MSE News: Government considers tougher benefit sanctions

princessdon

Indeed Zagfles - I just had this discussion with my eldest who started High School. Why can't I go on School Meals? £4 for a slice a pizza, a drink and a cookie. No way.

Once she had the decision to go on dinners and pay the difference between them and pack up's she has decided that actually pack up's are good.

I don't have money to throw around like that even if it means yet another chore in the morning/evening.

zagfles

clemmatis wrote: »

It's (officially) less than 60% of median household income. And yes it varies with the number of children. Here that 60% is given, for 2009/10 , after taxes and housing costs have been deducted, as £300 a week for a couple with two children under 14.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoring-poverty-2011?gclid=CI2YvKiXn7ICFQQLfAodWT0AEg

The main govt target (ie that defined in the Child Poverty Act) has always been before housing costs, not after. (but after taxes and benefits).

See the start of: http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdf

Or lighter reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13377586

Most pressure groups like the JRF prefer after housing costs measures, for (IMCO) two reasons, it makes the poverty line seem lower, and it increases the poverty figures.

For instance, for a couple with 2 kids (aged 5 & 14) the the poverty line is £384 a week, ie almost £20k a year after tax/benefits.

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2011/excel_files/chapters/chapter_2_excel_hbai12.xls (last tab).

earthbound_misfit

missbunbury wrote: »

My question though, is how can we actually distinguish between these two types in any meaningful way on a macro level? Whilst I agree that the WCA seems not to be fit for purpose in may cases, what is the alternative?

Whilst there is a point at which it may be difficult to tell if someone is faking, the current system has clearly set the bar far too high. Consultants' reports, medical/psychiatric history, everything is overlooked in favour of the Atos assessment - we're not talking fringe cases here. It may not be possible to get it 100% right, but it could definitely be righter. On top of that, there seems to be a problem with assessors recording false answers to questions, not asking questions that they then assume the answer for, and reports that make ludicrous conclusions (eg. listing significant day-to-day problems someone has cos of their health then saying "recommended return to work in 3months").
I agree it's always going to be difficult to judge, but when you have cases of three consultants and a GP being ignored, something is definitely wrong.

missbunbury wrote: »

I don't think GPs would be much better at telling whether someone is putting it on if we are talking about nebulous things like "mental health" which is a perfect example of an area where you can have shammers and genuine cases side by side getting the same diagnosis. So what do we do to improve the situation?

Yes but shammers would have trouble getting any supporting evidence. It's hard enough to get mental health help as it is. Believe me, no-one would want to fake mental health problems (serious enough to get ESA) because of the damage to their personal/social life, and no sane person would want to spend time with the mental health treatment teams if they didn't have to!
I guess someone could fake depression or something, but only diagnosable as mild to moderate. (Severe should, in theory, get you referred to the MH team.) But equally, someone who genuinely suffers depression may do everything to appear 'fine' to others, and when things are bad are only noticeable socially by their absence. So it is hard to make assumptions about people you suspect are faking.
But again, if someone is receiving treatment (or on a waiting list, or it's agreed the treatment isn't working or available but they are ill) then it's easier to get a pretty accurate assessment of their mental state.
I agree that mental health and I guess things like pain are harder to gauge though.
Agreed in general with your thoughtful post, just wanted to clarify those points!

belladonna13

These benefit changes are coming so thick and fast that I cannot keep up, to be honest reading some of it really makes my head hurt.

I have fought the systems, in some ways, for many years by being part of the mental health user movement, mainly fighting for improved services and challenging stigma. Sadly, I can no longer do that due to a deterioration in my MH and also physical disabilities that it would appear I am 'collecting' more of each year.

The only stand I can take now is to vote and to lobby my MP which I will continue to do.

I am truly scared of all the changes and not just for myself but for others also. I read on here daily, and so many seem to be being assessed unfairly. I know those with negative experiences post more than those with positive experiences, but what I read scares me.

I will be changed over from IS to ESA and so I am waiting with dread the letter calling me to be assessed and each day I check my post box my tummy turns over.

I am not a liar, I am not a fake and I am not lazy, I am an ex-professional who worked and studied long and hard to become among the best in my field. I loved my career with a passion and having to leave it tore my world apart.

What I am paid in benefits is a pittance compared to what I use to earn but I feel the benefits I receive are good and in no way would I expect more and I would even be fine with taking a cut providing the big cats (tax evaders, bankers and MP's) also took a cut, after all 'we are all in this together'.

I agree also with the poster who spoke about people turning to crime and although I do not think this would be major crime I feel that shoplifting and receiving stolen goods would rise sharply.

Then of course there are the benefit fraudsters who through their criminal actions and total disregard for others have caused many to suspect almost anyone on benefits to a greater or lesser degree. Those benefit fraudsters will still find a way to abuse the system, to steal the tax payers money because they are not only devious but they are clever, a very, very dangerous combination, they will soon find the loopholes that will allow them to live on tax payers money.

Claiming benefits when working and not entitled, HB crime claiming for people who do not exist, whole families that do not exist, claiming disability benefits when not disabled and carers benefit when not caring and on and on, something does need to be done and is being done, but it appears that there are too many genuine people being sanctioned and that is wrong and that means somehow, somewhere there are flaws in the assessment system that need to be sorted out now, not later, but now, before any more genuine claimants lose benefits that they are fully and totally entitled to.

Because of my disabilities I feel 'less than' and I struggle with that feeling on a daily basis, when I read some of the vicious and judgmental posts on this and other forums I feel even worse. I and many others, through disability, have already lost so much, to lose our financial support also will make us feel that those who do not believe some of us are in some ways vindicated.

leveller2911

belladonna13 wrote: »

These benefit changes are coming so thick and fast that I cannot keep up, to be honest reading some of it really makes my head hurt.



The only stand I can take now is to vote and to lobby my MP which I will continue to do.


Who do you vote for?, thats the crux. Conservatives have always looked after their own and encouraged people to stand on their own 2 feet, not entirely a bad thing IMO.Nu-Labour have always near bankrupted the country and expanded the "nanny state" beyond belief.

If Nu-Labour were elected within 2 yrs we would be a basket case like Greece. So whats choice do you/we have?.

Remember that if your MP is a Tory,Labourite or Lib-dem he is a Party member and although he/she's 1st priority is their electorate in practice it rarely is, they will vote with their party...........

sniggings

missbunbury wrote: »

I would agree with some of the comments in this thread that ESA is abused by some claimants, just as JSA is abused. I have anecdotal experience of people who blatantly play the system, getting diagnosed with various questionable illnesses which may or may not be real and may or may not cause a genuine inability to work. I also know very genuine claimants who suffer dreadfully in their day to day lives and certainly could not gain paid employment however much they might wish to. My question though, is how can we actually distinguish between these two types in any meaningful way on a macro level? Whilst I agree that the WCA seems not to be fit for purpose in may cases, what is the alternative? I don't think GPs would be much better at telling whether someone is putting it on if we are talking about nebulous things like "mental health" which is a perfect example of an area where you can have shammers and genuine cases side by side getting the same diagnosis. So what do we do to improve the situation?

Doctors are better placed than an Atos worker who is not medically trained and is pressurised into getting people off benefits.

DWP's own figures puts fraud down to 0.1%, so I do not believe many are or can fool their own doctor.

DLA though is another matter as people in work can claim this so to me it is a lot easier to claim when not entitled but even that the fraud rate is said to be low.

I feel the government to targeting the wrong people, instead of targeting hard cases such as families with 4 or 5 kids, I worked with people who had 7 and eight kids and would drop hours to part time knowing ctc would make most of it up, rents too are out of control, many more people in work claim housing benefit than out of work, it is these problems that don't have an easy answer that the government should be tackling but they are too hard so instead go for the easy option of kicking people off ESA and sanctioning people for daft or little reasons, to try and save money, but still failing.

princessdon

DWP's own figures puts fraud down to 0.1%, so I do not believe many are or can fool their own doctor.

Really? My GP gives tablets and sicknotes like sweeties to children - in fact she DOES give sweeties to children. I keep saying - they don't deserve a treat for behaving - but she gives it anyway!

sniggings

princessdon wrote: »

DWP's own figures puts fraud down to 0.1%, so I do not believe many are or can fool their own doctor.

Really? My GP gives tablets and sicknotes like sweeties to children - in fact she DOES give sweeties to children. I keep saying - they don't deserve a treat for behaving - but she gives it anyway!

a fit note or sick note can be too easily given by some but this has started to be tightened up, the fraud rate is still low though, the cost of Atos and appeals is costing the tax payer millions.


As I said the cost and problems lie else where but the sick and disabled are an easy target.

Having their own doctor or even a doctor from a different area, judge if someone is unable to work would be far better than the mess we have now.

Can you put a pen in your pocket, can you lift a carton of milk, a two your old could do that but not hold down a paying job, questions such as those are clearly aimed at finding most people fit for work no matter how ill/disabled they are.

clemmatis

zagfles wrote: »

The main govt target (ie that defined in the Child Poverty Act) has always been before housing costs, not after. (but after taxes and benefits).

For instance, for a couple with 2 kids (aged 5 & 14) the the poverty line is £384 a week, ie almost £20k a year after tax/benefits.

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2011/excel_files/chapters/chapter_2_excel_hbai12.xls (last tab).

Thank you.

belladonna13

princessdon wrote: »

DWP's own figures puts fraud down to 0.1%, so I do not believe many are or can fool their own doctor.

Really? My GP gives tablets and sicknotes like sweeties to children - in fact she DOES give sweeties to children. I keep saying - they don't deserve a treat for behaving - but she gives it anyway!

I took my then 11 year old son to our old GP (who also gave out sweets) for a tetanus injection, due to having had numerous medical procedures when younger my son had developed a fear of needles, so of course he got very upset and tried to get out of the surgery. The GP got a baby pull toy out of his drawer and pulled it and it started to play "Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream" that added to my sons screams and my son opening the door and the GP pulling it shut was total chaos...we still laugh about it 20 yrs later.....lol.

I do agree that GPs who have built up a relationship over the years with their patient can feel compromised when asked for sicknotes, DLA support etc.

Atos HCP's are not Drs and I believe they should be and also that the Dr should, whenever possible, be matched to the claimant in regards to what the claimant is presenting with. This tick box assessment sounds ridiculous anyone could tick boxes and from what I have read that is what is happening, A physiotherapist is hardly going to understand complex mental health issues and I doubt a midwife will understand back issues, unless of course its due to labour.

When I was advised and then applied for DLA an independent Doctor, who I had never met before, came to my home to assess me, he asked me to do some movements to test my mobility, he asked me lots of questions and examined my legs and neck. He remarked that he felt I was playing down my symptoms with regard to the pain and so I tried to explain the pain was not always severe and I was in some ways use to it. He asked me how far I could walk on a good day and how far on a bad day and he was there for a long time.

Two weeks later I was awarded DLA for life (now indefinite) I had not even thought of applying for DLA, but was advised to by a legal executive who had seen my limited mobility when I consulted her on another matter.

People do not neatly fit into boxes and in my opinion the present system for ESA is not fit for purpose. DLA should be assessed the way I was assessed, it is wrong that someone can just fill in a form and not have a medical and I seem to be in the minority of claimants who had a medical. Although under PIP maybe things will be stricter.