swap from DLA to PIP

rogerblack

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!

The '7%' figure I assume comes from the fact that only 7% of people claiming ESA get the support group.

Neglecting people that claim it for short periods, due to for example, pregnancy, or breaking a leg, and are better before the 13th week of the claim where they are assessed.

And neglecting the fact that people with really significant disabilities to the point that nobody would ever consider them as an employee are put in the work-related group, as they don't tick any of the support group boxes.

Helen42

One example of the change to pip pasted below

Under the new rules for PIP if a disabled person CANNOT walk more than 50 metres but doesn't need a wheelchair then they will no longer be entitled to higher rate mobility, which in short means access to a car through the motability scheme.

rotoguys

rogerblack wrote: »

The '7%' figure I assume comes from the fact that only 7% of people claiming ESA get the support group.

Neglecting people that claim it for short periods, due to for example, pregnancy, or breaking a leg, and are better before the 13th week of the claim where they are assessed.

What I am saying is that from what I understand, only 7% of those that had been claiming long term IB were put into the Support Group of ESA, the other 93% were either fit to go back to work straight away or should be looking to go back to work in the short to medium term.

The Support Group is classified as being the equivalent of the old Long Term rate for IB.

I am not concerned about new claimants, only those that have been in receipt of IB - which by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered as new claimants!

And neglecting the fact that people with really significant disabilities to the point that nobody would ever consider them as an employee are put in the work-related group, as they don't tick any of the support group boxes.

Then why have they been claiming Long Term IB?
What boxes? They are either considered to be LONG Term sick and put in the SG or they aren't. There are no boxes, it's all down to their ability to carry out some type of work related activity.

I'm sorry but you, me and 1'000's of ordinary people in this country beleive that the IB system was flawed and that for years the DWP - Jobcentre was actively pushing people from JSA (Unemployment Benefit) onto IB to manipulate the unemployment figures! Sick my backside, it was a convenient way to 'lose' people in the figures.

rotoguys

Helen42 wrote: »

One example of the change to pip pasted below

Under the new rules for PIP if a disabled person CANNOT walk more than 50 metres but doesn't need a wheelchair then they will no longer be entitled to higher rate mobility, which in short means access to a car through the motability scheme.

Yes I agree and have said so many times.
I would willingly give up my HRM & MRC, including my Mobility car if it meant that only those in this country that were so seriously disabled, received the help they needed.

I would have to buy my own car like everyone else or use public transport.

If you cannot walk but do not need a wheelchair, then I am sorry, you are not truly disabled.
To say otherwise is an insult to those that are immobile and have no neuro-motor ability!

You cannot honestly say that someone on crutches or uses a stick(s) is in the same category as the likes of Stephen Hawkin!

Muttleythefrog

rotoguys wrote: »

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

I think it's very difficult to compare two different beasts... but 93% aren't being found fit to look for work. Those in the WRAG can't be classified into that grouping... they're determined to have limited capability for work.. whether they can or should be looking for work (short term, long term or ever) is another issue.. all we do know is they are not going to have to look for work.

At the end of the day though these classifications are simply lines drawn in the sand (and in the case of ESA badly administered largely thanks to the incapabilities or worse of ATOS HC). I could draw a new line and say unless you are in a coma then you are fit for work... then amazingly virtually all claimants would be found capable of at least some sort of work... and then I could turn around and say.. 'look.. the system has been abused for years'. PIP is nothing more than an attempt to reduce expenditure on disability benefits... there's no real translation required to reach that conclusion... and to achieve it the bar will be placed differently and at a higher position than DLA... it certainly won't make people's disabilities vanish or dramatically challenge fraud although it may appear to do so in the tabloid press headlines...which I think we could probably all write now well in advance.... '20% of DLA claimants are being found not to be disabled'.. and of course they'll find some extreme examples of system abuse to imply a widescale problem... Mr Mann has been getting DLA for over 10 years due to having lost his legs in a motorbike accident but yesterday was seen sprinting for the number 95 bus which had unexpectedly turned up a couple of minutes early.

rotoguys

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

I think it's very difficult to compare two different beasts... but 93% aren't being found fit to look for work. Those in the WRAG can't be classified into that grouping... they're determined to have limited capability for work.. whether they can or should be looking for work (short term, long term or ever) is another issue.. all we do know is they are not going to have to look for work.

At the end of the day though these classifications are simply lines drawn in the sand (and in the case of ESA badly administered largely thanks to the incapabilities or worse of ATOS HC). I could draw a new line and say unless you are in a coma then you are fit for work... then amazingly virtually all claimants would be found capable of at least some sort of work... and then I could turn around and say.. 'look.. the system has been abused for years'. PIP is nothing more than an attempt to reduce expenditure on disability benefits... there's no real translation required to reach that conclusion... and to achieve it the bar will be placed differently and at a higher position than DLA... it certainly won't make people's disabilities vanish or dramatically challenge fraud although it may appear to do so in the tabloid press headlines...which I think we could probably all write now well in advance.... '20% of DLA claimants are being found not to be disabled'

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.

I agree you can move the goalposts anywhere and achieve a different result. But DLA was originally designed to provide financial help ONLY for those that were in the category of having a 'serious disability'.
What has happened since is that any Tom !!!!!! & Harry has been putting claims in for DLA and spent time, effort and sometimes money to try to prove that they should be considered as having a serious disability.

These range from Arthritis, being from the very worst of cases to the least problematic, but ALL suggesting that THEIR case is the worst that you may find. Then we have Mental Illness. This ranges from being 'pi**ed off with life and being out of work to the very serious of mental issues. Once again ALL are trying to portray that THEIR condition is the worst case that can be found.

You have to admit that a large majority of claimants have tried to make out that their condition be whatever it is, is worthy of an award.

How many times on this site alone do we see questions: I have ***** do you think I can get DLA, I have ****** what should I do to make sure I get the best chance of getting an award.

If you are that seriously disabled, then you would have no need to ask those questions. The medical evidence alone would speak volumes for itself.

I wouldn't be surprised that when PIP comes in, less than 50% of existing DLA holders would be eligible. The government think 25%, I would go much higher.

Why do I say that. Well the proportion of 'genuine' cases that I have good personal knowledge of, be it friends, family or indeed clients, is measured at about 50% of the total number that claim DLA.

I could write for England, quoting names, history etc of the many that I know of that are claiming DLA on the basis of a flawed GP report and an exagerated claim.
Only yesterday, I was with a guy that is a drummer in a rock band. He drives his Motability estate car loaded to the gunnels with gear, unloads it all, sets it up on stage and manages to play for 2 hours and repeats the same work when packing up to go home.

I asked him why his car has a tax disc showing 'disabled'. He explained that he virtually cannot walk more than 10 yards without being in severe pain and discomfort!

Errrr yes.

PIP in my opinion is long overdue.

moose1982

rotoguys wrote: »

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!

DLA HRM doesn't require mobility aids to be taken into consideration though, while PIP does. So I am currently claiming correctly, much in the same way you are. However, I think it should be a case for getting LRM to help with getting about. For example, how do you get your food shopping (if you lived alone, no idea if you do)? I suspect that, like me, you cannot get on a bus to a supermarket, push a trolley round (big or small) and then carry the bags home. We would both struggle with this, meaning we would use the power of the internet to get a delivery, but that costs more money than two bus tickets.

I've omitted why I actually need the crutches because my condition is very rare (affects about 1 in a million people) but the actual why I have them is like you, I wouldn't be able to use a wheelchair properly and nor would I be able to walk at anything like a reasonable speed. I was asked to test speed actually by my neurologist and came out to be just under a third of the time it took a friend to do the same distance, a distance I didn't measure but it was a lot slower.

Muttleythefrog

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.

I agree you can move the goalposts anywhere and achieve a different result. But DLA was originally designed to provide financial help ONLY for those that were in the category of having a 'serious disability'.
What has happened since is that any Tom !!!!!! & Harry has been putting claims in for DLA and spent time, effort and sometimes money to try to prove that they should be considered as having a serious disability.

These range from Arthritis, being from the very worst of cases to the least problematic, but ALL suggesting that THEIR case is the worst that you may find. Then we have Mental Illness. This ranges from being 'pi**ed off with life and being out of work to the very serious of mental issues. Once again ALL are trying to portray that THEIR condition is the worst case that can be found.

You have to admit that a large majority of claimants have tried to make out that their condition be whatever it is, is worthy of an award.

How many times on this site alone do we see questions: I have ***** do you think I can get DLA, I have ****** what should I do to make sure I get the best chance of getting an award.

If you are that seriously disabled, then you would have no need to ask those questions. The medical evidence alone would speak volumes for itself.

I wouldn't be surprised that when PIP comes in, less than 50% of existing DLA holders would be eligible. The government think 25%, I would go much higher.

Why do I say that. Well the proportion of 'genuine' cases that I have good personal knowledge of, be it friends, family or indeed clients, is measured at about 50% of the total number that claim DLA.

I could write for England, quoting names, history etc of the many that I know of that are claiming DLA on the basis of a flawed GP report and an exagerated claim.
Only yesterday, I was with a guy that is a drummer in a rock band. He drives his Motability estate car loaded to the gunnels with gear, unloads it all, sets it up on stage and manages to play for 2 hours and repeats the same work when packing up to go home.

I asked him why his car has a tax disc showing 'disabled'. He explained that he virtually cannot walk more than 10 yards without being in severe pain and discomfort!

Errrr yes.

PIP in my opinion is long overdue.

Well in effect there is no such determination of 'unfit for work'.. I mean I'm in the Support Group.. rightly I should add... but the idea I can't work is laughable....I could easily be an artist's subject for example..lol.. even someone in a coma could be if appropriate legalities could be overcome. But comparing IB and ESA is almost pointless... they're different... and like I say... the descriptors written into law don't hold some godly classification of universal correctness. Note that in my case for example I have an 18 months prognosis... is that long term sick... or what... depends who is defining... in reality that prognosis is laughable anyway.. it is little more than a guess by a nurse on a piece of computer software with set options. Now I never claimed IB... I was one of the first to claim ESA... but what IB determination I would have gotten I haven't a clue.

The problem with DLA as I see it is the expectations on the claimant for proof (as opposed to state)... something I have fallen foul of.. and the tight criteria and language expected. It seems that you need to know how to claim for DLA in order to get it... or at least have someone to help you who does. But when I applied for DLA I had no medical evidence... none... my GP filled in a factual report but missed out sections because he didn't know what to put... or felt unqualified to comment (i.e. I too had a flawed GP report in my DLA claim.. but a one favouring the DWP decision to deny me award).... yet as soon as I was assessed for ESA I was classified to Support Gp.. supposedly among the most severely disabled. As for fraud generally.. hard to tell... probably much lower than people think... in my own experience.. I have none..lol.. I don't actually know personally (offline) someone claiming ESA, IB or DLA.. or if I do then they haven't admitted it... and perhaps that's a warning.. that similar people tend to congregate.

I will hold back on giving opinion on PIP... but I think the descriptor idea is an improvement (concerned that they seem extremely dismissive of MH problems in current form)... I suspect many other features won't be. I expect that like ESA we'll have a lot of problems... with the victims being genuinely disabled or sick people. One thing I'll say with assurity... it won't stop fraud... and if medical assessments form part of the evidential basis of award then you can sure they'll open the door to 'amateurish HCP' versus professional fraudster clued up on descriptors and expected observations.

MissMoneypenny

Helen42 wrote: »

One example of the change to pip pasted below

Under the new rules for PIP if a disabled person CANNOT walk more than 50 metres but doesn't need a wheelchair then they will no longer be entitled to higher rate mobility, which in short means access to a car through the motability scheme.

Ah, that would explain why my neighbour is so upset then, because his wife will no longer get a car...... for him (her husband) to take to work each day!:eek:

I assume he will then have to buy his own car for work and be unable to park outside his house anymore, in the disabled bay?

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Ah, that would explain why my neighbour is so upset then, because his wife will no longer get a car...... for him (her husband) to take to work each day!:eek:

He's committing fraud. Report him.