Transferring Carer's Allowance, Help

missbiggles1

marleyboy wrote: »

Quite frankly, I find your post insulting!

I know somebody who had no choice but to give up their job in order to look after their disabled child. Six years later, they are still struggling at it, such a child with no communication whatsoever, who is also still in nappies and likely to be for the foreseeable future. This is not some 36 hour shift either, this is a 24 hour, 7 day a week shift.

They struggle to do this on CA, but still do it with pride as they love their Son. They do not look for these perks you claim, they do not sit down all day and work out what else they can screw out of the system, they hate the fact they have to use such a system, because brain dead bigots exist who really have'nt got a clue, have never lived it yet feel experienced enough to post scornful, accusational comments that are very ill thought out, regarding sitting on their backsides looking for the next handout.

I know this person quite well, for I am this person and have no shame in caring for my disabled Son nor claiming an allowance (from a system I have paid into all my life....just in case).

My only shame is in the attitude from certain members on here, for me having the bare faced cheek to even contemplate making a claim.

If we stopped paying CA to people who simply sit and watch TV/do a jigsaw/chat to etc. with the DLA claimant then , as I posted earlier, we could afford a better level of help for people who care at the level you do.

After all, we have (had) at least 2 levels of DLA and AA, so why not different levels of CA?

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If we stopped paying CA to people who simply sit and watch TV/do a jigsaw/chat to etc. with the DLA claimant then , as I posted earlier, we could afford a better level of help for people who care at the level you do.

After all, we have (had) at least 2 levels of DLA and AA, so why not different levels of CA?

Do you think that would happen with current cutbacks? I have a horrible feeling it would just be a money saving exercise. It isn't much as it is.

mumps

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I took care of a family member when I was younger and never expected to be paid for it. Funny thing is I never lived beyond my means or ended up heavily in debt either.
Nice little jab though.

The parents I was talking about have a 14 year old in nappies, who is spoon fed and can't communicate. They will spend the rest of their lives caring for her, the mother already has a chronic back condition from lifting her. I don't know if either of them gets CA, I don't think so as they both work 20 hrs a week so they would be earning too much but do I think it would be "a nice little job" no I think it is backbreaking, heartbreaking and CA is a pittance for what they do.

Poppie68

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I took care of a family member when I was younger and never expected to be paid for it. Funny thing is I never lived beyond my means or ended up heavily in debt either.
Nice little jab though.

So what would they live on then....Fresh air?

nannytone_2

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I understand that you get servere disablement premium if you are on income based Esa. What happens when on contribution based Esa and a helper is getting carers allowance for me. As I am on contribution Esa will I loose the care part of my Dla when transferred over to uc?

SDP is an ESA top up to those that live alone on a low income and no one caring for them.
if you don't receive this, then they can't remove it if someone claims CA.
no other deductions would be made unless are was provided via the LA either by services or direct payments.
in this case you would be expected to contribute towards the cost.
usually after a financial assessment or by conceding the care component of DLA/PIP

FBaby

My only shame is in the attitude from certain members on here, for me having the bare faced cheek to even contemplate making a claim.

Unfortunately, you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. CA is totally appropriate for parents who indeed had to give up work to care for someone who would end up in a specialised home if not. As a matter of fact, I believe that these people should x10 what CA currently is. This is exactly what CA should be for.

My issue is for people who were not working before, never intended to do so, who provide no more care to the person than they would if the person wasn't in receipt of DLA, yet see CA as a way to get an extra stipend for doing nothing different.

It makes me angry that the system throws free cash at people who provide no additional care, yet those who do provide care that amounts to nursing care get so little.

CA is considered the benefit with the highest rate of fraud proportionally at 3.9%, a total of 90m, but because because that still falls under the value for JSA, HB and Pensions Credit, it just doesn't receive the scrutiny the above do. It's not far behind JSA though, so hopefully, it will finally be next.

Tigsteroonie

FBaby wrote: »

My issue is for people who were not working before, never intended to do so, who provide no more care to the person than they would if the person wasn't in receipt of DLA, yet see CA as a way to get an extra stipend for doing nothing different.

But how do you know? Are you in their house 24/7 to see what level of care they have to give their child? Can you tell that the child is toilet-trained and not in nappies? That they can feed themselves? That they're not in danger of a grand-mal fit overnight?

Incidentally, care of a disabled child does not stop when during the 190 days they are at school. There are numerous medical appointments to juggle, reviews of their education plan to attend, specialists and disability workers to speak to who have an annoying habit of working only office hours. Disabled children can be more at risk of childhood sickness and, in the case of our son, get sent home from school more often as a result of simple colds/coughs (because he cannot self-care).

I would imagine those Mums of which you speak, enjoy the time when the child is with the absent Dad. It's called "respite". Heaven knows, we could flippin' do with some ...

missbiggles1

mumps wrote: »

Do you think that would happen with current cutbacks? I have a horrible feeling it would just be a money saving exercise. It isn't much as it is.

Well (big assumption here), if 50% are doing the sitting watching tv/doing jigsaws sort of care and 50% were doing what I consider to be genuine care, you could pay the second group £126 (?) pw if you stopped paying the first group anything - so you would save a small amount in admin.

FBaby

But how do you know? Are you in their house 24/7 to see what level of care they have to give their child? Can you tell that the child is toilet-trained and not in nappies? That they can feed themselves? That they're not in danger of a grand-mal fit overnight?

I do know the people I was referring to very well. Their children do not fit in the above category.

I would imagine those Mums of which you speak, enjoy the time when the child is with the absent Dad. It's called "respite". Heaven knows, we could flippin' do with some ...

I don't have an issue at all that they 'deserve' some respite, the point is that they are not providing 35 hours additional care a week and therefore should not be claiming CA.

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Well (big assumption here), if 50% are doing the sitting watching tv/doing jigsaws sort of care and 50% were doing what I consider to be genuine care, you could pay the second group £126 (?) pw if you stopped paying the first group anything - so you would save a small amount in admin.

I can see the maths just not sure it would work like that. I do agree that people like the couple I know deserve to get more. Unfortunately I don't think they get anything as they both do part time jobs, if one gave up work they could claim but they both value their jobs and I think they need time away from it all. Maybe the earnings limit should be looked as well.