pip criteria

System

rogerblack wrote: »

I'm quite aware of the criteria AnnBarbs, I was trying to address KrissKross's point that the care component should only be spent on what might be viewed as 'traditional' care.

So you should be able to get the middle or even the high rate of care if you can prove that you have the care needs. Barbara.

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

Our present government appear determined to reduce the benefit bill and I feel a lot of DLA claims are dubious to say the least and not before time that the situation is addressed.

These are two quite separate points.

The government certainly is determined to cut benefits. 20% less will be spent on DLA. Lower Rate Care and Mobility will cease to exist; many claimants who receive it now, will receive nothing.

And regular reviews are intended to ensure claimants who no longer meet the criteria lose the benefit. Only this point has anything to do with possible fraud.

I also feel that the claimant should bear a proportion of the costs involved if they appeal a decision that is then upheld at appeal.

That would certainly deter many genuine claimants from appealing in good faith. I hope it will not happen.

zzzLazyDaisy

krisskross wrote: »

I also feel that the claimant should bear a proportion of the costs involved if they appeal a decision that is then upheld at appeal.

And, presumably, you equally believe that the government should reimburse successful claimants for the costs they have incurred as a result of having to go to appeal in order to get the DLA that they are entitled to?

Richie-from-the-Boro

GlasweJen wrote: »

Thanks Ritchie. I'm getting collected at 11 and need to be back in for 5 but I am allowed a unit of alcohol! So now debating if it's to be a glass of wine or a vodka. Tough choices lol. BF said I should try focusing on getting better but I bought new shoes instead

To the group : still O/T, but I'll make it the last.

Yes saw your earlier post on footwear .. .. nowt wrong with going the alternative shoes route as a focus for now, if we get a sudden Scottish weather moment these 'wlliegogs' will make a back up plan, and will SHOUT at everyone I'm Jen / I'm back / I'm determined / and sod it - I'm lookin' good

krisskross

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

And, presumably, you equally believe that the government should reimburse successful claimants for the costs they have incurred as a result of having to go to appeal in order to get the DLA that they are entitled to?

I agree. What costs would be involved for the claimant?

zzzLazyDaisy

krisskross wrote: »

I agree. What costs would be involved for the claimant?

Until now, there should be no costs, I agree. But I understand that the government proposes to stop legal aid for benefit appeals. Not everyone has the mental or emotional ability to deal with an appeal on their own - and indeed some appeals turn on a point of law and rely heavily on reference to commissioner's decisions.

The withdrawal of legal aid will mean that community legal advice schemes which depend on this funding will fold, and people who are already in poverty will be forced to pay privately for legal advice and assistance. Or more likely will give up hope and be less likely to go to appeal in the first place.

Justice for all, and Scope are campaigning against this removal of funding for advice for benefit appeals.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Why are you trying to scare people?

The qualification scores for PIP have not been announced yet, so your figures are fake.

Even if someone scored the maximum points for every descriptor the maximum score for care is 76 points so you're talking rubbish.

I expect the points will be what I say because the government have promised to make the criteria for PIP tough - in order to save money.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

krisskross wrote: »

No I am not bothered about what sort of care people purchase. But surely if you have identified needs in order to claim the benefit then the money should be used to fund help for those needs one way or another. It shouldn't just drop into general income to be saved or used to pay off loans whilst the claimed for needs are left unmet.

Our present government appear determined to reduce the benefit bill and I feel a lot of DLA claims are dubious to say the least and not before time that the situation is addressed.

I also feel that the claimant should bear a proportion of the costs involved if they appeal a decision that is then upheld at appeal.

My concern is that the government seem to be heralding PIP for disabled adults but forgetting PIP for disabled children. I know first hand that many children's claims for DLA are over egged by parents generally chivvied on by charitable bodies representing their childrens problems. These claims are possibly more dubious than adult claims, yet the government seem uninterested in targetting a saving in this area.

moose1982

clemmatis wrote: »

Lower Rate Care and Mobility will cease to exist; many claimants who receive it now, will receive nothing.

I was under the impression that LRC was going and MRC was going to be the 'new' LRC, but didn't know that LRM was going as well. I know I won't get HRM but was expecting a fair assement of LRM and therefore able to pay for the odd taxi out and about.

zzzLazyDaisy

The disability alliance published this fact sheet about PIP on 20th December

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f60.htm

I don't know if it is any easier to understand or any more informative than the information in the link posted by OP, but it might just be useful.