MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

Anny_2

bigboybrother wrote: »

I agree entirely. It's all about how it affects one's daily routine.

I receive HRM due entirely because I said that I couldn't walk anymore than 27 metres without being in pain and having to stop because of pain and discomfort.

I also receive MRC due entirely to a mental health problem.

Now when I sent in my claim form it was knocked back as not being eligible, yet after I asked for an assessment from Social Services (social worker and an OT) and the DWP contacted the OT I was awarded what I am now getting indefinitely.
I would add that the OT telephoned me when she received the report request from the DWP and between us we put the information down!


Personally it's all a load of mumbo jumbo to me. There we have an OT that spent most of the time chatting about our garden and what aids would I like. She didn't know me from Adam and for all she knew I could have been 'putting most of it on'.
For all the testing she did, ATOS could do exactly the same.

So there we are I have a 'bad back' and am on the way to becoming a 'nutter' and for that I receive around £100 a week.


PIP will definitely sort the wheat from the chaff. It was clear that the OT was 'on my side' from the start. What we need are clearly defined tests (descriptors) with appropriate ranges (0 - 10) with someone doing the test that is independent.
Most of that is what PIP is all about!

At the moment it seems, and is backed up with my own case, that getting a DLA award is as much to do with getting the right evidence, from the right person as it is about filling out the form. Getting the right people on board who are willing to sign away what I tell them is vital.

Don't know about your 'bad back' Andy but regarding the 'nutter' side you have, without doubt, arrived at that destination, along with quite a few other posters on MSE for company! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

clemmatis

dktreesea wrote: »

Anyone with arthritis is going to struggle, relative to someone without the condition, to lead a normal life. Once it's in your knees/hips/feet it's hard to walk far. How did we get to the stage where we feel entitled to help ourselves to other people's money just because we are afflicted with a condition that limits us in some way and which we have to learn to manage?

I'd have thought being disabled was a rather good reason for "helping ourselves to other people's money" i.e. making use of the welfare state. I assume you do make use of that; clearly you use NHS hospitals. We have got, I'd have said, to a rather civilised stage; but we are going backwards.

princessdon

dori2o wrote: »

The way you write on the forum suggests that you believe disabled people don't try, when the fact is they do, but the obstacles in their way are often too large to navigate past.
I've stated I would much prefer for all the therapies, drugs, etc that I take to be available, within reasonable timescales, on the NHS and for my employer to have to offer more oportunities for me to work at home, and would gladly exchange my DLA for these changes.

However lets face it, employers are never going to allow such changes to happen that would give disabled people a real oportunity of keeping a job long-term without fear that time off to manage their disability is going to cost them their job.

They will never allow the government to implement changes to give employees with disabilities more rights to work at home.

Finally, the government will never allow such holistic/alternative therapies. or drugs such as cannabis to be available on the NHS. 1, it would cost far mor than is currently paid out in DLA to implement these changes and bribe employers in the form of incentives, and 2, they would have to admit that their stand against drugs which have confirmed medical benefits such as Cannabis is a sham.

It's because i DO understand I'd rather see money thrown at employers. I can get 60 hrs per month flexi built up (15 with no flexi on system), work from home often. Being honest I use more in parental need than disability, but following a major operation 2 years ago worked 4 months at home (other jobs would have been sick).

It's why I hugely support working, attempting to work and changing employers and policy into what can be done.

clemmatis

dktreesea wrote: »

We as a nation should only be paying for welfare services we can afford. Buying food may well be a struggle for anyone on benefits. Why should the disabled have access to so much more money than someone on JSA? Don't they both get hungry the same way?

I am reluctant to reply to you again given that

-- you wasted the time of a number of us by giving the impression you knew more or less nothing about DLA: and did not exactly hurry to correct that

-- you use rhetoric ("the money of strangers") suggesting a deep antipathy to welfare states, but do not argue that openly

(having you and Andy in the same thread is quite something).

Still, I'll spell the point out, using your example. Yes, the person on JSA gets as hungry as the disabled person. So, we give them the same amount of that kind of benefit. But the disabled person has other needs/expenses; and if they succeed in claiming DLA we make a contribution towards the extra costs. Clearly some will not incur the costs -- and some on JSA will need less food -- but economic efficiency dictates that we cut corners rather than cater to each individual's needs.

clemmatis

mazza111 wrote: »

Pssst Why are we all continuing to answer Andy?

Good question.

scootw1

clemmatis wrote: »

I am reluctant to reply to you again given that

-- you wasted the time of a number of us by giving the impression you knew more or less nothing about DLA: and did not exactly hurry to correct that

-- you use rhetoric ("the money of strangers") suggesting a deep antipathy to welfare states, but do not argue that openly

(having you and Andy in the same thread is quite something).

Still, I'll spell the point out, using your example. Yes, the person on JSA gets as hungry as the disabled person. So, we give them the same amount of that kind of benefit. But the disabled person has other needs/expenses; and if they succeed in claiming DLA we make a contribution towards the extra costs. Clearly some will not incur the costs -- and some on JSA will need less food -- but economic efficiency dictates that we cut corners rather than cater to each individual's needs.

But surely if the extra needs were paid by the state rather than give extra money which can be spent on anything, and often is, it would stamp out some of the fraud going on. Lots of people spend dla on beer and gambling (and yes I know this for sure) so it's obvious those people do not need it. Lots of people need it, lots don't but still get it.

clemmatis

scootw1 wrote: »

But surely if the extra needs were paid by the state rather than give extra money which can be spent on anything, and often is, it would stamp out some of the fraud going on. Lots of people spend dla on beer and gambling (and yes I know this for sure) so it's obvious those people do not need it. Lots of people need it, lots don't but still get it.

Given dktreesea's commemts about other people's money/the money of strangers I doubt he'd support you! and shouldn't, in good faith.

But let me answer you. The best way to combat fraud is to stop the benefit being given to claimants who don't meet the requirements but have managed to get it by fraudulent means. And -- and I really do believe this -- assessing individual needs and meeting them properly would cost more than DLA does; OTOH some needs would be misassessed or overlooked..The infrastructure to provide them is not in place.

And then, too, why should disabled people be refused cash benefits when others receive them? Why should child benefit and state pensions, e.g., be paid in cash rather than in kind?

bigboybrother

nannytone wrote: »

in your case yes you should. you openly admit to having 2 daughters who aSo based on these comments, defrauding the system

" I should inform the DWP that my single mother daughter has the childrens' father round to stay in the house. They are accepted by all of the family as being together, yet she claims she is single and claims IS?

Should I also inform the DWP about my other daughter that still claims to be a single mum, claims WTC on that basis and HB/CTB as well yet lives with her partner?"

maybe it would help to redress the balance of what your family wrongly takes from the system.

And what my daughters do is my problem? They are in their mid 30's and not my responsibility anymore.

You haven't actually answered the question have you?

bigboybrother

KxMx wrote: »

Some people seem to spend more time in the "they are being negative" corner than the "they are just being realistic" corner


:rotfl:

Tell me about it!

bigboybrother

nannytone wrote: »

none of those jobs were advertised in my local job centre. i go down every thursday morning.
and i also think that my disability advisor should also be looking for opportunities for me as well

And that just about sums it all up!!

The Job Centre is the centre of the universe when looking for employment!!

Once a week? What would happen if a job came up on a Friday and was taken by the following Wednesday - you wouldn't have even known it ever existed.

And the disability advisor is sitting at their desk every day simply looking for a job that would suit just you? As if!