Dla/ca

benniebert

FBaby wrote: »

considering the 35 hours critieria is something that is never ever checked, I can't help wonder how many people claim the benefit and don't fulfill the criteria.

Yes, I have wondered about that as well.


Anybody can say anything. And the statement is never checked - oh yes it is, the person being cared for has to agree that they are getting this care for 35 hours a week.


Uumm maybe a little biased??

Errata

benniebert wrote: »

OK you say that, but it does appear so far from the number of comments from other posters that you are the only one who is saying that that is what happens.
TomTonTom's post above explains the situation as it really is (not what is in the rule book). In the reality of life, these so called plans are NOT being carried out - you are the odd one out it appears.
And to be honest, what the BH has it got to do with anybody including my GP if I want to be left to die? Social problems are for Social Workers - Medical problems are for medics.
If I wanted a wheelchair, I would rent one from the Red Cross which I do regularly.

As the collaborative Care Plan initiative only came into being two days ago, what 'reality' are you referring to?

benniebert

Errata wrote: »

As the collaborative Care Plan initiative only came into being two days ago, what 'reality' are you referring to?

Did it??


Seems that our 'Poppie' was the first in the queue then. She posted this on the 1st April:


GPS are already responsible for these patients they can report on hospital appointments and surgery visits. GPS are now calling in these patients to complete a Care Plan were their disabilities are discussed and action plans made. If you haven't been called in ring your surgery and ask for further information.

I would also add, have you seen the factual report request form sent to GP's by the DWP?


There isn't one question on it that involves an opinion to be given by a GP that relates to anything but diagnosis, treatment and date of last visit. Even if these 'care plans' do materialise, the GP's aren't going to be asked to report on anything different than they have for the past 10 years and more.

FBaby

He has a lot of complex medical problems, which means she has to constantly take time off work to take him to medical appointments. She has to constantly take time off work because of him constantly being ill. He's severely deaf, partially sighted, has learning disabilities and has a whole host of other medical problems. She only works term time due to his disabilities. She can't put him in child care due to his complex needs.

And in that case, I think it is totally justified. However, I do know from experience that some parents certainly don't provide that level of care. A family member claims CA for her child who has learning difficulties, however, it got too much for her and his dad who she is separated from has taken on caring for him for 3 days out of 7. He goes to school full-time, so she definitely doesn't care for the child 35 hours (he only wakes up very occasionally at night as many children with disabilities do). However, she looks at CA totally different from me. I see it as an income she receives for the care she should be providing to her child in addition to what she would provide if he didn't have additional care needs. She sees it no further than her child got middle rate DLA and therefore she is entitled to CA. I am not even sure she even remembers the number of hours she is supposed to care for him in the first place.

I really would like to know how many parents with a child in receipt of MRC DLA not working do not claim DLA. I bet very few even surely not all actually need 35 hours additional care.

Again, I would be shocked if CA was abolished all togeher and really hope this is not the case, but claimants should have to evidence that they are providing 35 hours additional care to claim and this should be reviewed regularly.

Poppie68

Well Andy sure is getting his nappy in a twist over these Care Plans.....Guess what mine was completed 3 weeks ago:eek:

Stop being envious, wish yourself ill enough and you too could have a Care Plan!...Otherwise stop trying to disprove something that you can't.

50Twuncle

Doesn't the 35 hours actually include "being there for someone - just in case" ?
Because I don't see any circumstances where someone could actively be caring for someone for 7 hours per day - I mean physically holding their hands/answering the phone/feeding them/helping them walk/helping them go to the loo/cleaning up after them/washing clothes/making beds - most of which they MAY be doing anyway ?

FBaby

Doesn't the 35 hours actually include "being there for someone - just in case" ?

So often does 'something' need to be avoided to consider that it is worth financial support? Because anyone could claim they need to there with their love ones in case aliens decide to invade. Ok being cynical, but trying to illustrate the issue of how do you define 'just in case' for that purpose?

Indie_Kid

50Twuncle wrote: »

Doesn't the 35 hours actually include "being there for someone - just in case" ?
Because I don't see any circumstances where someone could actively be caring for someone for 7 hours per day - I mean physically holding their hands/answering the phone/feeding them/helping them walk/helping them go to the loo/cleaning up after them/washing clothes/making beds - most of which they MAY be doing anyway ?

There's no actual definition of care. For me, for example, a lot of the care I need is communication support. (interacting with others, responding and reading mail, etc)

There are many circumstances where someone would be caring for another person for 7 hours a day - I can't see why you'd think otherwise? A lot of people also need care at night - care doesn't stop once someone goes to bed. For example, as a child, I needed care at night because as someone with undiagnosed nocturnal epilepsy, I would vomit, which when you're sleeping is rather dangerous.

tomtontom

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Night time care, ferrying your child to medical appointments, having to give up work because your child gets ill too often? I have a friend who claims (or did) for her 5 year son. He has a lot of complex medical problems, which means she has to constantly take time off work to take him to medical appointments. She has to constantly take time off work because of him constantly being ill. He's severely deaf, partially sighted, has learning disabilities and has a whole host of other medical problems. She only works term time due to his disabilities. She can't put him in child care due to his complex needs.

I take it you have no idea what it's like having to look after a disabled child?

The problem with your arguments Indie is that you always give such extreme examples, it devalues the point you are trying to make. No one is doubting these exist, but they are not the norm. There are (too) many claiming CA who could actually fulfil their caring responsibilities and work at the same time.

And give over with your digs at FBaby - she's far from bitter, just able to take a more balanced viewpoint.

Indie_Kid

tomtontom wrote: »

The problem with your arguments Indie is that you always give such extreme examples, it devalues the point you are trying to make. No one is doubting these exist, but they are not the norm. There are (too) many claiming CA who could actually fulfil their caring responsibilities and work at the same time.

And give over with your digs at FBaby - she's far from bitter, just able to take a more balanced viewpoint.

Because of course, having a disabled child is "extreme":rotfl:

My mum actually considered giving up work to care for my brother who has Autism. Oh silly me, is that too extreme for you?

I do know someone who has tried working full time as a single parent and caring for his disabled child. It's bloody hard work.

Do you seriously think someone would rather earn £61 a week (or whatever it is now) rather £200 a week? I don't.