NEW desision: Not entitled to DLA anymore!

Munkee2

I'm a mental health practitioner and can say with absolute confidence that they will NOT consider self harm or a history of suicide attempts as part of your claim. Your wife having scars on her body does not mean she is disabled and it does not mean she has to have somebody with her 24 hours a day either. Sciatica is also not a consideration.

EDIT: Since some kind person has decided to report this post and they claim I am lying about my profession, I would like to request that the mods ask me for proof of my claim before brandishing me as a liar. I can and will prove it with as many forms of evidence as needed.

System

Munkee2 wrote: »

I'm a mental health practitioner and can say with absolute confidence that they will NOT consider self harm or a history of suicide attempts as part of your claim. Your wife having scars on her body does not mean she is disabled and it does not mean she has to have somebody with her 24 hours a day either. Sciatica is also not a consideration.

Really? So having someone with you to make sure you don't hurt yourself isn't considered Pretty sure it was when i first applied

Munkee2

Yes, it was, but it's not any more. They have reduce the amount of people claiming and self harm is no longer one of their points to consider because it doesn't mean people are disabled. To be fair, people who are going to self harm will still find a way to do it even if you're with them 24 hours a day. I'm pretty sure you don't take your wife to the toilet with you and vice versa. It is not reasonable to insit you have to keep your eyes on her every minute of every day. If she is that likely to self harm that you can't leave the house even for a pint of milk, she ought to be receiving psychotherapy, specifically CBT or DBT, and not DLA.

Also, if your wife is suicidal, she needs to be assessed by a psychiatrist. Being suicidal does not entitle you to DLA. I'm sorry if you find that harsh, but its true.

VitaK

There are more to it than just selfharm and suicide attempts. I can tell you she was put back in contact with the mental health team today. We didnt ask for it but our GP feelt it was nessesary.

The questionare DWP sendt to our GP asked explicitly about her mental health incl. selfharming and suicide attempts. It also ask questions about her sciatica.

sunnyone

Munkee2 wrote: »

I'm a mental health practitioner and can say with absolute confidence that they will NOT consider self harm or a history of suicide attempts as part of your claim. Your wife having scars on her body does not mean she is disabled and it does not mean she has to have somebody with her 24 hours a day either. Sciatica is also not a consideration.

Post reported as this person knows nothing and is claiming to be a menatal health worker without proving such.

They are also wrong btw.

Munkee2

sunnyone wrote: »

Post reported as this person knows nothing and is claiming to be a menatal health worker without proving such.

They are also wrong btw.

LOL! I wouldn't pretend to be something I'm not. I've got a degree in mental health and I CAN and WILL prove it if the MSE mods request it. Why do I need to prove it to YOU just because you don't believe me? I don't care one iota whether you believe me or not. I have reported YOUR post because it is defamatory.

Despite your little outburst, I stand 100% by what I said.

I can prove my qualification. Can you prove I'm wrong?

24skins

Needing continual supervision in order to prevent substantial danger to the self or others is still a qualifying criteria for DLA and I have no idea why anyone would think or advise otherwise.

Munkee2

24skins wrote: »

Needing continual supervision in order to prevent substantial danger to the self or others is still a qualifying criteria for DLA and I have no idea why anyone would think or advise otherwise.

Yes, but people who self-harm no longer qualify for DLA on that alone. I don't make the rules, I am only relaying what I already know. People who self-harm will not benefit from receiving DLA because money will not resolve their problems not will it make their health problem any easier to cope with. Self-harm should be treated with psychotherapy in the form of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (dependant on other factors), medication and counselling. Throwing money at the problem will not resolve it and indeed, if people who self-harm DID qualify for DLA for that reason, it would be counter-productive because they MAY be compelled to continue self-harming for fear of losing the benefit if they stop.

Blackpool_Saver

Sick to bloody death of arguing on these posts, every time I come on here it's the same.

Edited to add: NOBODY whether or not they are a degree qualified mental health practitioner or a doctor can decide if a person will or will not be entitled, those decisions are made by the benefits officers, and appeals officers and tribunals. You can argue until the cows come home, but that is a fact.

rogerblack

24skins wrote: »

Needing continual supervision in order to prevent substantial danger to the self or others is still a qualifying criteria for DLA and I have no idea why anyone would think or advise otherwise.

To elaborate on this.
The current guidance to DWP staff on DLA is:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch61.pdf

'61154 If another person’s presence is necessary to reduce the substantial dangers of a sudden attack then that may satisfy the continual supervision condition. Benefit should not be refused solely on the grounds that even if someone is present, that person would not be able to act quickly enough to avoid the substantial danger'
'61175 People may be of substantial danger to themselves if there is a risk of suicide. Continual supervision may be needed to reduce the risk of harming themselves. But this may not eliminate all the substantial danger.'

Requiring continual supervision is one route to mid/high-rate care.

If the original poster is in fact a mental health professional, this just confirms the poor knowledge many professionals have of benefits.
If they're not, ...