Will they stop my DLA if I get a job?

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

So, you're fine with someone who is able to do a particular job being advised against it because his capability to do so would indicate that his eligibility for DLA may no longer apply?

Has anyone here done that? The OP asked whether DLA would be removed if he got a job. Raven83 simply said no. But it is not actually that simple, and nannytone decided, IMO rightly, to point that out.

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And yet the advice that Nanny gave was, essentially, don't get a job as a professional footballer if you've stated mobility issues to claim DLA.

That is not my reading of her advice.

duchy

Ironically if the footballer had a condition that prevented him travelling from place to place unaccompanied without support (panic attacks etc) it is entirely possible he might qualify for DLA. So many DLA soap-boxers seem to think legs not working is the only qualification for the mobility element of DLA.

nannytone_2

DLA is difficult to get and becoming increasingly harder,

this wont be a popular thing to say but here goes anyway....

because it is based on care and mobility needs ( cant see how they can base it on anything else to be honest), i volunteered at DIAL for a few years, until i could no longer cope with how things were dobe.
the best thing anyone can have is a 'proven medical history'/ meaning you go to your dictir a lot and complain iver and iver about the same issue.

now people that genuinely suffer from these complaints are the real losers. because the finger of suspicion is pointed at them all.

the most popular condition used to be a 'bad back'
you couldnt really prove that the person wasnt suffering, but at the same time there wasnt necessarily and proof that there was a problem. but the doctor could legitimately say that the pastient has been suffering for x number of years abd that the condition was worsening because they were needing to be seen more and more and were needing ever incrasing doses if paubkullers.

todays fashionable condition is mental health. it cant be proven either way, and i know several people personally that are unable to work and claim disability living allowance as they can barely breathe without encouragement, yet manage to go clubbing every weekend.

as i said, it is the genuine claimants that suffer.

as for the puerile comment about a footballer claiming DLA.... this is a figment of the posters over enthudiastic imagination.

the OP wants to work in admin.... but if part of the claim is because they cant concentrat, then they are clearly contradicting their DLA claim.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Well, I can, when that advice is to deceive.

Each to their own (what makes life interesting and for a good debate) just don't see the post in the same way you did.

They don't know what OP has put down on their DLA form, I'm pretty sure they don't know Aspergers and dsypraxia (which are two different things) affect working etc.

If they had said

"you need to alter your DLA and lie to ensure you are not caught out" I'd agree 100%. Just personally I saw it as something else.

In fact being honest I saw them criticising them (just in a nicer way than the likes of me), who tends to say "yeah right - you are ill but can work".

I saw it actually as a "are you sure you are entitled to DLA" gentle prompt as opposed the sledgehammer approach I use.

But horses for courses and each to their own and do accept your view point even if I personally interpreted differently.

Lou76

clemmatis wrote: »

Has anyone here done that? The OP asked whether DLA would be removed if he got a job. Raven83 simply said no. But it is not actually that simple, and nannytone decided, IMO rightly, to point that out.

Totally agree.

I read it as; "No, it won't be affected [as DLA is not an out of work benefit] unless the job contradicts your reasons for claiming [in which case you're no longer eligible anyway]... "

I have read loads of Nannytones posts on here, in the time I've been lurking/posting, and know she doesn't condone benefit fraud. In fact, she often posts to people explaining that they could be seen as/are commiting fraud etc.

Maybe that's why we read it differently to Lighting, as we know her stance. Can be difficult sometimes to guage what people mean on here.

ETA: Sorry Nanny, thought you'd logged off for the night. Didn't mean to speak on your behalf.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Has anyone here done that? The OP asked whether DLA would be removed if he got a job. Raven83 simply said no. But it is not actually that simple, and nannytone decided, IMO rightly, to point that out.

By saying...

nannytone wrote: »

.....make sure that what you will be doing soesnt contradict what you say are your care/mobility needs as everyone will be reassessed when PIP xomes in

So, regardless of your capabilities, just make sure you only do what you said you can do to claim DLA. If their care/mobility needs have changed enough to broaden the scope of employment available to them, shouldn't that change in care/mobility be notified, rather than concealed by ensuring that any employment taken doesn't "contradict what you say are your care/mobility needs"?

And wouldn't that concealment amount to fraud?

lighting_up_the_chalice

duchy wrote: »

Ironically if the footballer had a condition that prevented him travelling from place to place unaccompanied without support (panic attacks etc) it is entirely possible he might qualify for DLA. So many DLA soap-boxers seem to think legs not working is the only qualification for the mobility element of DLA.

Then his employment as a professional footballer would not "contradict what you say are your care/mobility needs".

nannytone_2

thats your interpretaion, and youre entitled to your opinion.

but seems like youre on your own .....

and no worries lou .... think you may have seen a previous post of mine when someone trued ti defend my opinion lol

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

the OP wants to work in admin.... but if part of the claim is because they cant concentrat, then they are clearly contradicting their DLA claim.

Absolutely. So the DLA entitlement should be re-examined, rather than advice given not to take the job in-case the DLA entitlement got re-examined.