Disabled Person on UC and Cohabiting

poppy12345

RobinHill said:

Poppy1234: Your reply seems muddled and inaccurate. I never discussed anything about entitlement to New Style ESA. I have paid over 30 years of what I understand to be Class 1 NI, however yes it is irrelevant as I was incorrect about NI and UC entitlement. My gripe was regarding the comment about the benefits not affording my financial independence, which is nonsense, they provide exactly that. They were having a Daily Mail like dig in stating that I am dependent on the state, and generously at that. Obviously I am dependent upon the state, only a bigoted fickw##t has need to point that out on a disability money matters forum page.

No it wasn't. I never said you did discuss New style ESA. What you said was " I have paid more than my fair share into a health insurance scheme, which as I understood it was just for such an event. So I think you will find that I am "supported" as you put it but by merit of contributions to a insurance scheme." which was why i pointed out that it doesn't entitle you to New style ESA
Anyway, this thread isn't getting anywhere fast, it should really be over in discussion time but sadly that's closed now. For this reason, i'm out.

Spoonie_Turtle

yksi said:

Here's my take. An aspect that hasn't been mentioned here. I am 100% supportive of people who, for no fault of their own, are completely incapable of working in order to support themselves, or partially support themselves. However, I also see people with disabilities time and time and time again, express themselves with great eloquence, obvious intelligence and not inconsiderable knowledge and skills on a variety of topics. While there is no doubting that finding work can be challenging at the best of times, the pandemic has made it obvious that an incredibly vast number of fields can be done as work from home or in flexible ways. I take issue with the concept of people who self-declare themselves completely unable to work due to a disability. That's a gross underappreciation of their own merits and abilities, and the valuable skills they have to offer, and how awful to write a person off and label them unable to contribute to society in such a way! Challenges, limitations, difficulties, reduced hour capacity, adaptions needed. All better descriptors than "cannot contribute".

So. I am not privy to your individual challenges or the reasons you are not currently working, and nor are they my business. I see your perspective that someone who in theory is totally reliant on income support is discriminated against in comparison to, for example, an able person unemployed, because you are inferring that the unemployed person is unemployed by choice and could attempt to support themselves so that they could cohabitate without relying on their new partner's money. We will put aside whether being unemployed is always a choice. If it's a torch you wish to hoist and something you want to take further and to challenge, all power to you and I wish you the best of luck with your campaign for change, it's going to be an incredibly hard slog (and you're probably going to have to prove that able-unemployment is a choice). But my gut feeling is this. With your kind of intelligence, perspective, fire, determination, ability to argue your point and to campaign etc, then you have invaluable personal assets which would greatly benefit any employer with enough foresight to recognise your skills, and the payoff would benefit you directly. 

You know, that's exactly what disabled people have been trying to tell the world for years! But does the world want to bother giving them a chance when it's simpler to pay a 'typical' person to do the job in the 'normal' way? (Generally, no chance.) There seems to be better recognition of what disabled people have to contribute but it's still not widespread enough to help people get and keep stable jobs. There are plenty of articles and videos about the myriad difficulties and forms of discrimination people experience when they *are* well enough to do some form of work.

On a related note, an issue that the pandemic has raised is that suddenly ways of working have been adapted, now that the abled world needs it to be, when disabled people were told outright it wasn't possible or went against company policy or blah blah blah. It's infuriating. And I can't get any hopes up that things will stay more accessible once things return to some semblance of normality. It would be great if they did, but I have no expectations.

Unfortunately not all of us have health stable enough to guarantee we can even do an hour's work each week, and don't have the energy or mental clarity to pursue some kind of freelance work (which might be doable for some, with periods of relative stability that allow them to know that feeling a certain level of relatively well means they can take on a job that will take them x amount of time). There are also lots of people who do have small businesses, like Etsy shops, or who volunteer even - such as at the CAB or local disability centres - but the vast majority cannot work and earn *enough* (or with enough predictability) to support themselves and no longer need state support. That's one very good thing about UC, having been awarded LCWRA doesn't mean you're not allowed to work, and there's also no set cut-off point like there was on ESA.

One point I didn't address before:

Can you imagine attempting to start a relationship whereby you need to make it clear to the other party that you will be financially dependent upon them should the relationship progress to cohabitation, without any prospect of otherwise?

Why yes, yes I can. Well, in as much as I can imagine trying to start any relationship anyway. If any potential partner has issue with that (and if I had any issue if the situation were reversed) then they are not a partner for me (nor I for them). For better, for worse, in sickness and in health - at least they'd know what they were signing up for with me already being so ill! But I'm also not going to pursue anything with and move in with someone who doesn't share my goals and values for the relationship, so by that point they would absolutely know the position of finances and everything else we need to have discussed about sharing our lives. 

And like @yksi said, starting a relationship with someone who is not able to work to support themselves, I would imagine the financial position would be fairly obvious from the outset, or at least the distinct possibility would not have passed them by.

However, I see that we have different views and positions, so we shall just have to agree to disagree.

KxMx

I've been trying to gain employment WFH for years. There just wasn't anything out there. Big corporations were resistant to let current employees WFH, what chance did I have as an unemployed disabled person? Minus zero. 

Yes it absolutely should be possible with technology today but employers simply didn't want work done in such a way.

As the pandemic has proved, it IS absolutely possible when employers have little choice in the matter.  Just impossible when employees or disabled people want to do it.

yksi

@Spoonie_Turtle @KxMx and @RobinHill I just want you all to know that you are heard. I do identify with your points, in ways that I wish I had never witnessed, particularly about the unstable nature of even finding the strength to just generally live. Society is moving forwards in terms of opportunities, recognition and rights but the gap is still enormous.

I suppose in a roundabout way I'm also saying: the sheer amount of energy and anger and general shouting that would be needed to change the benefits system so as to give people in RobinHill's position more independence in a new relationship, that's going to take more mental energy than focussing purely on yourself and potentially making the point moot. It's an uphill battle where I can see every person who believes they've got a perceived slight also holding out their hands, without a disability as their reason for wanting the same treatment.

And to be pushy, Robin: Write. Please. Even if it doesn't make you a famous author or a wealthy journalist. Because you should be heard.

Muttleythefrog

RobinHill said:

Hi, thank you all for the replies.

Housing costs aren't applicable in my case. Two basic single claimant's = 2 x £330, whereas as a couple it is £515 (approx. fig.s). I assume that the difference is down to the cost savings of living together. The £500 UC work allowance wouldn't apply as it would be exhausted by my partners level of earnings.

The reason why I think it is discriminatory, or at the very least oppressive is take the following ... I am a disabled person trying to "flaunt my wares" to attract a partner ... but part of the bio reads "Potential match may have to support me financially". Any takers?

I have little choice in the need for support, it would be extremely difficult for me to provide for myself through employment. Moreover the state has deemed that due to poor health I cannot support myself hence the LCWRA. An able bodied person does have a choice in attempting to seek employment.

It just seems wrong that I should have to lose my financial independence and have to expect a partner to support me financially in order to live together.

The thought was prompted by the war widows pension ruling and the similarities in that both are in effect state benefits. Albeit one being the result of a bereavement and the other through illness. The principle being that it has been deemed wrong for the recipient to lose the entitlement and financial independence on subsequent marriage / cohabitation.

There are numerous good reasons to live with someone, for eg. if I fall on the floor and cannot get up, or struggling to mobilise out of bed etc, the list is endless.

I fail to see the comparison to able bodied unemployed claimants who decide to cohabit. They are able to work and have a potential way out, as a disabled person I don't. That is the difference.

If it helps I can give you a better example of discrimination... it might give a different perspective. I have a non EU foreign partner. When my partner moved in with me (no choice - Immigration rules demand it) she had to quit her job due to Immigration rules, I lost Severe Disability Premium - so lost over £3000 a year. She isn't entitled to income related benefits due to immigration status (for 5 years plus) so she can't claim Carer's Allowance and we only get single person rate ESA. Add to that we have to pay thousands in immigration fees - this year over a quarter of our annual benefits income straight to the Home Office. Then we've also missed out on the government increase of £20 to U/C (which we'd be better of on anyway) because we're stuck on legacy benefit ESA. So in basic terms my partner moved in and the economic hit has been enormous.

But I do see the angle you're presenting... and I don't want to play down the tragic medical circumstances you're facing and the difficulties that poses for relationship considerations among many others. I think though there is the angle that a relationship is about having unification of thinking and responsibilities.... and if that relationship includes cohabitation then the state draws a line and treats it a bit differently for benefits purposes as the economics begin to merge. What the state may in theory argue is that if that cohabiting relationship doesn't work out then you will be able to get again (assuming circumstances of health don't improve - and that sounds likely here!) the support as a single person living alone. 

To quickly (hmm.. famous last words) add since I've now caught up reading other comments. 

"Can you imagine attempting to start a relationship whereby you need to make it clear to the other party that you will be financially dependent upon them should the relationship progress to cohabitation, without any prospect of otherwise?" - I agree with another poster... this is what relationships are about... building something together... two people who are different and with different circumstances is absolutely guaranteed. It's an issue you should be absolutely up front about if you haven't been already... and say how uncomfortable it would make you feel... but in a sense I think it is a flawed psychological position you hold since your reliance for financial support would shift from state to another... there is no independence really... and the state could change the benefits and the amounts.

I also think there is some flaw in the thinking that you realistically cannot get a job and so are in effect discriminated against due to disability... but as others have raised.. unemployed people are often seeking work and they could argue they're discriminated against due to their lack of ability to get a job. I suspect... that even despite your clear daily struggles and the vast consuming of it that they take... there are able bodied 'healthy' people out there with far lesser job prospects and greater reliance on the state... there are people who quite frankly are unemployable and sometimes I wonder why some of them are running the country...lol

You are clearly an articulate person with a skilled mind... but I do agree with another that a fight to bring changes on the point you raise seems a very tough fight... there will be increased pressures on the public purse and therefore as pandemic and political events we need not mention take their toll there will be little appetite to further make generous the benefits system. There are strong arguments that cohabiting people incur lesser costs of living than if they live apart and that seems an insurmountable obstacle of persuasion unless the benefits system is completely re-addressed from a new perspective with things like a set amount given to all by the state... universal income or the like. These things seem way off.. and politically inconceivable in our lifetimes I would propose in England and therefore the UK. Income related benefits are in many respects unfair... they punish sensible people who save rather than blow money on luxuries as example... but they're not meant to be fair.. they're meant to be there as a backstop to prevent destitution.... the last chance saloon when all else has failed to provide the necessary resource to persist.

Focus your efforts on more humble and immediate matters...this relationship... and how you pursue it. If someone really wants to live with you then supporting you financially as you lose income related benefits is likely part of that deal. And returning to my original paragraph.. it is something my partner had to consider... she's reliant on my benefits.. not just for income but my PIP award in effect enables her to meet the criteria to remain in the UK while she is not working (due to her own disablement and care for me). I'm not going to pretend it is easy... psychologically it has been damaging.. she has lost her financial independence and it has affected her.. and me because I have to try to help her think differently and I've always failed. It remains a psychological not practical problem... I suspect the same would be true for you.

WillowCat

If you've paid all those class 1 NI contributions when you were working, why did you not ever claim contributions based ESA (New Style ESA now)?  Then you would be guaranteed to keep your contributions based element - currently approximately £111 per week - plus any PIP, and only lose your means tested top up when your partner moves in.

RobinHill

Muttleythefrog:

Thank you the reply. It seems that you have / are having a tough time too. Excuse my ignorance but how come you are "stuck" on legacy ESA and don't / cannot claim UC?

Sometime ago I was on Contribution based ESA for a short period until the payments ended. Oddly I think that I was still "on" ESA afterwards but at £0. Then it was Tax Credits before a split resulting in my applying for UC about one year ago.

Re. the topic of independence, I don't concur with your explanation ie. there is "no independence" since the benefits could change etc. This is no different to someone who is employed and even though that status could change we tend to describe such as financially independent.

Thank you again for considered reply.

Willowcat:

See above. I am a touch perplexed at your "guaranteed to keep" statement since I understood that the contribution based ESA only paid out for a limited period, I can't remember how long but guessing 12 months. After that I wasn't eligible for "income based", I think due to my then partner earnings.

Spoonie_Turtle

RobinHill said:

Muttleythefrog:

Thank you the reply. It seems that you have / are having a tough time too. Excuse my ignorance but how come you are "stuck" on legacy ESA and don't / cannot claim UC?

Sometime ago I was on Contribution based ESA for a short period until the payments ended. Oddly I think that I was still "on" ESA afterwards but at £0. Then it was Tax Credits before a split resulting in my applying for UC about one year ago.

Re. the topic of independence, I don't concur with your explanation ie. there is "no independence" since the benefits could change etc. This is no different to someone who is employed and even though that status could change we tend to describe such as financially independent.

Thank you again for considered reply.

Willowcat:

See above. I am a touch perplexed at your "guaranteed to keep" statement since I understood that the contribution based ESA only paid out for a limited period, I can't remember how long but guessing 12 months. After that I wasn't eligible for "income based", I think due to my then partner earnings.

You must have been in the WRAG at the time then (equivalent to LCW on UC), because for those in the Support Group (equivalent to LCWRA) it would have been paid indefinitely.

RobinHill

Cheers Spoonie_Turtle. That is correct and it was about 10 years ago and it was WRAG but this may have been a bit of a fob off and perhaps I should have appealed or re-applied I don't know. I didn't realise that the Support Group payments would have continued, I thought at the time that they were both means tested and for a limited duration. My condition is progressive, and in recent years especially I have now become quite impacted ie. leg and hand muscles are particularly wasted now so when I applied for UC the LCWRA was granted solely on the E50 with supporting medical documents. Wonder if I should I have re-applied for the ESA assessment again back then, or from what people describe of being "stuck" on legacy ESA, am I better off now on the UC / LCWRA?

Muttleythefrog

RobinHill said:

Muttleythefrog:

Thank you the reply. It seems that you have / are having a tough time too. Excuse my ignorance but how come you are "stuck" on legacy ESA and don't / cannot claim UC?

Sometime ago I was on Contribution based ESA for a short period until the payments ended. Oddly I think that I was still "on" ESA afterwards but at £0. Then it was Tax Credits before a split resulting in my applying for UC about one year ago.

Re. the topic of independence, I don't concur with your explanation ie. there is "no independence" since the benefits could change etc. This is no different to someone who is employed and even though that status could change we tend to describe such as financially independent.

Thank you again for considered reply.

Willowcat:

See above. I am a touch perplexed at your "guaranteed to keep" statement since I understood that the contribution based ESA only paid out for a limited period, I can't remember how long but guessing 12 months. After that I wasn't eligible for "income based", I think due to my then partner earnings.

As I understand it very very few have been migrated to U/C by migration process from legacy benefits without change of circumstances... there are those moved when change of circumstance triggers move to U/C. Because we own house I'm not sure they can even migrate us to U/C yet with a change of circumstances. Others will verify as they'll have followed the process more closely... but bottom line is we haven't been moved over yet and it looks unlikely we will for years yet as timelines consistently shift back.

On financial independence... that we differ in perspective should be telling you it is as much a psychological consideration as meaningful factual one. You are right to raise those in employment... if someone employs them then they're dependent on that employer for their income. 

I did comment on the Contrib based ESA payment for 12 months issue but I should have read ahead and see you've resolved it as it does seem you were probably in WRAG at the relevant time. Quickly.. I see you pondering if you'd have been better off on legacy benefit ESA had you managed to get back into Support Group.. others may confirm but my basic understanding is it is likely if you would have qualified for Severe Disability Premium then you may well have been. U/C eliminates the premiums... it compensates for them somewhat but the SDP is significant and not sure whether you'd have qualified for it at the time.

Good luck anyway... with whatever you decide. Look forward and be open with partner about how you think and feel.