Why ESA is unfair for the sick!

billywilly

ohreally wrote: »

That "lifestyle" could easily be subsistence level existence, not what most of us would accept as a lifestyle.

If you actually believe that then there is no hope. Having in excess of £100 a week coming in via IB which was very rarely checked or reassessed as vigorously as ESA is, gives you a good base to work from. Add to that another £100 or so earned 'cash in hand' turns it all into a profitable enterprise.

In the middle 70's I was out of work and claimed unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit which also paid my mortgage in full each month. Additionally I worked a couple of nights in a nightclub and earned another £75 a week a week cash in hand. Together all of that added up to more (if you include the mortgage payments) than what I was bringing home for working a full 40 hours a week, yet I didn't actually work for more than 16 hours!

rogerblack

billywilly wrote: »

In the middle 70's I was out of work and claimed unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit which also paid my mortgage in full each month. Additionally I worked a couple of nights in a nightclub and earned another £75 a week a week cash in hand. Together all of that added up to more (if you include the mortgage payments) than what I was bringing home for working a full 40 hours a week, yet I didn't actually work for more than 16 hours!

If you truly believe this should not happen, then report your misdeclaration.
You still owe the overpayment of that sum, and additional criminal penalties are still possible.
If not, shut the **** up and stop posting.

billywilly

rogerblack wrote: »

If you truly believe this should not happen, then report your misdeclaration.
You still owe the overpayment of that sum, and additional criminal penalties are still possible.
If not, shut the **** up and stop posting.

It's highly unlikely that after 40 years anybody at the DWP (DHSS) would be interested. i was just trying to explain to the other poster that being on benefits is and was a lifestyle.
Sorry to take the thread off course, so no further comment from me on this subject is necessary or appropriate.

themarsbargirl

Indie_Kid wrote: »

She might not be able to if Brighty works.

Fair point, for some reason I read it as his Mum not his wife....speed reading too many threads!

Brighty

Yes, I am unfortunate enough to also be one of those mugs that worked all his life (well since I finished uni 18yrs ago?) so have a full time job, so as I work more that 24hrs a week, we're not entitled to income based.
We're certainly not regarding benefit as a 'lifestyle', but after the way the rules treated my wife, we're now gonna get all we can, while I continue to work full time.


Brighty

abrockall

cifpower wrote: »

Shall you be repaying your fraudulently claimed benefits back? Or, better still, giving them to your mother?

Already paid back

abrockall

[QUOTE=

Also I suspect the OP is just a troll on a wind up mission.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, just providing proof that genuinely sick people are treated unfairy by conservatives

abrockall

rogerblack wrote: »

Even if you repay the money, you have committed benefit fraud - a crime, as well as made yourself liable for a civil penalty.

Your original post also assumes that you'd have told your GP about all your symptoms.
That doesn't always happen, for a number of reasons.
In my case, I rarely go to my GP so they don't know me.

Due to the 'there is no quota' quota system, you've likely pushed one person from the support to work-related group.

ESA is specifically not paid on the basis of if you can work or not.
It's if you meet various descriptors, or are a danger to yourself or others, or have certain specified conditions.
Ability to work is not assessed.

I have intentionally committed benefit fraud in the past and the police were not even called. Simply paying it back

abrockall

FBaby wrote: »

Totally agree with Nannytone. If people were honest, then there wouldn't be the scrutiny that now needs to be in place. Of course, fraud relating to ESA is almost none existent as we are constantly told on these forums.

Saying that, i don't believe OP as he is constantly contradicting himself. He start by saying that he was on the WRAG for 6 years, but strangely, it is when his time for reassessment comes that he realises that he could work. Then he goes on to say that he shouldn't be in the support group but the WRAG. Then he says that he is ending the claim? Yeah right!

In any case, I don't believe that the assessor said he should be in the suport group just on what he said with no evidence from clinicians.

It's true, although during the initial claim you give the DWP permission to access your medical records. They didn't in my case and simply went on what I told them. No contact with my GP at all!