MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

ineed

cit_k wrote: »

IB has not been around 20 years, so no one could have been on it 20 years without reassassments/hardly any checks.

All people on IB are reassessed - they have to be by law, at least every few years, for some they do not know they are being assessed as it is done behind the scenes with medical professionals.

So no one is left unchecked for many years.

IB's PCA (assessment) was regarded by the SSAC as one of the toughest in the world, and IB also had many people appealing, with a high overturn rate at appeal.

ESA is just IB - retuned so one million more people will fail it and be kicked of IB.

True IB has only been around since 1995 when it replaced Invalidity benefit and Sickness benefit, but people have posted on this forum about being on it for twenty plus years, one poster who's post was deleted had said her husband was on it for that amount of time. I think they mean they were transferred over to IB and it was basically the same as before.

I've been claiming IB for six years and I'm telling you I've never been checked. The only correspondence I've had is tax certificates. I've had to phone them to give updates. I've heard many people say they haven't been checked in years either. My consultants have told me only DLA have ever contacted them regarding my illness when I've asked them. I've never even seen anyone from IB. If I didn't phone them how would they possibly know of any changes? There is a wide window of abuse there.

As I said before there has to be a happy medium between IB and ESA.

nad1611

FBaby wrote: »

How is changing the criteria for DLA rewarding the rich? The rich are getting their child benefit taken away, how is this punishing the poor and sick and unemployed?

If it is 'yet another scam', why was it introduced in the first place? Yet, the recession is prompting the need to review this benefit which became way to lenient and a way to avoid seeking work for many. I personally would be delighted to see the entitlement go up for all those meeting the high level of care/mobility after being reassessed under the new criteria and those who clearly benefited from a much too lenient system, not having been reassessed for years loosing out.

The difference here is that "the rich" as you call them can easily find ways around not having their Child Benefit scrapped by paying into a pension, there no such loopholes for DLA/PIP, they are simply at the mercy of some awfully designed and flawed assessment on a programme, along with the flawed assessor!

nad1611

What this new assessment means for many is that those who are genuinely reliant on DLA to maintain any sort of independence may well find themselves without those means.
Looking at the new assessment on the Mobility questions I would possibly not be entitled to the Higher Rate Mobility which I am now.
What the questions don't take into account are all of the issues around mobility, it only deals with distances you can walk. For me it's so much more. For one I have RA and Raynauds so I have a double problem, not only would walking to the nearest bustop be extremely painful for me, when I got there I'd have to stand or sit at the bustop,both of which are also very painful but that element doesn't feature in the questions as they are not looking at the whole picture. With the Raynauds it would literally be a case of minutes, stood or sat at a Bustop and I would be in pain and having really awful sensations in my feet and legs, whereas if I'm in my car I can keep myself warm and if I am sitting for longer I can at least use cushions etc on the seat to ease things.

For myself and others these changes to the questions are very closed, but the impact that could have on me for exampple, is that without the help I get from leasing a car, I would slowly but surely withdraw from most things, I don't get out and about much now, but I just wouldn't be able to cope with relying on Public Transport, I wouldn't be able to get anywhere unless someone took me and I don't have relatives available to take me to appts etc and I remember what using public transport was like when I hadn't yet applied for DLA some years ago.

I think what people don't realise is that a disablity isn't a fixed measureable thing. It rarely fits neatly into a little ticked box, there are so many issues and problems as a result and people who think they are being clever by saying "oh well if you've got nothihng to hide then you've got nothing to worry about" really don't know what they are talking about. Clearly there will be people who will not be awarded PIP who would genuinely have needed it, but who's going to care about them. The Government will have had their way by reducing the numbers of claimants, people will agree that therefore it means, they were'nt entitled to it. Those of us who have been through the sytem a few times know how wrong that is, when you're in the hands of ATOS.

ineed

nad1611 wrote: »

What this new assessment means for many is that those who are genuinely reliant on DLA to maintain any sort of independence may well find themselves without those means.
Looking at the new assessment on the Mobility questions I would possibly not be entitled to the Higher Rate Mobility which I am now.
What the questions don't take into account are all of the issues around mobility, it only deals with distances you can walk. For me it's so much more. For one I have RA and Raynauds so I have a double problem, not only would walking to the nearest bustop be extremely painful for me, when I got there I'd have to stand or sit at the bustop,both of which are also very painful but that element doesn't feature in the questions as they are not looking at the whole picture. With the Raynauds it would literally be a case of minutes, stood or sat at a Bustop and I would be in pain and having really awful sensations in my feet and legs, whereas if I'm in my car I can keep myself warm and if I am sitting for longer I can at least use cushions etc on the seat to ease things.

For myself and others these changes to the questions are very closed, but the impact that could have on me for exampple, is that without the help I get from leasing a car, I would slowly but surely withdraw from most things, I don't get out and about much now, but I just wouldn't be able to cope with relying on Public Transport, I wouldn't be able to get anywhere unless someone took me and I don't have relatives available to take me to appts etc and I remember what using public transport was like when I hadn't yet applied for DLA some years ago.

I think what people don't realise is that a disablity isn't a fixed measureable thing. It rarely fits neatly into a little ticked box, there are so many issues and problems as a result and people who think they are being clever by saying "oh well if you've got nothihng to hide then you've got nothing to worry about" really don't know what they are talking about. Clearly there will be people who will not be awarded PIP who would genuinely have needed it, but who's going to care about them. The Government will have had their way by reducing the numbers of claimants, people will agree that therefore it means, they were'nt entitled to it. Those of us who have been through the sytem a few times know how wrong that is, when you're in the hands of ATOS.

Anyone with conscience will care. I don't have a problem having assessments so long as I'm treated fairly. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything fair about the way ATOS conducts ESA assessments. I think IB did have problems but such brutal changes are going to cause years of untold misery for so many people.

Thing is if worse comes to worse I think I'd be ok if i lost my benefits, i have family and while Id hate relying on them for everything I know I could if I really needed to. But I'm extreamly lucky, how many disabled people are in my position? I know so many disabled people have no one. I feel physically sick when I think of the worries some people have about the cuts. The food banks and church can only do so much and with 2.63 million unemployed, the recession biting and fuel and food prices shooting up It's a very bleak future out there for so many, but the poor, sick and elderly will be hit hardest.

princessdon

nad1611 wrote: »

The difference here is that "the rich" as you call them can easily find ways around not having their Child Benefit scrapped by paying into a pension, there no such loopholes for DLA/PIP, they are simply at the mercy of some awfully designed and flawed assessment on a programme, along with the flawed assessor!

I agree with what you say about dla but you are narrow minded when it comes to the so called rich having loopholes. Not everyone has spare money to put into pensions and feed their family. In fact as I worked out a few weeks ago a single parent working min wage (16 hours) or a hobby business who earn less than min wage will receive hundreds more a month than a 60k earner with childcare.

Those that can take advantage of loophole for the small weekly amount of cb are those just above the threshold and don't think they are rich many have less disposable income than those on benefits if they pay for childcare.

krisskross

princessdon wrote: »

I agree with what you say about dla but you are narrow minded when it comes to the so called rich having loopholes. Not everyone has spare money to put into pensions and feed their family. In fact as I worked out a few weeks ago a single parent working min wage (16 hours) or a hobby business who earn less than min wage will receive hundreds more a month than a 60k earner with childcare.

Those that can take advantage of loophole for the small weekly amount of cb are those just above the threshold and don't think they are rich many have less disposable income than those on benefits if they pay for childcare.

Many of the people on full benefits with a couple of children will often have a larger disposable income than the so called rich.

A £50K salary will provide about £2700 a month after deductions. So very little more than the planned cap in Universal Credit. Then there will be the actual cost of working....transport, clothes etc. Plus of course the lack of time spent with the family. I know someone on this salary who leaves the house at 0700, returning at 18.30 with a 60 mile round trip journey. Usually there is a high level of responsibilty when a decent salary is earned, so stress is greater than for someone stacking supermarket shelves.

People only ever see the headline salary, not what is left after unavoidable deductions or what has to be paid out of what is left.

The major problem I see with the high benefit payments is that people expect to receive the same or more income if they go to work. Many do not have the skills to command the high salaries.

nad1611

princessdon wrote: »

I agree with what you say about dla but you are narrow minded when it comes to the so called rich having loopholes.

I take your point but I'm not really narrow minded it just annoyed me a bit that someone should try and compare losing child benefit when you earn above whatever it is?£45000, to losing DLA. It doesn't change the fact that there are ways of reducing your income to enhance other things.

I can't really agree that someone on £60,000 isn't able to manage, we've managed on less than £29,000 for years as a family of 5, ( no we didn't have Housing or Council Tax Benefit either) so if people can't manage on £60,000 then there's something seriously wrong.

princessdon

Very true krisscross. Plus school meals and prescriptions dental other none money benefits aren't in the cap AND doesn't apply to work based benefits as an incentive. Still they are rich so who cares

krisskross

nad1611 wrote: »

I take your point but I'm not really narrow minded it just annoyed me a bit that someone should try and compare losing child benefit when you earn above whatever it is?£45000, to losing DLA. It doesn't change the fact that there are ways of reducing your income to enhance other things.

I can't really agree that someone on £60,000 isn't able to manage, we've managed on less than £29,000 for years as a family of 5, ( no we didn't have Housing or Council Tax Benefit either) so if people can't manage on £60,000 then there's something seriously wrong.

I'm sure most of us would live a wonderful life on £60,000. However living on what remains of the £60,000 after tax, NI, travel costs, work clothing, pension contributions etc is a little more problematic.

Did you get the CB for all 3 children and tax credits? Is that included in your £29,000 and is this £29K after all deductions?

princessdon

nad1611 wrote: »

I take your point but I'm not really narrow minded it just annoyed me a bit that someone should try and compare losing child benefit when you earn above whatever it is?£45000, to losing DLA. It doesn't change the fact that there are ways of reducing your income to enhance other things.

I can't really agree that someone on £60,000 isn't able to manage, we've managed on less than £29,000 for years as a family of 5, ( no we didn't have Housing or Council Tax Benefit either) so if people can't manage on £60,000 then there's something seriously wrong.

Single parent paying £1600 a month in childcare leaves them a net income of £1650. Hb rates in that area are £340 a week (3 bed) £1470 a month social housing, so even deducting the social housing rates it leaves about £300 - £400 a month to pay council tax, food, getting to work etc. that including the small tax credits they get. Not really rich - how many families of 5 can pay all bill (excl rent) incl council tax on that amount?