Question about DLA

Anubis_2

PIP will account more for variable conditions. It is wise to put down "on my worse days I can not ........, and on my better days I am able to.........." to give a clearer picture of the variable nature.

Capt. scarlet, out of interest, do you have any links to these many high profile cases? It would be interesting to read through some of them.

Cpt.Scarlet

Anubis wrote: »

Capt. scarlet, out of interest, do you have any links to these many high profile cases? It would be interesting to read through some of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346168/Valerie-Lewis-Disabled-golf-captain-guilty-40k-benefits-fraud.html

Just to be clear, I'm are not saying that a claimant should not mention their worst day, but it has to be in the context of how they are for the majority of the time.

sparkycat2

I was under the impression that while with other benefits the duty to inform of a change in circumstance or condition is on the claimant with DLA the claimant is not expected to know exactly when his health improves enough to not qualify for the benefit and when that improvement is permanent going to be true for the following 6 months.

In cases where the form has been filled in honestly and the condition fluctuates or the improvement in health status is not massive I doubt it would be viewed as fraud.

I mean I doubt they want a ongoing day to day health report from every claimant who has a fluctuating condition or who is slowly recovering from a illness or learning to cope better with a disability.

In cases where the health change is massive they stated they could not walk and are now running a marathon, or where the form was filled in dishonestly I can see it being pursued as fraud.

rogerblack

To clarify the case I was referring to - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/307976/-Disabled-benefit-cheat-caught-on-slide-sells-home-to-repay-16-000

If you cannot repay, and are convicted of defrauding a significant sum, by only reporting your bad days, you can be compelled to sell any assets you have, including ones that would not usually be reclaimable, such as a house.

While it does seem questionable if she would legitimately be entitled to HRM at all - you can be entitled on the basis of variable conditions.
At the moment, I receive low-rate care and mobility due to CFS.

I have explicitly said that there are good days.
(Seperately, I'm currently pursuing an appeal on the grounds that I think I have an arguable case for MRC/HRM.
I'm doing this as it would enable me to get the funds to bring in outside care, which would enable me to start up a small business in the few hours a week of good time that would then be freed up, to hope to get off reliance on benefits.

sparkycat2

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346168/Valerie-Lewis-Disabled-golf-captain-guilty-40k-benefits-fraud.html

Just to be clear, I'm are not saying that a claimant should not mention their worst day, but it has to be in the context of how they are for the majority of the time.

I think that is a clear case of fraud if the Daily Mail report is accurate.

claimed that the maximum distance she could walk was 140 yards, and that she needed help bathing and even tying her shoe laces.

In July 2001 Lewis had a medical examination to support claims she suffered from spondylitis, or inflammation of the vertebra. But on the day, she had in fact played golf and even rode a horse, the court heard.

she was playing golf 18 times a month at the time

claim higher rate care and mobility components of Disability Living Allowance from 2001 after claiming she had ‘substantial’ personal care needs

rogerblack wrote: »

To clarify the case I was referring to - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/307976/-Disabled-benefit-cheat-caught-on-slide-sells-home-to-repay-16-000

Also looks like a clear case of fraud

"You claimed you needed help and assistance walking, getting in and out of bed, going to the toilet and bathing.
You said you could only walk 10 metres before feeling severe discomfort and said it would take you three minutes to do this.
But these videos show you walking unaided, climbing up steep steps and using water slides."

mazza111

I must admit, I have claimed DLA on my daughter's behalf, still waiting to hear, but I have updated them on the changes since the form was filled in. It's now marked as urgent according to the woman I spoke to today. Things like, now fitted with knee and wrist braces. Now started physio. Now been diagnosed with HMS, as when she applied it was suspected. Things like that. And if some miracle happens in the next few months I would also tell them of any improvements.

But surely people should be using average days (Is there such a thing?) or the word sometimes, or on occasion.. Mine with socks is a definite No, I just can't do it.

sparkycat2

mazza111 wrote: »

I must admit, I have claimed DLA on my daughter's behalf, still waiting to hear, but I have updated them on the changes since the form was filled in. It's now marked as urgent according to the woman I spoke to today. Things like, now fitted with knee and wrist braces. Now started physio. Now been diagnosed with HMS, as when she applied it was suspected. Things like that. And if some miracle happens in the next few months I would also tell them of any improvements.

But surely people should be using average days (Is there such a thing?) or the word sometimes, or on occasion.. Mine with socks is a definite No, I just can't do it.

I think it is highly dependent on the nature of the person's disability or illness, the prognosis and the amount of medical evidence.

I would expect the problem is often claimants understating the level of a help they need due to finding the process humiliating and distressing, especially on things like personal care needs. Others may fear being put into care, etc...

Also in some cases the DWP decision makers guidance is going to be that they can not rely on information provided by the claimant, and must rely on expert medical evidence. For example cases of severe bipolar with psychotic episodes or schizophrenia where the claimant is presumed to be a unreliable source of evidence and when reasonably well likely to understate their illness.

kingfisherblue

I have to agree that people should be wary about detailing their worst days only when filling in DLA forms. This advice is often given, but is very misleading. After all, you sign the form to state that the information is accurate and true. If you have been advised to fill out the worst days only, and you are caught out, then it isn't the person who advised you that will be prosecuted - it is you.

The DLA office can and often do contact doctors and consultants - imagine if you have put your worst days only, and their report gives different information. Clearly, such a contradiction is likely to result in you being refused DLA as you have not been honest.

I see no problem in putting 'On average days, my condition affects me in this way. However, on worse days, xyz happens. Worse days occur X times a week/month'. This way, the DMs can see how you are usually affected, but also know that you do have days when your condition worsens, and how often.

mazza111

Sorry, she's having more bad days than good atm, every thing seems to be changing so rapidly for her, just over a year ago (March '11) she was bouncing around like Tigger, then everything changed and is still changing. Think if you're applying for any benefit you really have to be honest and give a good day bad day scenario and both should be looked at. Unfortunately not everyone is so honest, then you get the scenario like the ones mentioned in the press.

While everything is still so changeable I think we will need to keep informing of the changes.

sparkycat2

kingfisherblue wrote: »

I have to agree that people should be wary about detailing their worst days only when filling in DLA forms.

I think the key word is "only", that is the form should not be filled in to mislead.

But I do think worst days should be used as examples, as long as the variability of the condition is made clear. After all if on the worst days they collapse and need urgent help they might not live to see the better day if they do not have their care needs met.

Maybe PIP will be better with it's repeatedly, reliably rather than snap shot approach.

kingfisherblue wrote: »

The DLA office can and often do contact doctors and consultants - imagine if you have put your worst days only, and their report gives different information. Clearly, such a contradiction is likely to result in you being refused DLA as you have not been honest.

I thought for DLA it was normal practice for medical evidence to be used as the primary basis for the decision, that medical evidence was always sought. The DLA A to Z of disabilities and illnesses on the DWP website gives a idea how decisions are reached. Things like diagnosis, prognosis, medication, hospilization, medical history, etc...

While PIP will most likely be worse in this respect if it is assessed like ESA.

Most instances of fraud with DLA seem to be originally genuine claims where the person has got better and then pretended to not have got better deceiving the doctor and fraudulently filling in renewal forms.

kingfisherblue wrote: »

I see no problem in putting 'On average days, my condition affects me in this way. However, on worse days, xyz happens. Worse days occur X times a week/month'. This way, the DMs can see how you are usually affected, but also know that you do have days when your condition worsens, and how often.

I believe DLA is paid on the basis the condition has existed for the past 3 months and is expected to continue for the next 6 months. But no one has a crystal ball as to how representative the last 3 months were or how good or bad the next 6 months will be.

I think it would depend on if there was such a thing as a average day, conditions fluctuate daily or weekly or monthly, etc... While other conditions might be expected to get better over time or get worse degenerate or be ticking time bombs with the person doomed to fall seriously ill again. I think giving a honest account on the form is what is important.

As long as the person is honest and accurate, does not seek to mislead, I would hope they should be free from worrying over what they put in the form.