will be harder to claim PIP than DLA. If the criteria for claiming PIP and DLA were the same, then I would agree with you, but sadly, they aren't.

Thanks, but then that just proves that DLA is not and hasn't been fit for purpose for many years.

From what I see of the mobility element of PIP, nothing has changed. You still have to show with evidence that you cannot mobilise without pain, regularly and in a timely manner for more than 50 metres.
What is the difference?

CARE

1 F Needs assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal. 4
2 A Can take nutrition unaided. 0
3 A
Either –

i. Does not receive medication, therapy or need to monitor a health condition;

or

ii. Can manage medication, therapy and monitor a health condition unaided, or
with the use of an aid or appliance.
0
4 G Needs assistance to bathe. 4
5 A Can manage toilet needs or incontinence unaided. 0
6 E Needs assistance to dress or undress upper body. 4
7 A Can communicate unaided and access written information unaided, or using
spectacles or contact lenses. 0
8 A Can engage socially unaided. 0
9 B Needs prompting to make complex financial decisions. 2

MOBILITY
10 A Can plan and follow a journey unaided. 0
11 F Cannot move up to 50 metres without using a wheelchair propelled by another

person or a motorised device. 15

naf123

PudseyDB wrote: »

Dread to think how this affects deaf and hard of hearing people - it was hard enough in the first place for me and my partner to be awarded lower rate DLA - we applied at different times, while living at different addresses and both had to appeal to get it.

I don't think hard of hearing people will get it - hearing aids are supposed to be like glasses for them. If they can talk on the phone etc there is no reason why they should have DLA. So many people nowadays are hard of hearing as we are an ageing nation - people in their 50's are getting hearing aids nowadays and it doesn't seem to affect them

It is profoundly deaf people who are worried Their speech and their hearing is not so good. Most of profoundly deaf get lower rate care and lower rate mobility thanks to a court case many years ago ( http://tribalvillages.org/deaf-essays/dla.html )

Now if they just simply wipe away with the lower rate mobility and care - what happens? Maybe it would be a good thing because they have no choice but to give us the standard care and mobility rate (thanks to the court case above)

however i have just seen this

http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/news-and-events/all-regions/press-releases/profoundly-deaf-claimants-will-lose-out-under-new-personal-independence-payment-thresholds.aspx

:-(

moose1982

rotoguys wrote: »

Thanks, but then that just proves that DLA is not and hasn't been fit for purpose for many years.

From what I see of the mobility element of PIP, nothing has changed. You still have to show with evidence that you cannot mobilise without pain, regularly and in a timely manner for more than 50 metres.
What is the difference?

CARE

1 F Needs assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal. 4
2 A Can take nutrition unaided. 0
3 A
Either –

i. Does not receive medication, therapy or need to monitor a health condition;

or

ii. Can manage medication, therapy and monitor a health condition unaided, or
with the use of an aid or appliance.
0
4 G Needs assistance to bathe. 4
5 A Can manage toilet needs or incontinence unaided. 0
6 E Needs assistance to dress or undress upper body. 4
7 A Can communicate unaided and access written information unaided, or using
spectacles or contact lenses. 0
8 A Can engage socially unaided. 0
9 B Needs prompting to make complex financial decisions. 2

MOBILITY
10 A Can plan and follow a journey unaided. 0
11 F Cannot move up to 50 metres without using a wheelchair propelled by another

person or a motorised device. 15

The mobility bit has changed, the DLA bit says nothing about requiring a wheelchair, but PIP does. I currently get HRM on DLA (hence why I'll be honest and say I don't know enough about the Care side) and for that it's simply a case that I cannot walk unaided at all for me, while on PIP, I won't get anything because I use two elbow crutches and not a wheelchair. So I gain on the DLA but not on the PIP and that is where they have moved the goalposts, though hopefully someone can come in with the exact wordings in the guidance.

rotoguys

moose1982 wrote: »

The mobility bit has changed, the DLA bit says nothing about requiring a wheelchair, but PIP does. I currently get HRM on DLA (hence why I'll be honest and say I don't know enough about the Care side) and for that it's simply a case that I cannot walk unaided at all for me, while on PIP, I won't get anything because I use two elbow crutches and not a wheelchair. So I gain on the DLA but not on the PIP and that is where they have moved the goalposts, though hopefully someone can come in with the exact wordings in the guidance.

So with two elbow crutches you are still unable or virtually unable to walk more than 50 metres without severe discomfort in a timely manner? That seems to be what you have DLA - HRM for.

Why can't you? Is it because you have no upper body strength? If so, you wouldn't be able to wheel yourself around in a wheelchair would you?

However, by using aids you are able to get about in a timely manner in a distance of less than 50 metres. In which case you can't honestly say that you are unable or virtually unable to move about can you?

I use two sticks for support. I can walk no more than 10 metres with or without them. I can't use a wheel chair unless it is powered as I have major organ problems with my upper body that does not (a) allow me to use a manual wheelchair as I have no upper body strength and (b) it would be dangerous to my health if I was to strain any part of my upper body.

And as far as I am concerned, I am the lucky one! There are many that are totally immobile and can only use a powered chair to get anywhere. Them being able to get about using just crutches instead of a chair would be like winning the Euro Lottery!
I would be quite happy to lose my HRM if I could be assured that it would only go to those like my last example!

dibdabable

rotoguys wrote: »

Am I hearing this right, that the HOL has now passed the DLA reform to bring in PIP, albeit with a small majority and a few minor changes that mean very little?

Thank goodness they have seen sense at last. DLA is widely abused (the government can only estimate and quote figures of fraud), that if the reassessment of DLA claimants follows the same pattern as the IB to ESA percentages, I feel that everybody will be shocked at the number of actual claimants that are found to be taking the michael. What is it - only 7% of previous IB claimants have been found to be genuine and be given the corresponding level of support within ESA and that includes those that have won at a Tribunal!.

I'd be really interested to see your sources.

And it's really not a contest about who is more disabled than who!

rotoguys

dibdabable wrote: »

I'd be really interested to see your sources.

And it's really not a contest about who is more disabled than who!

From what I understand only 7% of all ESA claimants are allocated the Support Group - the equivalent level that IB was giving.

The other 93% are found to be fit to look for work.

The government never expected such a low figure - they were surprised and shocked. They said it just proved how many people were abusing the IB system.

Now if that is replicated in DLA to PIP, there is going to be a hell of a lot more people being kicked off DLA than the 20/25% that the government are hoping for.

It's been an easy soft target for many in the past, making a mockery of those that are genuinely seriously disabled.

I have no intention of getting into an argument over who is more disabled.

What I am saying is that there are some seriously disabled people in this country and there are those that would like everyone to think that they are disabled.

Any future payments in respect of any disability benefit must and should only be targetted at the most disabled in society. And by that definition you know full well who they should be and it does not include those that are depressed because they are in debt or have lost their job!!