Disability benefits for injured Service personnel simplified

intranicity

Announced today, no mention if this will apply to War pensioners either, I know this affects few on here directly, but might be a sign of things to come?

Be even better to see the meat on the bone and what this actually means, if anything....

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DisabilityBenefitsForInjuredServicePersonnelSimplified.htm

Oliver14

Basically it's discriminating against one group of disabled people (the non Military). A pretty disgusting policy in my view. I have utmost respect for anyone who has served the country (being an ex serviceman myself) but take umbrage at this preferential treatment.

From what I have been reading they will take the opinion of the Doctors in regards to benefit claims. So they will in fact be believing doctors in regards to service personnel but not in regards to non service disabled and ill claimants.

All Disabled and ill should be treated equally with respect and there shouldn't be some sort of fast track system when millions of Disabled are suffering at the hands of this Governments policies and attempts to demonise the Sick and disabled

Richie-from-the-Boro

I disagree Oliver14, - Honi soit qui mal y pense

see

All men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Its the Covenant and rightly so. All disabled are definitely not equal if they were made disabled by our actions and on our behalf, then we as a nation have a collective responsibility to them that is patently not equal to the rest of our society. It was written into law [Armed Forces Act 2011] over a year ago that they are entitled to special treatment.

Pete268

intranicity wrote: »

Announced today, no mention if this will apply to War pensioners either, I know this affects few on here directly, but might be a sign of things to come?

Be even better to see the meat on the bone and what this actually means, if anything....

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DisabilityBenefitsForInjuredServicePersonnelSimplified.htm

Intranicity,

Sadly it will not as yet apply to recipients of the pre 2005 War Pension Scheme, only those on the post 2005 Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

But do give us time. It has taken an age to firstly get the covenant enshrined and then get the AFCS sorted out. It is still a 'work on progress'.

Pete

grummps

Oliver14 wrote: »

Basically it's discriminating against one group of disabled people (the non Military). A pretty disgusting policy in my view. I have utmost respect for anyone who has served the country (being an ex serviceman myself) but take umbrage at this preferential treatment.

From what I have been reading they will take the opinion of the Doctors in regards to benefit claims. So they will in fact be believing doctors in regards to service personnel but not in regards to non service disabled and ill claimants.

All Disabled and ill should be treated equally with respect and there shouldn't be some sort of fast track system when millions of Disabled are suffering at the hands of this Governments policies and attempts to demonise the Sick and disabled

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with your comments!!

The Service personnel have absolutely nothing in common with the likes of those that claim for all manner of 'civilian' health conditions.

They are different simply because they were injured, either mentally or physically or both due to service in a wartime theatre.

They have it hard enough having to have many medical assessments some for the service and some for the general benefits that all of us can claim for.

Let's be honest, does anyone actually think or believe that injured personnel are parasites or scroungers?
No! Why not? Because their injuries were caused by active service.
You can't say that about most civilians can you, not when they claim for conditions such as ME/CFS or IBS or sciatica?

They deserve the best and if there is any way that they can receive preferrential treatment all well and good.

Millions may be suffering now with the Welfare Reform, but don't blame the government, blame the dead legs that have created a culture of 'being ill must mean being disabled!'

intranicity

Pete268, sadly everything seems to be work in progress... I've been trying to get answers re Housing benefit and the voluntary disregards now for 2 years. As that one stands, when Universal Credit comes in, i'll lose all help with housing and be lucky to afford a bedsit!

Grumps and Ritchie, thanks for the support, it is appreciated, but I can see where Oliver14 is coming from, yes, I am this way because I agreed to join the military, and maybe that should give me special treatment, but rather than special treatment over other disabled, it would be nice if the War Pension I have to live on was just that, ENOUGH TO LIVE ON, INCLUDING HOUSING...

Oh well, lets hope that one day War Pensioners are treated the same way as the guys on the AFCS, because at the moment, it seems that there are now two types of injured ex Serviceman, and I can assure you that there is no way that we are treated equally, seems that they just want to ignore the WP's and hope we hurry up and die off quickly!

PS Oliver14, our assessments are now done by ATOS, so makes some sense, otherwise they are making us go twice to see the same people, so would possibly save time and money... But I doubt that is their reasoning.

Pete268

Hi intrancity again,

I know the Universal Credit issue with War Pensioners is being progressed as we speak (as it were), including high level submissions made in response to the draft UC Regulations currently open for consultation. Part of the problem is that ministers and the civil servants who guide and brief them just do not understand the complexities of the War Pension/AFCS schemes and the relationship with other benefits and how it impacts on veterans. However regional VAPC's and the CAC together with the ex service Cobseo organisations are working on behalf of veterans (both War Pension and AFCS) to iron out those anomalies but it does take time.

Re the 'two stream' (War Pensioners and AFCS) yes there is a difference in legislation between the 'streams'. However trying to align the two streams is more difficult than would seem at first. For example the burden of proof to claim a War Pension is much less than it is to make a claim under AFCS. For a War Pension claimed within 7 years of discharge the onus is on the Secretary of State for Defence (via the SPVA) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an injury is not service related, else a WP becomes payable. For an AFCS claim the burden swings the opposite way where it is for the veteran to prove on the balance of probabilities that his/her injuries are service related. The latter is relatively easy in cases of service personnel severely injured on duty on Telic or Herrick for example, but much more difficult to prove in such as mental health cases or in cases where their is doubt as to whether an injury was service related or not.

Then there are the allowances payable under the War Pension scheme which are more generous than AFCS claimants can claim under the equivalent 'civvy' benefits schemes. Compare War Pensioners Constant Attendance Allowance and the War Pension Mobility Supplement with the civvy DLA for example or the tax free Unemployability Supplement (generally paid with Invalidity Allowance and lower comforts allowance) versus civvy Taxable Employment and Support Allowance. I can almost guarantee the goverment would align War Pension allowances with their civvy equivalents (or abolish them where no civvy equivalent exists) if the two schemes were more closely aligned as it currently stands bearing in mind the economic state of the country.

I know a proposal from the government was put forth only last year to in effect extend the percentage disability level that a one receives a one off gratuity under the War Pension Scheme from 19% to 29%, in effect abolishing the 20% War Pension rate as it was viewed that under AFCS only a relatively small lump sum would be payable for injuries assessed under the WP scheme at 20%! Fortunately that was firmly rebuffed by VAPC's, CAC and the ex service organisations so was dropped fortunately. However it shows if the government did try to align the two schemes without a doubt the 'cheaper' scenario would win out.

My personal view is that although declining in numbers due mainly to age, the War Pension Scheme claimants still form the critical mass of SPVA claimants in comparison with the slowly rising number of AFCS claimants. This works against merging the two schemes fully at present. However as WP claimant numbers more closely align with AFCS then change maybe inevitable.

Pete

Jay_Tee

Oliver14 wrote: »

From what I have been reading they will take the opinion of the Doctors in regards to benefit claims. So they will in fact be believing doctors in regards to service personnel but not in regards to non service disabled and ill claimants.

If the AFCS is the same as the War Pension scheme the doctors that do assessments are employed by ATOS. When my War Pension was reviewed 3 years ago it was a ATOS doctor that did the medical examination, is it unreasonable that this information should also be used by the DWP for things like DLA?

intranicity

Jay Tee, hmmm, not a 4 bladed prop by any chance? Thats exactly what I added in my PS...

Pete, thanks for that, I'm still youngish (46) but been a WP since 1993. It's a shame there isn't a War Pensioners Association to be honest, we need to lobby as did the War Widows, with pride and dignity and shame the Government into Action. We also need to be kept informed, thats the worst thing, I've been writing to my MP, and the RBL (At policy level) for 2 years now, and no one bothers to pass info back, just sit there and hope, not great when it's your life that you are worrying about!

Re the enhancements we get compared to Civilian benefits, I understand that (Sadly though, new changes to Motability Scheme now mean that AP's for us are effectively £1000, we can't get cold weather payments etc), and see some of the argument you are putting forward. But the AFCS was supposedly introduced because the War Pension system wasn't generous enough, my lump sum/compensation was about £3000 in 1993, and I couldn't claim anything as this was classed as savings then. Didn't know I could claim DLA until 4 years ago either, as no one tells us anything, just dumped to get on with it!

The AFCS seems to be much more generous, but they did spin that the disadvantage was that they lost out on things like the unemployability and mobility supplement etc, Now though, the guys are not only getting much better lump sums, a better pension (In my case for sure), but help getting DLA (PIP) etc, so seems to be win win on the AFCS.

To be honest, I can't see why they even stopped the WPS, should have just brought in better compensation payments and then put them in the system, they have altered the rules many times before, you could at one stage get the mobility sup on a 20% pension, now it's only available from 40%, so they have modified before, they just used grandfather rights, so if you had it you kept it. Also suppose as I was injured and went through the system from within, being discharged on a WP, I don't see they affect of late entry into the scheme.

GUESS I'M JUST VERY WORRIED WHERE I'LL BE IN THE FUTURE, good chance I could be a War Pensioner towards the end when there are only a few 1000 of us or less? Having said that, after last ATOS medical where he states totally unsuitable housing, clinically depressed and suicidal thoughts, I wonder

Cheers though for the feedback and the work you are obviously doing

Jay_Tee

intranicity wrote: »

Jay Tee, hmmm, not a 4 bladed prop by any chance? Thats exactly what I added in my PS...

It has some connection

robpw2

someone said its not like the armed forces personnel are going to scrounge or be parasites...
anyone can become a scrounger it doesnt make a difference wether your injury/disability is because of a work related hazard .

if someone wants to claim and they genuinely do not have a need they will and it is unfair to assume otherwise .

as for the person who said people claim for ibs me/cfs and sciatica can i suggest you actually go and do some volunteer work with some of the charities /support groups that help these people and you will see that for many these are not "soft" conditions as described in the DAILY MAIL scrounger column but for many are genuinly dehibiltating condiditons