Argument with JCP Advisor over ESA

kingfisherblue

PippaGirl wrote: »

I think even if it were paid into an account like direct payments are that are only authorised to people and organisations which are providing the care and the mobility. That way Joe Public can see that the money is doing what it should and providing the help people need, rather than paying for a holiday in the sun which they themselves cannot afford.

DLA can be used for care and mobility in many ways. You wouldn't think that paying EDF would be a suitable use for DLA as they are not a care provider, but some of my son's DLA helps to pay for the additional gas and electricity costs associated with his disabilities. For example, the additional washing that comes with having a doubly incontinent child who also vomits frequently; the incresed use of a tumble dryer because havinf wet washing hanging around compromises his breathing; the heating coming on overnight during colder spells because cold air compromises his breathing - but EDF are unlikely to be thought of as a provider for care needs.

And what about my local petrol station? I spend quite a bit on petrol each week, some of which comes out of my son's DLA. This is because we have additional trips due to his disability - not just hospitals and clinics, but also shorter trips that we could otherwise have walked, had he not been disabled.

My son enjoys reading, especially books about animals. Some of his DLA is spent on books for him. It has been worth it, as from being unable to read at nine years old, he now has the reading age of nine years six months at the age of 14. Even better, he gains a lot of enjoyment from reading, and you can't put a price on that. Yet who would you authorise to provide his books? I buy from a local bookshop, Amazon, the Book People, and supermarkets. That gives a wide choice of suitable books for my son.

Shoes - my son has to wear Timberlands with special insoles. Timberlands are more expensive than other shoes, but they have the correct 'tilt' from heel to toe, to help my son walk in the correct way. The alternative would be Piedro boots, which we wouldn't pay for, but would cost the tax payer considerably more money - and they wouldn't be as suitable as Timberlands with special insoles (incidentally, the insoles are provided by the NHS, but to buy an additional pair for his trainers for PE would cost £72 :eek:)

So altohugh I can see an argument for DLA to be paid to authorised firms and for authorised products/care only, in reality, it isn't feasible. I know some families who have used DLA to replace broken furniture when an autisitic child has had a meltdown. I know another who has had to replace clothing as her son chews it. there are so many variables that it would be impossible to manage if care/mobility needs were only paid to certain providers and for certain things.

kingfisherblue

Dunroamin wrote: »

TBF, we recently had a long term poster who claims DLA high rate Care and Mobility who'd spent a month travelling around Eastern Europe by train and staying in youth hostels completely alone, so it perhaps isn't surprising that other posters become a bit cynical.

I didn't see that thread/post. How on earth did they manage if their needs were so great as to qualify for HRC and HRM? I gues that the DLA form was somewhat embroidered......

Heycock

Dunroamin...that's just the kind of thing that makes the greater public sceptical about DLA.They see the abuses but not the hidden costs associated with disability, brilliantly if sadly illustrated by Kingfisherblue.
I can add a few more.....extra laundry costs for "accidents", cleaning costs, clothing replacement when cleaning just isn't an option, lost work through lack of sleep (I'm a taxi driver and frequently miss work when dozing off in the day), care costs not covered by state funding. For example, OH goes to day centre...funded partly by SS, partly by PCT but I pay for meals there. Not cheap (Sending her with a packed lunch isn't a sensible option), holistic/palliative treatment which doesn't cure but certainly improves life quality, repairs to household items, repairs to fabric of household, AND let's be honest a welcome addition to CA which in no way whatsoever compensates a wage earner for giving up work to care. When I add everything together that we're entitled to I can just afford to give up work in a few months time. Take any one benefit out and it would be impossible. It'll mean a massive drop in income but it's not impossible. And i get to keep my sanity. The biggest benefit of all. Cos I'm losing it trying to do everything.

FBaby

Heycock wrote: »

There is certainly a case to be made for ALL benefits to be means-tested. From child benefit all the way through to winter fuel payments and for the scrapping of age related tax allowances but politically it would never happen. The sceptre of means testing and the workhouse is too emotive within the body-political.
And I think the reason DLA isn't means tested is because it was designed to compensate for the extra costs of disability (to make you no worse off than if you had no disability) and if you look at it in that respect then non-means testing makes sense.
However if you end up on DLA better off than without the disability then that is a problem and will have to be addressed.

I completely agree to this. If we bring up the argument that one is entitled to spend their DLA as their wish, that anyone is receipt of DLA would prefer to be working, and that it is therefore acceptable to chose to save the money they receive in DLA to spend on holiday, then DLA is indeed a financial compensation for being disabled, rather than a benefit to insure needs associated to the disabilities are met. If if it to compensate for being disabled, than it shouldn't be means tested.

Just to remind though that the OP hasn't mentioned DLA but ESA, which is a benefit, not compensation, for those who can't work. Interesting that the OP was last year on JSA, now on ESA, yet not too poorly to deal with the stress and demand of a holiday in America, unless of course he is claiming ESA on the basis of that very grey area of depression/stress/anxiety...

wattdallas

FBaby wrote: »

I think this is a fact but you make it sound like it is a crime. When people pay for others to have things they can't afford themselves bitterness is inevitable because it challenges the notion of fairness.

Fairness !!!!! It's not fair some people have disabilies and some don't .Lifes not fair

dark_lady

PippaGirl wrote: »

and you can bet your bottom dollar that almost everyone on DLA would gladly exchange the money for a life without the disability and pain.

Personally I do think DLA or its replacement needs to be means tested, not at a low level particularly but millionaires and very high earners and the like could be excluded I think. But DLA is essential for many people to be able to gain the care and mobility they need for their daily lives. I think even if it were paid into an account like direct payments are that are only authorised to people and organisations which are providing the care and the mobility. That way Joe Public can see that the money is doing what it should and providing the help people need, rather than paying for a holiday in the sun which they themselves cannot afford.

Fine. As long as they also do exactly the same with Child Benefit. Also including Joe Public seeing that its actually spent on the child. After all having a child is a choice. Illness and disability isnt. And if you do this with benefits like DLA/ESA etc but not child related benefits then its discrimination!

PippaGirl_2

Someone I know uses all her DLA MRC to pay for her horse livery fees as well as some of her CTC

Dunroamin

FBaby wrote: »

I completely agree to this. If we bring up the argument that one is entitled to spend their DLA as their wish, that anyone is receipt of DLA would prefer to be working, and that it is therefore acceptable to chose to save the money they receive in DLA to spend on holiday, then DLA is indeed a financial compensation for being disabled, rather than a benefit to insure needs associated to the disabilities are met. If if it to compensate for being disabled, than it shouldn't be means tested.

Just to remind though that the OP hasn't mentioned DLA but ESA, which is a benefit, not compensation, for those who can't work. Interesting that the OP was last year on JSA, now on ESA, yet not too poorly to deal with the stress and demand of a holiday in America, unless of course he is claiming ESA on the basis of that very grey area of depression/stress/anxiety...

I agree with much of what you've written except that DLA isn't an out of work benefit. I do object to the concept of DLA as "compensation" for being disabled and I think that it's this concept that causes the most problems.

Heycock

Dunroamin...not compensation for being disabled but "compensation" for the extra costs....which if people dug their heels in would ultimately have to be met in full by the state if people couldn't cope. I can do things more cheaply than the state.

princessdon

Heycock wrote: »

Dunroamin...not compensation for being disabled but "compensation" for the extra costs....which if people dug their heels in would ultimately have to be met in full by the state if people couldn't cope. I can do things more cheaply than the state.

I absolutely agree with you - so on that note does it not make it "unfair" that you are given the same credit, funding, benefits etc as someone who may have lesser needs yet claim the same?

Eg someone who may need someone to "go shopping with them" once a week or someone who has a lot less care needs etc.

True carers are worth far more than ever acknowledged - but there are some that "know how to play the system" - and this can taint other people's views. Eg if someone can mange full time work, a degree in a stressful field - yet their partners are entitled to carers allowance for them?

That isn't the same situation as yourself (which I am sure you and others affected would be the first to agree). To equal the care you provide to the care others provide is none comparable.

My MIL gets AA - I "care for her" as do all other family members - but "care" is a loose term. We take her shopping and do some heavy housework. Of course we don't claim AA as we all work and recognise all we do is "assist her with areas she finds difficult" as opposed to caring, but I would have the right to claim CA (and therefore IS etc) if I wished.

The two situations are completely and utterly incomparable and very unfair to the likes of yourself and others who are true carers 24/7.