PIP, and the shrinking of motability/HRM.

Richie-from-the-Boro

If you look at the post 2nd draft criteria published in Feb 2012, out of the 15 case studies in the consultation document, you need to score a hit of more than 2 [including G] in more than eight of the 11 activities or get the bulls-eye 15 for the 50 metres descriptor. Even 'Can-not move up to 50 metres without using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device' will only give a D / 10 points.

My concern and its a very real worry is that many of the deserving will be hit by this crude accounting tool.

It is the case that @ .05% DLA misuse the savings are so small its really an uneconomic exercise, and like the old radio licence required for motor cars it by definition would cost more to control than the savings achieved.

For example [melbury comment] many people, the last figures I REM were approaching 50% of DLAHRM recipients were in work of one kind or another and the money was used to support 'work activities' I fail to see how many will escape a reduction in HRM other than those with an explicit WAV & winch requirement, and then by definition you have to consider whether work itself is economically 'worth it'.

Anubis_2

uponahill wrote: »

How the **** are you going to be able to provide medical evidence of this?

They sure as hell won't accept your word for it!!!

Because if you have a fluctuating condition that is severe on more days than not, and that is backed up by medical evidence, you do not need to provide evidence that you can dress two days out of seven - they will consider as a WHOLE.

Read through the document.

Brassedoff

There are many who should not get HRM/HRC based on some strange illnesses. Of course, genuinely disabled should get assistance in ensuring they get the right help.

I can see the 2nd hand market in wheelchairs going through the roof. It is so annoying when you see some using an EBay special apart from when at hospital.

Reading it, as someone unable to dress, cook or hold a plate from the kitchen to the dining table, I only get LRC. I suppose I could appeal but there is a fear of losing the current award I want to leave it B.

Then there are the really hard illnesses that the pro's cannot disprove, two of which are now on the highest increase. I would be frurious to think someone with one of these illnesses get away with saying they cannot walk or wheel their EBay special and get the highest rates, thereby further reducing the needy's pot.

I hope the only wheelchair taken into account is a proper hospital issued one. Anything else is for convenience. If you need one for medical reasons, they would get you one, the fight I had proved that, although I am now told there would be no question if I were to apply now. Secondly, if you lose your HRM, you lose and hand back your blue badge, that includes those with the ability to run around a supermarket.

Looking at the posts, not being able to walk more than 5 metre unaided, assisted wheelchair after that. Not being able to dress, shower or climb the stairs. Or be able to hold a conversation and remember many aspects of what I am about to say (an elderly relative said my Alzhiemers was worse than my aunts), I would not know what points I would score.

Denny_Crane

diddyman wrote: »

I think PIP is a great idea - Much more objective than DLA. And agree with uponahill about the won't walk/ can't walk brigade. I have inflamatory arthritis and get a lot of pain in my hips knees and feet - I would quite easily say "I don't want to hurt so I aint walking" but I choose to stay mobile and put up with the pain because I know it is better for me. Why should someone else with the same issues get a car paid for just because they WON'T walk! Yes there are some people who physically can't walk but these are really not very many.
At the moment I only get lower rate care despite wearing splints at night and needing help with them and needing help to dress under the new system I should get enhanced care. The new scheme measure actual ABILITY not peoples willingness to carry out such activities.
They are supposed to take into account a persons ability to do things repeatedly and safely too so fatigue and pain do come into it.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. So all that suffer pain and damage to their bones are faking it and should be forced to walk, and do not deserve to have Mobbility allowance?
Come and live in my body for a few days, and see what walking does to my Charcot foot. Won't walk? I wish that was the situation! I would love to be in a position to walk to the shops, to the nearest bus stop, to be able to go out to the local for a drink without it taking hours and substatial pain to do so. Your comments remidn me of the balck night in Monty Python, "I am happy to cause myself pain and damge, so everyone should be diong this"
More objective? what part of inflexible do you not get?
That fact that the government will be paying its pet outside company the french ATOS to carry out these "assessments" in the region of £500 MILLION over 7 years with the express requirement to reduce the amount claiming by 20% means that they descriptors as laid down will be what these ATOS goons will be doing, no flexability from the laid down proceedure in section 11, as every appeal is more money into their pockets.

GlasweJen

I still can't work out how I'd fair on PIP but I do agree it is much needed as DLA was too subjective, professional claimants could get DLA for spraining an ankle!

Anubis_2

Brassedoff wrote: »

There are many who should not get HRM/HRC based on some strange illnesses. Of course, genuinely disabled should get assistance in ensuring they get the right help.

I can see the 2nd hand market in wheelchairs going through the roof. It is so annoying when you see some using an EBay special apart from when at hospital.

Reading it, as someone unable to dress, cook or hold a plate from the kitchen to the dining table, I only get LRC. I suppose I could appeal but there is a fear of losing the current award I want to leave it B.

Then there are the really hard illnesses that the pro's cannot disprove, two of which are now on the highest increase. I would be frurious to think someone with one of these illnesses get away with saying they cannot walk or wheel their EBay special and get the highest rates, thereby further reducing the needy's pot.

I hope the only wheelchair taken into account is a proper hospital issued one. Anything else is for convenience. If you need one for medical reasons, they would get you one, the fight I had proved that, although I am now told there would be no question if I were to apply now. Secondly, if you lose your HRM, you lose and hand back your blue badge, that includes those with the ability to run around a supermarket.

Looking at the posts, not being able to walk more than 5 metre unaided, assisted wheelchair after that. Not being able to dress, shower or climb the stairs. Or be able to hold a conversation and remember many aspects of what I am about to say (an elderly relative said my Alzhiemers was worse than my aunts), I would not know what points I would score.

Can you define "strange illnesses" opposed to "genuine disabled?"

What do you feel are strange illnesses and what is your view of what "genuine disabled" is?

What are the "two" hard illnesses that cannot be disproved and are on the increase?

Re the wheelchair.... Utter rubbish. You do know each NHS wheelchair service, while having general regulations to follow has its own regulations on who gets what and money is very tight so not everyone who NEEDS one can get one?

In my area I have to wait over two years due to cutbacks.... and I have bought my own previously because I NEEDED it, it was NOT for show at all.

A poster on here who does need a wheelchair was refused because her NHS service requires applicants to use them 4 hours a day, 4 times a week minimum IIRC. As she is too ill to go out that length of time, she doesn't get one.

As for fighting for one, some are too I'll to fight.....

uponahill

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

no but they will accept a social services report of a independant carers report or geting dressed with the aid of a carer this is why the question is asked, also, if you have evidence to back all up then it would give them reason to question a NO reply.

I agree, those types of report will be vital.

ATOS/DWP will certainly not accept anybody's argument that they cannot walk AND cannot wheel a wheelchair, without a professional report confirming it.

I can forsee a mass of people trying to access the OT departments in the future hoping that they will confirm that they cannot mobilise on their own in any way.

As an example, with one of my conditions I have been told by my professor consultant that I must never use any muscles or cause strain or pressure within my upper torso. To do so, could cause one of the many aneurisms within the wall of my stomach & esophagus to rupture.
My arms are fine. Technically I should be able to show that it would be dangerous to wheel a wheelchair. However that would not fit in with my weekly visits to the local gym where I do weight training including lifting! Yes it could kill me, but better to have a life than none at all.

This is no different than obtaining ESA/DLA on the basis of a terminal illness under the 6 month rule, yet admitting that you actually carry out extreme sports as a hobby.

uponahill

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

If you look at the post 2nd draft criteria published in Feb 2012, out of the 15 case studies in the consultation document, you need to score a hit of more than 2 [including G] in more than eight of the 11 activities or get the bulls-eye 15 for the 50 metres descriptor. Even 'Can-not move up to 50 metres without using an aid or appliance, other than a wheelchair or a motorised device' will only give a D / 10 points.

My concern and its a very real worry is that many of the deserving will be hit by this crude accounting tool.

It is the case that @ .05% DLA misuse the savings are so small its really an uneconomic exercise, and like the old radio licence required for motor cars it by definition would cost more to control than the savings achieved.

For example [melbury comment] many people, the last figures I REM were approaching 50% of DLAHRM recipients were in work of one kind or another and the money was used to support 'work activities' I fail to see how many will escape a reduction in HRM other than those with an explicit WAV & winch requirement, and then by definition you have to consider whether work itself is economically 'worth it'.

You are forgetting to include the wastage and error element as well as the fraud one.

With PIP, all of those, including wastage and error will disappear. You just can't quote fraud as a % you must look at all of the problems that DLA has brought with it.

L6MCT

There are simplified versions of the PIP criteria on the wearespartacus.org.uk website should anyone need them - much easier to read than trawling through the DWP ones!

The DWP's PIP Consultation process is still in progress and is somewhere you can have your say about PIP and the criteria used to assess it. So if you're affected by the change from DLA to PIP now or if you think you will need it in future then please take the time to make your opinion count where it matters in the consultation process, you'll find more information here.

There's also a forum set up about the PIP Consultation here if anyone wants to discuss how to go about taking part.

uponahill

Anubis wrote: »

Because if you have a fluctuating condition that is severe on more days than not, and that is backed up by medical evidence, you do not need to provide evidence that you can dress two days out of seven - they will consider as a WHOLE.

Read through the document.

You will have to prove that with that scenario that it applies for more than 50% of the days (not time).

So stating that you can't dress yourself for 2 out of 7 days will get you nowhere, stating that you can't for 4 out of 7 will, but it will have to be backed up with a professional medical report!