MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

bigboybrother

clemmatis wrote: »

Hello, Andy.

Hi Andy, do I know you?

Neelienew

bigboybrother wrote: »

I am aware of one claimant that has a 'shed' yes his shed, full of unused medication including Morphine MST by the hundreds and Oramorph by the litres.

He keeps up the pretence every month of applying for these drugs on his repeat prescription but never has the intention of taking them. He builds up a 'history' with the GP.

His only problem is how to get rid of these unused drugs without anyone finding out!

Just take them back to the chemist who will dispose of them for you Andy.

bestpud

clemmatis wrote: »

So now, you accept the DWP figures? Funny, that.

But when I looked, I found a figure -- DWP, same report -- of 2.1% total overpayment, caused by fraud plus DWP error plus claimant error including failure to report change, and 0.8% underpayment.

Of course that doesn't necessarily contradict what you say.

I accept it is the very tip of the ice berg. We all know the true rate will be considerably higher.

Not as high as those with the opposite agenda might say, but still higher, as that's the way it is with stats like this.

What year did you look at - I thought I was looking at the latest ones but maybe not.

365days

I've been reading lots of info about claiming for DLA recently.

I am claiming for my son who has an asd. He has had it for years (presumably since birth) and was diagnosed 4 years ago. I am onlky claiming now as his disability is affecting my earnings. (Runs away from school, appointments, therapies etc which I have to take unpaid leave for)

I have torn myself in two about applying, I know I am 'Entitled' but don't want to become seen as a 'benefit scrounger'

I have suffered from depression for years, but luckily it has never affected my ability to earn (Worse 'bout had 2 months off on full pay) As it didn't affect my ability to earn I didn't claim.

I know DLA is not means tested and some people have called for it being changed to being Means tested. I think this is the wrong way round. I think their should be a disability benefit...maybe totally separate that 'compensates' for the way your disability affects your EARNING potential. Maybe some sort of lowered Tax Rate.

I work in education and I KNOW children who have been sent through the diagnostic process for certain conditions by parents who don't work, have never worked, and have no intention of working.

My son's condition does not cost me any money as such. If I sat at home all day, while he was at school and I was paid as his 'carer' he would not cost me any more money than a 'normal' child. However, his condition does not allow me to work, and therefore earn as much as I could if I had a 'normal' child. That is why I have decieded to claim.

bestpud

clemmatis wrote: »

So now, you accept the DWP figures? Funny, that.

But when I looked, I found a figure -- DWP, same report -- of 2.1% total overpayment, caused by fraud plus DWP error plus claimant error including failure to report change, and 0.8% underpayment.

Of course that doesn't necessarily contradict what you say.

Was it one of these?

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=dlanbr

The stats I quoted are for DLA only so it seems odd you found total disability fraud to be less.

Shows how flaky it is, doesn't it?

~Chameleon~

bestpud wrote: »

It wouldn't be that hard to do, especially for someone who has been depressed or knows someone who has.

The symptoms are online for all to see and they don't have to maintain the pretence day in day out.

I've already stated that I would find it incredibly difficult to fake being depressed when I'm not, and I have many years of experience suffering it!

It's one thing reading about it online but there are certain symptoms that just can't be faked, at least not to those who know what to look for.

~Chameleon~

dktreesea wrote: »

I think what we are witnessing though, is a shift in attitude to "disability". I'm not even sure, in our brave new world of letting benefit recipients sink or swim, that what you had would be classified as being eligible for a disability payment, because the attitude might be "yes, you are sick, we recognise that, but you will recover in due time. That "just" an illness that one recovers from, like flu/pneumonia/meningitis/measles etc."

I never claimed that the condition I had was a disability and nor did I ever attempt to claim any benefits for it, the thought never crossed my mind. I only mentioned it as an example of the diagnostics used that might be similar to that of diagnosing back problems.

bloolagoon

Part of the problem with mental health is that GP's are often not experienced in the area and support has long lists. There are GP's who will provide fit notes for MH whilst awaiting a specialist report, this can be a long time as often specialist support isn't needed. ATOS ask a GP for notes, not the CPN or CBT provider etc. this results in errors on both sides of the coin.

Some GPS are very good with MH, others not so.

~Chameleon~

Dunroamin wrote: »

When I took early retirement on health grounds I was treated by my GP and properly assessed by a psychiatrist for depression. Fortunately, the combination of anti depressants and a change of situation "cured" me but, if I'd wanted or needed to claim benefits for this condition, it would have been very little effort to turn up at the GP's surgery every 3 months (unwashed and unmade up if I'd followed some websites' advice;)), tell him I didn't feel any better, pick up my prescription and leave.

That's what most genuine sufferers from depression do anyway, unless they're at the very extreme edge of clinical depression.

I said severe mental illness, i.e. bipolar disorder, schizophrenia etc., or even clinical depression, which again is a far more serious and debilitating condition than reactive depression, which, as you discovered, is usually 'cured' once the source of stress is removed.

I can assure you treating severe mental illness involves a hell of a lot more than just picking up a prescription from the GP every 3 months!

Oh, and I doubt very much you'd have fooled your GP into believing you felt no better. There are far more visual and verbal clues to go by than whether you're wearing make-up or clean clothes

Somerset

clemmatis wrote: »

I said they reviewed cases. They didn't take them at face value. They've given details -- but you only want to be told fraud is high, so you won't bother. Well, whatever.

I keep hearing the headline DWP %, which seems to be a gospel figure. I don't believe the percentages, across all benefits, but I got curious enough to wonder how these percentages were arrived at. A number is being given as a 'fact' so how is that statistic produced ?

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct09_sep10.pdf

Estimates are produced by statistical analysis of data collected through

continuous survey exercises, in which independent specially trained staff
from
the Department’s Performance Measurement team, review a randomly
selected sample
of cases each year

The review process involves the following activity:

Reviewing the case by collating information from a variety of DWP or Local Authority (LA) systems to develop an initial picture and to identify any discrepancies between information from different sources;

Interviewing the customer at their home, using a structured and detailed set of questions about the basis of their claim. This aims to identify any discrepancies between the customer’s current circumstances and the circumstances upon which their benefit claim was based

I am not attacking the disabled. I am not attacking benefit claimant's. I am attacking statistic's which are flawed.

If the above description truly is the basis for DWP number's, I can see plenty of holes.
- DWP & LA info compared - what about HMRC ??

There are too many hole's to mention. I'll stop there.

I've no idea what the true percentage's are, lower or higher. But taking a sample, then applying the above 'review's', then rolling that out across the million's for every benefit, is clearly rubbish.