Benefit fraud

schoolrunmum

deannatrois wrote: »

I agree, I have problems because of my hips and knees, not overweight but have other problems too. I've been told there's no point even referring me to a consultant because all they can offer is replacement and as I am 52, I'm too young. There's no other treatment apparently (and I'm pretty sure this isn't true either). This was last year, and I read within weeks that Eamon Holmes had paid for a private replacement (he was 54 at the time). So if its a bad idea to have hip/knee replacements so early, how come you can have them if you pay (if it was a bad idea, I'd expect its a bad idea whether you can pay or not)? And he's far more overweight lol.

I had my hip replacement at 51 on NHS...no problems at all, I know of many others far younger..if you do Facebook,check out the hip replacement support page..

elsien

I worked with someone who had a hip replacement on the NHS when he was in his early forties. Although he was at the stage of needing a wheelchair to get out and about, by then.

dktreesea

NeilCr wrote: »

Yes. You are right. It's not a new thing, though. It was/is the same with DLA

Here is an FOI request with an "explanation". Not that I agree with it

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/278138/response/682659/attach/html/2/FoI%202844.pdf.html

Yes, I see. So not just because people who become disabled during retirement already get the pension which is more generous than JSA or ESA, but also because there is a presumption that, being able bodied throughout their working life, they would have been able to earn more than someone who becomes disabled during their working life. Maybe, given the prejudice about hiring disabled workers, this is a reasonable assumption.

missbiggles1

NeilCr wrote: »

Indeed

Over the years I have seen a lot of clients over 65 who were thinking about claiming AA but decided not to when the criteria was explained to them. They were living alone and more than capable of looking after themselves - but getting about outdoors was a totally different thing

It's almost as though someone, somewhere, sometime decided that folks over 65 had no need to leave their property

My mother's AA application was turned down because of this - at least I understood the way it works when I came to do my husband's successful application.

Lanzarote1938

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, I see. So not just because people who become disabled during retirement already get the pension which is more generous than JSA or ESA, but also because there is a presumption that, being able bodied throughout their working life, they would have been able to earn more than someone who becomes disabled during their working life. Maybe, given the prejudice about hiring disabled workers, this is a reasonable assumption.

If I had an 'invisible' disability then I certainly woudn't be detailing it on a job application for a post I thought I was capable of fulfilling. Why would I risk my application going straight in the bin?

dktreesea

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I think the 'sacred cow' of anyone having a house/flat to themselves for those who don't pay for their housing is something to be considered.

Once upon a time we lived in what we could afford, if we couldn't afford a whole house/flat then we had to rent part of a house. For those who can't pay their own housing costs then there should be a flat rate of benefit, just for arguments sake say £500 a month maximum. Then up to the the person/family to find somewhere to live for that.

But the whole point of housing benefit was to enable poor families to be able to afford appropriate housing, once the government of the day decided to get out of the provision of social housing "business".


The problem with housing benefit is not just how generous it is, enabling BTL landlords to charge rents far in excess of anything they could get for their properties in the absence of housing benefit, but the government's lack or responsibility to the poor, neither ensuring they have jobs (i.e. along the lines of no foreigner can be employed if there is a British person out of work who wants to work and is able to do the job) nor building sufficient affordable housing to enable them to be appropriately housed.


Public funds should not be transferred to the private sector, enabling private individuals to make unreasonable profits - not just the rents they charge but the capital appreciation of the properties - at the taxpayer's expense. Nor should social housing be sold off to private individuals.

wellynever

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I think the 'sacred cow' of anyone having a house/flat to themselves for those who don't pay for their housing is something to be considered.

Once upon a time we lived in what we could afford, if we couldn't afford a whole house/flat then we had to rent part of a house. For those who can't pay their own housing costs then there should be a flat rate of benefit, just for arguments sake say £500 a month maximum. Then up to the the person/family to find somewhere to live for that.

For £500 a month We as in myself and partner could rent a three bed house instead of a two bed SH high rise,

We have a BTL who posts here who charges £110 a week for a one bed flat (same town) yet our two bed SH flat only costs £83 so as you see It's the BTL who are milking the system, and the tax payers fall for it every time.

I've noticed the young now call the OAP's the meme's as they want everything yet don't want the younger generation to have the same, the tide will turn and about time too.

missbiggles1

wellynever wrote: »

For £500 a month We as in myself and partner could rent a three bed house instead of a two bed SH high rise,

We have a BTL who posts here who charges £110 a week for a one bed flat (same town) yet our two bed SH flat only costs £83 so as you see It's the BTL who are milking the system, and the tax payers fall for it every time.

I've noticed the young now call the OAP's the meme's as they want everything yet don't want the younger generation to have the same, the tide will turn and about time too.

Depending on the 1 bed, I think lots of people would be happier to pay an extra £27pw not to live in a high rise council flat!

Mersey_2

dktreesea wrote: »

Nor should social housing be sold off to private individuals.

I have sympathy for a lot of what you said, but not your final sentence.


The Right to Buy resulted in the largest ever transfer of wealth from the State to the working classes.


Indeed there are inter war outer council estates where 50% are now owner occupied in Liverpool, meaning that these residents now have assets which they would never had had if they had otherwise kept paying rent to the local authority (who often wasted their revenue).


Yes, there's a lack of the right housing mix today, such as bungalows and 1 beds, but that does not mean the whole policy should never have happened. Indeed there's also still 9,000 void properties in the same local authority which could be brought back into use before building ever more housing on our green spaces.


Incidentally, claimants in the private sector had their LHA/benefit rates reduced and capped years before the public sector housing benefit recipients' were.

NYM

wellynever wrote: »

For £500 a month We as in myself and partner could rent a three bed house instead of a two bed SH high rise,

We have a BTL who posts here who charges £110 a week for a one bed flat (same town) yet our two bed SH flat only costs £83 so as you see It's the BTL who are milking the system, and the tax payers fall for it every time.

I've noticed the young now call the OAP's the meme's as they want everything yet don't want the younger generation to have the same, the tide will turn and about time too.

Where will those people live if they don't qualify for social housing and can't afford to buy their own home, ?