Do I tell DWP ?

rockingbilly

TheNickster wrote: »

I would not put it quite as strongly as fraud - more hypocrisy given that he does not need the money and has complained that others have claimed when not needing the money..

I suspect Fbaby would think that he should disclose on the application form for PIP that he gives his DLA money to his children for the benefit of his grandchildren.

Having re-read my posts on this matter the only people I have criticised for making DLA claims are Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Both are extremely wealthy (which I am not) and obviously from a moral point of view should not have made those claims.
I also presume that the same could be said about those two and many more besides that receive DLA or PIP who simply have no need for the money as they have ample capital wealth and a substantial income already. Did they actually spend those payments on the extra needs?
You seem to have also ignored why I give the money to my family. The reason being, as I have mentioned elsewhere, we are now living on a reduced income (without the DLA payments) to get used to the idea when the DLA claim ceases and I get no award via PIP. It has taken many weeks to re-adjust but we have got there in the end.

rockingbilly

dipsy wrote: »

They may not ask you directly about work, but they will ask you what you do with your time, where you drive to etc etc.

It has been reported elsewhere that actually admitting that you drive is seen by the assessor/DWP as a good enough reason to believe that you are probably fitter and less disabled than you are making out to be.

CTcelt1988

Again Rockingbilly, you miss the point. You get DLA/PIP for your own needs, not your Grandchildren. It's wrong to claim it then give it to your grandchildren.

PIP is difficult enough for people who genuinely need it, yet you want to claim it even though you won't use it for your benefit.

CTcelt1988

rockingbilly wrote: »

It has been reported elsewhere that actually admitting that you drive is seen by the assessor/DWP as a good enough reason to believe that you are probably fitter and less disabled than you are making out to be.

What about those that drive with adaptions? Driving also has nothing to do with the PIP descriptors.

FBaby

It is not down to financial need - but physical need that many of us are claiming DLA\PIP under !!

And that is exactly the reason why people like me really have an issue with the way PIP/DLA is currently administered. Nothing about the benefit system gets to me more than to know that there are disabled people who can only afford to pay for a few hours of carers time when they could do with many more, or better equipment out of the DLA/PIP whilst others who don't need the money claim it because they can do so and then give that unneeded money to family members, or used it to enjoy luxuries.

I really do hope that comes a day when someone will have the guts to face up to all the pressure groups and finally stop this nonsense PIP claim to make it accessible the same way HB is, ie. it is only accessible to those on low income, claimants need to prove they have a financial need for the money for the purpose it is claimed for, and if it is not spent on what it is intended for, it is taken away.

TheNickster

FBaby wrote: »

And that is exactly the reason why people like me really have an issue with the way PIP/DLA is currently administered. Nothing about the benefit system gets to me more than to know that there are disabled people who can only afford to pay for a few hours of carers time when they could do with many more, or better equipment out of the DLA/PIP whilst others who don't need the money claim it because they can do so and then give that unneeded money to family members, or used it to enjoy luxuries.

I really do hope that comes a day when someone will have the guts to face up to all the pressure groups and finally stop this nonsense PIP claim to make it accessible the same way HB is, ie. it is only accessible to those on low income, claimants need to prove they have a financial need for the money for the purpose it is claimed for, and if it is not spent on what it is intended for, it is taken away.

People who need more care should have their needs provided for by the social care provision. Which is short of money and government refuses to come to terms with the fact that the NHS and social care needs to be better integrated. Just to pick on some disabled to sort that out is unfair and to deprive them of a little bit of so called ‘luxury’ (is a sat nav in a motability car a luxury? When it makes a journey less stressful) is just mean spirited in my view. I repeat when fate hands out disablement/ill health it does not ask to see an individuals bank balance first.

Health and social care (including disability)and how much public money is used and raised (taxation) and used needs to be looked in the round. Just picking on the disabled is very divisive and results in acrimony.

You mention Housing Benefit. The government has just published a white paper on housing. The general consensus is that it is inadequate. It will not result in anywhere near enough housing being built because the government is afraid of house owners reaction to falling house prices.

All of this is inter-elated.

FBaby

Exactly, social services are short of money, yet we have a system that agrees to distributes funds to people who don't have a financial need for it, it's utterly ludicrous.

Many people are deprived of 'some luxuries' and being disabled doesn't mean that you should be more entitled to other vulnerable people in our society. Disability is not the only aspect of life that makes it hard to live with. Funny you should use the 'sat nav' as an example, because I have a friend who for ages, refused to leave her town because she was petrified of getting lost. She was a single mum and on a very low income and only had an old car and indeed, couldn't afford a sat nav (especially at the time, which was about 10 years ago). It really limited her as although we did make an effort to come to her, we also organised events as friends that were outside of her boundaries and we couldn't always arrange to go and pick her and her children up, and public transport wasn't always available. Anyway, after a couple of years, we all chipped in and got her a sat nav and that did change her life.

Luxuries are one thing, but when it takes precedence over meeting the needs of people whose care is compromised, it becomes a farce and that's where we're out.

I will always remember the time I was on a cruise some years ago and ended seating at a table with a group of people who were discussing how that might be their last cruise together as PIP was introduced and they believed they wouldn't be entitled. They were laughing at how they'd form this group many years ago and all agreed to save their DLA money to enjoy their annual cruise. I'd saved for many years to be able to afford this cruise and I considered myself massively fortunate to be able to be there. I was utterly disgusted and got up before I was going to let them know what I thought.

Rockingbilly actually went to tribunal to get his DLA....money he admits he then gives to his family because he doesn't need it... Money that could instead go to house a vulnerable person who is currently sleeping rough on the street in the cold. Yes, indeed, everyone should be entitled to their luxuries out of tax payers money!

TheNickster

FBaby wrote: »

Exactly, social services are short of money, yet we have a system that agrees to distributes funds to people who don't have a financial need for it, it's utterly ludicrous.

Many people are deprived of 'some luxuries' and being disabled doesn't mean that you should be more entitled to other vulnerable people in our society. Disability is not the only aspect of life that makes it hard to live with. Funny you should use the 'sat nav' as an example, because I have a friend who for ages, refused to leave her town because she was petrified of getting lost. She was a single mum and on a very low income and only had an old car and indeed, couldn't afford a sat nav (especially at the time, which was about 10 years ago). It really limited her as although we did make an effort to come to her, we also organised events as friends that were outside of her boundaries and we couldn't always arrange to go and pick her and her children up, and public transport wasn't always available. Anyway, after a couple of years, we all chipped in and got her a sat nav and that did change her life.

Luxuries are one thing, but when it takes precedence over meeting the needs of people whose care is compromised, it becomes a farce and that's where we're out.

I will always remember the time I was on a cruise some years ago and ended seating at a table with a group of people who were discussing how that might be their last cruise together as PIP was introduced and they believed they wouldn't be entitled. They were laughing at how they'd form this group many years ago and all agreed to save their DLA money to enjoy their annual cruise. I'd saved for many years to be able to afford this cruise and I considered myself massively fortunate to be able to be there. I was utterly disgusted and got up before I was going to let them know what I thought.

Rockingbilly actually went to tribunal to get his DLA....money he admits he then gives to his family because he doesn't need it... Money that could instead go to house a vulnerable person who is currently sleeping rough on the street in the cold. Yes, indeed, everyone should be entitled to their luxuries out of tax payers money!

But it wouldn't though. It would be used to keep taxes down - the government is doing everything it can to not raise taxes on the wealthy. I do think Rockingbilly is being hypocritical but he is right, in so far, that his grandchildren will face a much more difficult future in housing themselves than say you or I have had - hence my comment about the White Paper on housing.

I agree that DLA and PIP should be used for bearing the extra cost that being disabled/ill entails. An expensive cruise does appear to be taking the proverbial but are you saying that a recipient of DLA or PIP should not be able to have a reasonably priced holiday at all.? Are you arguing that being able to save for a reasonably priced holiday (including equivalently priced short cruise)once a year is an indication that someone does not genuinely need DLA or PIP? or indeed being able to save for almost anything at all.

Being disabled in itself is stressful over and above the normal stresses of life that everyone gets.

ETA Your last sarcastic sentence was not only unnecessary but grossly exaggerated. In fact aggressive tax avoidance/evasion by the wealthy is enjoying real luxury at the expense of other ordinary tax payers and the disabled. While that still occurs means testing disabled benefits (or reducing them) should come well down the list.

rockingbilly

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

What about those that drive with adaptions? Driving also has nothing to do with the PIP descriptors.

This is taken from a DWP recent decision notice in respect of a PIP claim.
It is a 'cut and paste' paragraph that attempts to link the driving of a car with not being as disabled as claimed. It makes very interesting reading.

“It is noted that xx can drive a car. The activity of driving a car is in itself a multitasking activity requiring significant physical function in terms of grip, power and upper and lower joint movements in conjunction with substantial cognitive powers of thought perception, memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and co-ordination. It is considered that if xxx’s functioning was as affected as claimed then he would not be fit to drive and would be a severe danger on the road. There is no evidence to suggest that DVLA have been informed of such"

rockingbilly

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Again Rockingbilly, you miss the point. You get DLA/PIP for your own needs, not your Grandchildren. It's wrong to claim it then give it to your grandchildren.

PIP is difficult enough for people who genuinely need it, yet you want to claim it even though you won't use it for your benefit.

Is it wrong? I cannot see any regulation for DLA at least, that says what I must spend the money on or why I should not give it away.
If you can identify the relevant regulation that forbids gifting it to my children and grandchildren then I will have my current award closed down. The last thing that I would want to do is breach the legality of the DLA claim (change of circumstances).
As for making the claim itself - a Tribunal decision offered the award to me - what should I have done given what Brown & Cameron thought was right?