Some PIP good news

bigbulldog

rockingbilly wrote: »

Post reported as I am being accused of benefit fraud.

But you are a fraud,so keep posting ways of cheating the benefit system and you will get banned like you did before hopefully.:):)

bigbulldog

rockingbilly wrote: »

There is no need to be picky. You know exactly what I mean.
I am looking at two scenarios those who get an award and those that don't.
Current figures, as you point out show that 77% get an award 23% get nothing in the DLA to PIP conversion.
IF the 23 % who had no award at all go on to make an appeal, approx. 60% will win their claim.
So in effect a total of 90.8% of those transferring will get a PIP award. Whether they are happy with the level of the award is another thing.

You mentioned that you are receiving neither the correct level and/or are satisfied with the award yet you are receiving a 'good award'. So you fall in the 90.8% bracket.
I, on the other hand get nothing and so I am in the 9.2% bracket.

Put it another way I am in the top 10% of all transferees - aren't I the lucky one?

This is a post from someone that claims to have dementia,alcoholism etc etc.

Muttleythefrog

rockingbilly wrote: »

There is no need to be picky. You know exactly what I mean.
I am looking at two scenarios those who get an award and those that don't.
Current figures, as you point out show that 77% get an award 23% get nothing in the DLA to PIP conversion.
IF the 23 % who had no award at all go on to make an appeal, approx. 60% will win their claim.
So in effect a total of 90.8% of those transferring will get a PIP award. Whether they are happy with the level of the award is another thing.

You mentioned that you are receiving neither the correct level and/or are satisfied with the award yet you are receiving a 'good award'. So you fall in the 90.8% bracket.
I, on the other hand get nothing and so I am in the 9.2% bracket.

Put it another way I am in the top 10% of all transferees - aren't I the lucky one?

Whoaah. Not being picky... when statistics are quoted I want to understand precisely what they mean. There is a world of difference between someone who has been getting DLA and then gets an award for PIP at an inappropriate level... and someone who has been getting DLA and then gets and award for PIP at an appropriate level. I'm interested in the latter.... obviously... since the issue on the table is how many enter the process and get a relevant award (something sadly we can never know like we cannot know how many prisoners are actually guilty of the alleged crime).

On the figures it isn't clear if those 77% are following reconsiderations or appeals or not... I assume not as you have assumed. Your assumption that everyone who fails to get an award will go on to reconsideration and appeal is clearly going to be wrong... so the assumption that follows cannot be accurate. Even then.... getting an award on appeal doesn't imply an appropriate award.

All we probably can say is substantial numbers of former DLA claimants are going on to successfully get PIP one way or another... as you would expect given various factors such as similar disability areas being looked at and history of successful disability claim.

rockingbilly

bigbulldog wrote: »

But you are a fraud,so keep posting ways of cheating the benefit system and you will get banned like you did before hopefully.:):)

For the last time, I have not suggested any way to carry out benefit fraud. Obviously there are ways that you can maximise your benefit entitlement (which incidentally is the purpose of this forum) without resorting to benefit fraud and which are entirely legal. Or should we not advise people how to carry out these legal opportunities? You sound very much like one of the bemoaners when people use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.

And finally please enlighten me and everyone else one on here of what evidence you have that you have the right to call me a thief?

rockingbilly

bigbulldog wrote: »

This is a post from someone that claims to have dementia,alcoholism etc etc.

Yep entirely correct and I have medical reports, hospital admissions and psychiatric evaluations that support both.

rockingbilly

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

Whoaah. Not being picky... when statistics are quoted I want to understand precisely what they mean. There is a world of difference between someone who has been getting DLA and then gets an award for PIP at an inappropriate level... and someone who has been getting DLA and then gets and award for PIP at an appropriate level. I'm interested in the latter.... obviously... since the issue on the table is how many enter the process and get a relevant award (something sadly we can never know like we cannot know how many prisoners are actually guilty of the alleged crime).

On the figures it isn't clear if those 77% are following reconsiderations or appeals or not... I assume not as you have assumed. Your assumption that everyone who fails to get an award will go on to reconsideration and appeal is clearly going to be wrong... so the assumption that follows cannot be accurate. Even then.... getting an award on appeal doesn't imply an appropriate award.

All we probably can say is substantial numbers of former DLA claimants are going on to successfully get PIP one way or another... as you would expect given various factors such as similar disability areas being looked at and history of successful disability claim.

How do you evaluate an appropriate award? By reference to what you previously had with DLA? Or maybe what you think is appropriate?

DLA and PIP are miles apart. The assessing procedure is different for a start.
Surely the 'appropriate' level is that given by the DWP. If that level is inappropriate then you can challenge it. Could I ask why you didn't challenge yours?

Even now I still find it extremely hard to fit any of the difficulties I have due to my disabilities to most of the PIP descriptors.
However using lateral thinking seems to be the way it is done. There surely is no fixed and simple answer.

Take Managing Therapy etc. I have difficulty in remembering what medication to take and when so my wife does it for me. My wife has to wake me up at approx. 3am to carry out a blood/sugar level reading. She also controls and assesses it throughout the day giving me the right dosage of insulin.
Now as those are not therapies the relevant best descriptor for monitoring a health condition would be 3 (b) (ii). which gives 1 point.
Therapy according to the dictionary is "the treatment of disease or disorders, as by some remedial, rehabilitating, or curative process".
So no matter how many hours a week my wife has to supervise, prompt and assist you cannot get beyond the 1 point.
Therapy to the layman means someone doing something to someone such as physio.
Now is that right or wrong?
This is backed up by the descriptor as it identifies two totally different scenarios
Managing Therapy OR Monitoring a health condition. If they were the same then the OR would be substituted by AND.

bigbulldog

rockingbilly wrote: »

For the last time, I have not suggested any way to carry out benefit fraud. Obviously there are ways that you can maximise your benefit entitlement (which incidentally is the purpose of this forum) without resorting to benefit fraud and which are entirely legal. Or should we not advise people how to carry out these legal opportunities? You sound very much like one of the bemoaners when people use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.

And finally please enlighten me and everyone else one on here of what evidence you have that you have the right to call me a thief?

There's no need to enlighten you just read some of the responses from other members about your posts and the various aliases you use.

Remember telling everyone your well educated yet you say you got the dwp to fill out the form for you yet this is not an option,so a lie.

I have to lift my Motability scooter onto the back seat of my prestige car then you denie ever having one.

Apparently you can't drive,but you will purposely double park in a car park,so you prestige car does not get damaged.


Then we have the made up brother in law that want to get his illegal girlfriend in the country via the back door..

Oh and don't forget admin BANNED you from posting why do you think they did that.?????

You were also advised by various members on this forum that you should not be giving out advise considering your dementia.


I could go on and on,but your not worth the time and effort

rockingbilly

bigbulldog wrote: »

There's no need to enlighten you just read some of the responses from other members about your posts and the various aliases you use.

Remember telling everyone your well educated yet you say you got the dwp to fill out the form for you yet this is not an option,so a lie.

I have to lift my Motability scooter onto the back seat of my prestige car then you denie ever having one.

Apparently you can't drive,but you will purposely double park in a car park,so you prestige car does not get damaged.


Then we have the made up brother in law that want to get his illegal girlfriend in the country via the back door..

Oh and don't forget admin BANNED you from posting why do you think they did that.?????

You were also advised by various members on this forum that you should not be giving out advise considering your dementia.


I could go on and on,but your not worth the time and effort

But you are a fraud,so keep posting ways of cheating the benefit system and you will get banned like you did before hopefully

And where in your post have you shown that I am a fraud & cheating the benefit system - in other words a thief?

rockingbilly

Penitent wrote: »

You agreed not to advise people because of your dementia. You are continuing to advise people. That alone is reason not to trust what you say.

Personally I don't give two hoots whether you or anybody else trusts me - I don't trust the DWP - is that also wrong?

Muttleythefrog

rockingbilly wrote: »

How do you evaluate an appropriate award? By reference to what you previously had with DLA? Or maybe what you think is appropriate?

DLA and PIP are miles apart. The assessing procedure is different for a start.
Surely the 'appropriate' level is that given by the DWP. If that level is inappropriate then you can challenge it. Could I ask why you didn't challenge yours?

You probably can't.. that's my point... and certainly not at a statistical level with available data. The appropriate award is the correct award.... i.e. where the appropriate descriptors are selected according to facts of the case and the law. All you are looking at is awards... that will include the good, bad and ugly to put into simple terms..lol.

DLA and PIP are actually not greatly different... they look at generally the same types of disabilities with different methodological approach. If someone for example was getting DLA because they have problems washing, cooking, getting dressed and walking... then there's a good chance they'll have relevant disabilities to PIP which looks at the same activities with variant criteria. In my own case my award for PIP and formerly DLA is technically quite different but for basically the same underlying problems... I need prompting and encouragement to perform typical daily activities at home, have difficulty engaging with others appropriately, and have difficulties getting (around) outdoors. That basically covers both the reasons for me getting DLA and now getting PIP. I don't believe any of my DLA or PIP decisions have been correct.

I did challenge my PIP decision comprehensively and extensively in reconsideration... they essentially ignored all I wrote.. including strong legal arguments with case law. I didn't pursue appeal because of the risks... to my marriage... and if I was to lose what was awarded which doesn't just convey money but also is key to my wife's ability to remain in UK.

You seem to have opened a thread to discuss the issues relating to the activity you go on to discuss. My only advice in that respect is obviously note legal change and the guidance is widely available on interpretation of the descriptors in question.