MSE News: Disability and carer's allowance claimaints to suffer as inflation falls

GirlFromMars_2

matelodave wrote: »

Benefits are there to help people not starve, they aren't really there to enable them to live in a manner better than the poor bloke down the road who goes out to work every day to pay for them.

I note from #13 the comment about motability - I'd love to have a shiny new car every three years (all expenses except fuel paid for) and I know a few who both get a nice new up-market motor on the scheme. In my view the motability scheme should be for a basic car without all the lights bells and whistles.
It's not up to the rest of us to fund a BMW or ginormous 4x4 when we have to go to work in a 10 year old Fiesta to pay for it.

Likewise short holidays - why should we fund someone to go on holiday when we can't afford it ourselves even though we are working.

The whole idea is to live within your means, not someone else's means. Benefits should be at or preferably below the level of the minimum wage however many kids you had or wherever you lived or whatever you think you need so there's an incentive to go out an earn.
You wouldn't be any worse off than the bloke who earned it for you but you wouldn't or shouldn't be better off either.

I think perhaps there's some confusion about the motability scheme.

The DWP pay a set amount of money every 4 weeks for HRM. A claimant can use this money for whatever they wish, although it is supposed to help with mobility purposes.

The amount of money the DWP provides does not cover the cost of a new BMW or 4x4 every three years. Many of the cars on the Motability scheme require the claimant pay a top up at the start of the lease term, or pay larger payments throughout. The cars you can get with just HRM payments are on the smaller more basic side, although again, they are shiny and new, which is apparently what most people are complaining about.

The car is supposed to be used for the benefit of the claimant, that doesn't mean the claimant has to be the only one to use the car. It would be of great benefit to my brother if his wife were able to use his mobility car, but she can't as she hasn't been driving for long enough to qualify for the scheme.

I think its important to remember how everyone bangs on about "household" when it comes to every other benefit, and how the household should support each other. You can bet your life a house with a disabled person is a household that supports one another, so why shouldn't the rest of the household benefit from the mobility car?

DLA PIP and even ESA are supposed to help the claimant lead a more normal life, despite the higher costs and problems of disability. In the case of DLA and PIP this is often designed to help the claimant into work they wouldn't otherwise be able to access, how the claimant spends the money really is up to them.

There are many ways to use money for mobility other than buying a car, for many people with disabilities a motorised scooter, or wheelchair is more appropriate, or in some instances taxis. Getting shopping delivered instead of going out can also be classed as a cost associated with mobility, as can adapting homes to make things easier for the claimant. Claimants with mobility problems may also be spending longer periods within the home, this increases heating costs, and other costs associated with the home, including making it a nice place to spend that amount of time.

DLA and PIP aren't easy to get, and are assessed. If you know someone playing the system, then by all means report them, although given the nature of fluctuating conditions, you may well be surprised to realise that what you see they are capable of on a good day, doesn't adequately reflect the story of their bad days.

Whatever you may think, a shiny new car or money doesn't make up for a long term disability. Anyone with a disability would be very happy to swap both for good health. I find it very sad to see those with good health wishing they had the money instead.

happyandcontented

Benefit fraud figures are just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations can only be made when reports are received. Very often such fraud is endemic in communities and is seen as nothing unusual.

I don't think anyone begrudges those in genuine need benefits or mobility aids, and of course they are the majority. However, there is a sizeable minority who do sucessfully play the system. They, (along with those who cheat the tax system) should be rooted out, not least for the benefit of the genuine claimants who get caught in the crossfire.

rogerblack

happyandcontented wrote: »

Benefit fraud figures are just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations can only be made when reports are received. Very often such fraud is endemic in communities and is seen as nothing unusual.

This is flat wrong.
The benefit fraud figures are _NOT_ 'how many people have we convicted or found out.

Random cases are selected of the entire case-load and investigated in detail.

If you do enough of this sampling - and you only need to do a couple of thousand a year - you can get accurate ideas of the actual fraud and error over the entire caseload.

happyandcontented

rogerblack wrote: »

This is flat wrong.
The benefit fraud figures are _NOT_ 'how many people have we convicted or found out.

Random cases are selected of the entire case-load and investigated in detail.

If you do enough of this sampling - and you only need to do a couple of thousand a year - you can get accurate ideas of the actual fraud and error over the entire caseload.

Do you have a link to how the stats are compiled?

Indie_Kid

Aren't fraud and customer error lumped together?

Viberduo

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

JSA is very low, set that low to encourage people to get off benefits, if that is the only income in their household.

Unfortunately other benefits, including work top up benefits, are overly generous. This means that many of these claimants have no desire to get off benefits.

It depends on your interpretation of "desire" i.e someone struggles on benefits but struggles just as bad if not more working a low wage job means they WANT to work just cannot handle it for what they get, that is a problem with wages paid not a lack of desire.

Then you have ones who struggle to handle work and cannot handle it so may not last long and be on benefits long periods, it doesnt mean they have no desire to work just they know they cannot handle it.

FBaby wrote: »

Yes, I would. I don't believe any tax payers money should be used towards paying for a car unless it has been assessed that the person is indeed seriously limited because of no access to transport. That means they are single and can't use public transport. Many people have a genuine need for a car, not just people who are disabled, but you can't claim any benefits just because you need it.

In what way? I personally struggle to leave the house and when I do I dont go far as I am limited to buses(though if I were to get a car i would probably not want to use it as I can get stuff free) However if I drove I know I can help my psychological issues by travelling to local museums, going to county parks, if I was bored during night I can go for a drive to clear my head, in fact I wouldnt care if 10 other families shared the car with me as long as I can use it when I need it(though that sounds impossible)

Also I would feel greedy having a car that isnt used that often plus I know the money would be better spent elsewhere(though a balance between everything would be the best)

In fact I think having a combined bus and train pass would be fantastic as right now should I want to go somewhere to treat myself(i would starve for a few days to afford like £9 a night in a hostel) I would spend 2 and a half hours getting to somewhere which is 40 minutes by train which would help my depression and soothe my aspergers.

wildwestfan wrote: »

I get so cross about people complaining about the amount of tax free money they receive because they are disabled. Add in rent, council tax payments plus help with dental and optical benefits and it will amount to a whole lot more than someone working full time on NMW who has to pay work related costs and their own housing costs.

Come on nanny and indie kid tell us how much you get week in week out. Then try and persuade us that you are so hard done by. People with disabilities are extremely well looked after in this country.

People on benefits do NOT get all their CT paid, and as for dental and optical many people do not go for years, and if they do its about once or twice max just for a checkup and do you not know about the low income scheme?

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Do you really believe the left wing propaganda that people on benefits receive the minimum level of income required to live?

Does the minimum cover sky, fags, booze, holidays, phones, take aways?

And you believe that ALL people on benefits are like this or that some dont play the system or do cash in hand work and thats where their money comes from? Or they have credit and dont pay it back?I know people who do cash in hand work who get JSA(I did report them) but still moaned about how poor they were as they were the stereotype leech, always asked for a loan from friends, turned up at friends at dinnertime and wanted food, friends who had cars would turn up when they were going out and expected a lift etc.

You cant just assume everyone on benefits is living a life of luxury, I grew up with parents struggling to even put food on table and a treat was like a mix up of sweets and a comic about once a week, or a bag of chips between 3 or 4 people, even on holidays we had to eat in and just walk around a holiday park as couldnt afford bus to town.

FBaby

For all you know, that holiday could just be a weekend in Devon or whatever. It doesn't automatically mean it's a week in the USA.

But for all we know it isn't just Devon and for all we know, maybe even Devon is a luxury to go to every year that many can't afford.

Some of us find that the different climate helps us. I really struggle in winter due to my asthma, which isn't in part helped by all the colds and whatnot going around.

Well that would certainly apply to me too. I have chronic allergies, been on medication for it for over 15 years now, and it is getting worse. Unfortunately, dumpness is what makes it worse. I am amazed when I go on holiday how much better I feel from that perspective, but does it mean I can claim benefit for it, NO! (and don't think I should either).

And getting help isn't easy. Some of us have waited months to even by seen by a CPN.

Very little in life is easy, but you still have to help yourself if you need it. I am saying that the money should go towards it. Are you saying that because it won't be easy to get better, it is not worth pursuing? Surely if there is a long waiting list for a cpn even better reason to use DLA towards private counselling in the meantime? Surely benefits should be to try to get better so not to need it any longer rather than seeing it as compensation for not ever trying to get better?

Indie_Kid

FBaby wrote: »

Very little in life is easy, but you still have to help yourself if you need it. I am saying that the money should go towards it. Are you saying that because it won't be easy to get better, it is not worth pursuing? Surely if there is a long waiting list for a cpn even better reason to use DLA towards private counselling in the meantime? Surely benefits should be to try to get better so not to need it any longer rather than seeing it as compensation for not ever trying to get better?

Assuming you can find a private counseller in the first place. Counselling isn't the right solution for everyone. I've had it before and it never helped me at all. In fact, it made me worse.

FBaby

You are aware that for some disabled people days out, short holidays, socialising, interacting online, going out with friends once in a while, enjoying a luxury just for them could actually be beneficial and therapeutic, and therefore form part of their 'additional costs'?

And that is the same old justification that comes up everytime. Are you aware that all the above would also very much apply to none disabled people? Those who are stressed, exhausted, who have to handled many different responsibilities and deserve a break....but can't afford it? Why are they less deserving of luxuries?

FBaby

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Assuming you can find a private counseller in the first place. Counselling isn't the right solution for everyone. I've had it before and it never helped me at all. In fact, it made me worse.

What I don't understand is why you are always coming up with reasons why suggestions are not attainable? Anyone is much more likely to be able to find a counsellor than not. Anyone suffering from anxiety and panic attacks is much more likely to benefit from counselling than not, yet you always seem to focus on the least likely outcomes to justify not doing something. Maybe that might have contributed to why counselling didn't help you (I really don't mean that in a sarcastic way).