Dla and son with autism advice

ab1982

So how would the DWP prove fraud on bad backs, anxiety, agoraphobia and all the conditions without any physical manifestation.

The 0.5% figure quotes is absolute horrocks and everyone knows it.

tomtontom

Indie_Kid wrote: »

But if you checked where the money is going with disability benefits, you have do that for all benefits. Why just single out those of us on disability benefits?

Because those on disability benefits receive considerably more than any other group? If someone receives £70 JSA it's generally accepted they will have little to spare, plus they have to prove at least every two weeks that they are fulfilling their claimant agreement. DLA claimants can go years at a time without having their entitlement checked, why should they at least not have to demonstrate once in a while that their money is being used as intended?

The same should apply for carers, getting rid of the ridiculous situation where people are apparently incapable of caring for themselves but able to care for others.

bloolagoon

tomtontom wrote: »

Because those on disability benefits receive considerably more than any other group? If someone receives £70 JSA it's generally accepted they will have little to spare, plus they have to prove at least every two weeks that they are fulfilling their claimant agreement. DLA claimants can go years at a time without having their entitlement checked, why should they at least not have to demonstrate once in a while that their money is being used as intended?

The same should apply for carers, getting rid of the ridiculous situation where people are apparently incapable of caring for themselves but able to care for others.

I think CTC could also apply - maybe stop the minute proportion who neglect their children and spend on themselves.

Obviously CB wouldn't need this as you physically cannot feed and house a child on £21/13 a week.

Re the caring for others I've long said it depends on individuals but on the whole it's scary that someone who needs prompting to take their own medication and is in danger of leaving pans on whilst cooking can have sole responsibility for a severely disabled child.

I'd like to think support agencies were involved as even if the child had no disability if a baby / toddler is relying on being fed and kept out of danger then it's frightening to think what could possibly happen.

ManofLeisure_2

ab1982 wrote: »

The 0.5% figure quotes is absolute horrocks and everyone knows it.

My son who is a Medic, certainly wouldn't agree with you. Indeed, neither do I, and I'm sure many others too.

rogerblack

ab1982 wrote: »

So how would the DWP prove fraud on bad backs, anxiety, agoraphobia and all the conditions without any physical manifestation.

The 0.5% figure quotes is absolute horrocks and everyone knows it.

Whereas bald assertions are of course more accurate.

Indie_Kid

tomtontom wrote: »

Because those on disability benefits receive considerably more than any other group? If someone receives £70 JSA it's generally accepted they will have little to spare, plus they have to prove at least every two weeks that they are fulfilling their claimant agreement. DLA claimants can go years at a time without having their entitlement checked, why should they at least not have to demonstrate once in a while that their money is being used as intended?

The same should apply for carers, getting rid of the ridiculous situation where people are apparently incapable of caring for themselves but able to care for others.

Not everyone on disability benefits receives a huge amount.

ab1982

rogerblack wrote: »

Whereas bald assertions are of course more accurate.

I didnt quote a figure. I'm just skeptical about using the 0.5% figure because its impossible to prove either way as fraud isnt black and white (evidenced by countless MSE discussion) so to put any figure on it is irrelvant.

Maybe my assertion about everyone knowing it is incorrect (bald?) but af best its a meaningless statistic and I suspect a misleaing one.

nannytone_2

so you think people that receive DLA/PIP for help cooking should buy ready meanns?
presumably, the portion of benefit paid for getting help with cooking would no longer be needed.
where is the money coming from to buy them?
i bet my entire weekly shop ( including toiletries, cleaning products etc) doesn't cost as much as 7 decent ready meals!

nannytone_2

they may cost less than the weekly shop .... but i buy food for 3 meals a gay plus toiletries plus cleaning products!

it would still be more expensive to buy ready meals that it is to cook, and with rather less choice. ( would be no good for me anyway because i don't eat meat, so even less variety, and i can't see to read the timings or to use the microwave )

imdies post about special dietary needs was in response to F Babt suggesting that ready meals was a suitable alternative to cooking and that many 'professionals' had to use them because they didn't have time to cook.

what someones profession has to do with ability to cook for ones self, i'm really not sure

Indie_Kid

nannytone wrote: »

so you think people that receive DLA/PIP for help cooking should buy ready meanns?

I have quite serious issues with food, which makes buying ready meals almost impossible. Unless I want to live on soup.