Do I tell DWP ?

rockingbilly

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Your previous link was rubbish, as the DVLA are aware that I drive with adaptions. I also do not use my legs to drive.

It's just rubbish how the DWP can twist things to suit their agenda of cutting benefits.

You might think that it is rubbish, but the DWP don't. If you go through that statement it does sort of make sense.
You may well not have to use any foot pedals but the use of your upper body is needed when driving. Additionally your mental capacity has to be good if you drive.

I'm not saying that this is right, but it is the latest attempt by the DWP to discredit any evidence and written statements if you were asked 'do you drive a car'. In fact I can see this going further by them asking 'do you have a current driving licence'.

I agree that this does leave people who have a Motability car in the dark.

rockingbilly

Tommo1980 wrote: »

Working or not, surely the point of PIP is to level the paying field. So 2 people earn 30k a year. One has a disability that incurrs a financial cost. The other does not. PIP would offset some of the financial cost of the disability putting both individuals on a level playing field.

That is why PIP is not means tested, it applies equally to all levels of income.

Nice idea in theory!

Tom

Excellent in theory. But we are talking about human beings here. How do you define the 'extra costs'. I am still on DLA so know very little about PIP. However if the payments made under DLA are for the 'extra costs' the only way that that can work is if the DWP not only look at the difficulties some face but must also assess what these 'extra costs' are.
In fact my 'extra costs' are minimal and relate only to having to employ a window cleaner once every four weeks at a cost of £8 and someone to clean the white edging around the guttering once a year at a cost of £50 a total of £2.96 a week! The reason is that I am no longer able or allowed to go up ladders.
Yet I get approx. £110 a week (HRM & MRC) for these extra costs.
I own my own car. pay for servicing, tyres MOT & fuel. These are not extra costs as I would have paid them if I wasn't disabled. The only advantage is that I don't pay Road Tax which is worth £30 a year.

So whether you make DLA/PIP a means tested benefit OR the DWP should be looking at the ACTUAL 'extra costs' incurred nothing will change.

50Twuncle

rockingbilly wrote: »

Excellent in theory. But we are talking about human beings here. How do you define the 'extra costs'. I am still on DLA so know very little about PIP. However if the payments made under DLA are for the 'extra costs' the only way that that can work is if the DWP not only look at the difficulties some face but must also assess what these 'extra costs' are.
In fact my 'extra costs' are minimal and relate only to having to employ a window cleaner once every four weeks at a cost of £8 and someone to clean the white edging around the guttering once a year at a cost of £50 a total of £2.96 a week! The reason is that I am no longer able or allowed to go up ladders.
Yet I get approx. £110 a week (HRM & MRC) for these extra costs.
I own my own car. pay for servicing, tyres MOT & fuel. These are not extra costs as I would have paid them if I wasn't disabled. The only advantage is that I don't pay Road Tax which is worth £30 a year.

So whether you make DLA/PIP a means tested benefit OR the DWP should be looking at the ACTUAL 'extra costs' incurred nothing will change.

Except for if DWP did means test PIP then what level of savings do you set as the cut off point ?

Tommo1980

It is a simplistic system to cover a complex range of variables. But there are no guarantees that an alternative system would fit any better or not become hugely expensive to administer.

Tom

w06

"Because don't forget that many full time workers (on full salaries) get exactly the same rate as unemployed ..."

don't forget those of us on 'full salaries' are often worse off than if we didn't bother workign and claimed ESA and all that comes with it isntead, I certainly would have been for at least the last 8 years. Instead the ONLY benefit that I claim is PIP and this allows me to maintain some sort of independence despite being pretty broken.

TheNickster

FBaby wrote: »

The usual response when running out of argument! If others do, what can't we! Both are wrong, although in one case, it's giving less, in the other, it is actually taking, so in my views not directly comparable.

Oh and the usual conclusion that anyone has any objection in the way PIP is paid, it must be jealousy! Jealousy of what? I don't want the money, I want it to go to those who have financial need for it. It's not me!

As said, there is a moral issue and there is a legal one. Can't change people's morals. You can't change the attitude of entitlement that seems to be propagating in our culture, but political agendas can be. I am just hoping the extent of the financial burden will prompt someone to do something about it sooner rather than later.

I welcome your statement that aggressive tax avoidance is wrong but I disagree the relevance of one is giving and the other taking. Both cases effect what the Chancellor has in the ‘kitty’.

As for my jealousy point point I did not say you were jealous or everybody was jealous but ‘some people’. It was in response to the many people on other threads who wanted motability cars to made available to everybody even though in practice similar (agreed not exactly the same) leasing deals are in fact available at similar cost. Also the rich often respond to criticism with accusations of ‘envy’.

I respect the fact you wish more money to go those disabled who need it most but I don’t believe that will happen. The Government has said that the wealthiest tax payers pay for, IIRC,29% of public spending. If that stays the same (as the government has said it should) then the relatively small savings made by restricting disabled benefits further will either have to be spent on increasing the benefit paid to those disabled you consider are in financial need or to social care, the NHS, housing, defence, etc. Or spread over all of them with peanuts for each.
I think that much more money would be raised by clamping down aggressively on tax avoidance than just taking from some disabled. Having said that on the principle of every little helps even though I still think that physical need rather than financial need should be the deciding factor I would not object too much to means testing disabled benefits at the the same level as child benefit is means tested. Although even that will have anomalies.


Now for the alleged sense of entitlement or benefit culture that propagates in this country. If there is one (I am not convinced there is) it, in my view, has been caused by decades of low pay for too many people and the disastrous rise in house prices and rents and lack of social housing. Moving towards a real living wage is a start but I see little prospect of a cure for the housing crisis anytime soon.

50Twuncle

To bring in another variable
What about carers allowance rates
They require a minimum of 35 hrs for £62 week - that can't be right ?

tomtom256

50Twuncle wrote: »

To bring in another variable
What about carers allowance rates
They require a minimum of 35 hrs for £62 week - that can't be right ?

But you can often then get IS, HB etc to top this up if eligible.

But this whole topic has now digressed from its point, maybe time to move it to Dicussion Time.

50Twuncle

tomtom256 wrote: »

But you can often then get IS, HB etc to top this up if eligible.

But this whole topic has now digressed from its point, maybe time to move it to Dicussion Time.

CA is only available for certain income related benefits NOT contribution related benefits
discrimination ?
The rate £1.77 per hour is slavery !!

rockingbilly

50Twuncle wrote: »

Except for if DWP did means test PIP then what level of savings do you set as the cut off point ?

In my opinion a max of £6000 up to £16000 if under retirement age and £10000 and no upper limit if over retirement age. This falls in line with both IS, ESA & JSA means tested for the under 65's and Pension Credit for those who are 65+