Claiming PIP with a good job

Muttleythefrog

DullGreyGuy said:

elsien said:

It’s not means tested. Which means that the government decided that it is absolutely fine for someone to claim it if they need it regardless of income.

In no way reflecting on the OP and absolutely agree that they are entitled to claim based on what they have posted.

However I am confused by the comment "if they need it" @elsien. Given PIP is just a cash payment then "need" on the surface really would mean its a means test

The government has decided you can claim it if you qualify... it's nothing to do with "needing" it. An associate is a senior partner in a law firm and blind; I understand he would qualify for PIP (no idea if he claims or not, not my business) but I'd strongly suspect that as he bills out at £1,500 per hour that £68/week is unlikely to even be noticeable in his account and so question how you'd think he "needs" it?

I think in their comment is perhaps the sentiment that it isn't a lot of money but it can be a lot of hassle... it isn't a benefit automatically awarded if you're entitled.. it's a benefit you will have to demonstrate (repeatedly and at quite possible personal cost of health and time) you meet the criteria for well beyond simply giving basic details about your circumstances. Indeed to claim I would describe it as forcing an orgy of indulgence in your disabilities and negative experiences of life... something many disabled people may find counter to how they have approached life and achieved in it... my own father when he tried to get DLA struggled to express the simple fact he only had one arm because he'd lived decades overcoming that... his entire mentality was geared towards overcoming disability or playing it down not detailing it and imposing how difficult things could be... he created solutions not complaint. If someone came to me and said they earned a lot of money, might qualify for PIP, but if they got a good award would not have their life affected by the money then I'd be inclined to suggest weighing up the personal cost/benefits before applying. In this case clearly the money could help (and bang in line with the whole concept of a disability benefit putting disabled people on some equal footing in daily life), they seem to suffer quite a range of disablement in daily life, and so it's a no brainer that it could well be worth while applying. 

Spoonie_Turtle

DullGreyGuy said:

elsien said:

It’s not means tested. Which means that the government decided that it is absolutely fine for someone to claim it if they need it regardless of income.

In no way reflecting on the OP and absolutely agree that they are entitled to claim based on what they have posted.

However I am confused by the comment "if they need it" @elsien. Given PIP is just a cash payment then "need" on the surface really would mean its a means test

The government has decided you can claim it if you qualify... it's nothing to do with "needing" it. An associate is a senior partner in a law firm and blind; I understand he would qualify for PIP (no idea if he claims or not, not my business) but I'd strongly suspect that as he bills out at £1,500 per hour that £68/week is unlikely to even be noticeable in his account and so question how you'd think he "needs" it?

The need is demonstrated by meeting the criteria*.  It's up to the individual whether they feel they would benefit from claiming, particularly if they are well-off, but generally people don't bother even looking into it in the first place unless they feel it might be useful.

*At least, that's the stated intention.  In reality there are many debilitatingly unwell people who do actually need it but fall just slightly short of meeting the criteria so are abandoned to struggle by themselves.

I see your point but it is supposed to account for the extra costs of disability, to put disabled people on an equal footing with their nondisabled peers.  Whether it achieves that or not is another matter (see the Scope report from 2019, before costs skyrocketed https://www.scope.org.uk/campaigns/extra-costs/disability-price-tag/ ) but ostensibly that's the purpose of a non means-tested disability benefit anyway.

DullGreyGuy

Spoonie_Turtle said:
I see your point but it is supposed to account for the extra costs of disability, to put disabled people on an equal footing with their nondisabled peers.  

And I am not knocking it nor those that claim it, just pointing out its not really about those that "need it" as a cash benefit is ultimately amount means (whereas a blue badge, for example, has practical benefit that in principle cash cannot buy)

I appreciate what it is supposed to be for and wont argue against it however it does lead to some interesting, hopefully non emotive, questions... should the shop worker on NMW be paying towards money given to the blind millionaire? (appreciate most millionaires wont be going through the pain of application). Also, the reality is many are disadvantaged in life through no choice of their own and so why aren't others given funds to be on "an equal footing" @spoonie_turtle?

Spoonie_Turtle

DullGreyGuy said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:
I see your point but it is supposed to account for the extra costs of disability, to put disabled people on an equal footing with their nondisabled peers.  

And I am not knocking it nor those that claim it, just pointing out its not really about those that "need it" as a cash benefit is ultimately amount means (whereas a blue badge, for example, has practical benefit that in principle cash cannot buy)

I appreciate what it is supposed to be for and wont argue against it however it does lead to some interesting, hopefully non emotive, questions... should the shop worker on NMW be paying towards money given to the blind millionaire? (appreciate most millionaires wont be going through the pain of application). Also, the reality is many are disadvantaged in life through no choice of their own and so why aren't others given funds to be on "an equal footing" @spoonie_turtle?

You're assuming there is no help for other disadvantaged people.  What groups are you thinking of?

The point of it being a cash benefit is for the disabled person to use it as they need, to use it in whichever way would be most useful to them - hence 'independence' in the name.  The aids they need, the preprepared food they need, fuel and parking or taxi costs to appointments or even everyday things like shopping, or pays for home delivery, paying someone to do the odd 'simple' jobs that they can't do themselves - or for some people it is the only thing keeping the basics paid for like food, shelter, utilities. 
(As an example of aids, I used my backpay when my PIP was awarded to buy the wheelchair I needed - no means-tested benefit would ever have paid for that, as I don't even meet the NHS criteria for a clunky, heavy manual chair that I can't move myself around in.  I don't meet their criteria and yet I was awarded enhanced mobility because I can't even do 5m repeatedly and reliably, I have to ration the number of times I move between rooms.)

Incidentally you'd hope the blind millionaire would be paying much more in taxes than PIP is worth, far more than the shop worker on NMW would ever have to pay.  And if that isn't the case, something is badly wrong with the tax system, not the intention behind the welfare system.

Muttleythefrog

DullGreyGuy said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:
I see your point but it is supposed to account for the extra costs of disability, to put disabled people on an equal footing with their nondisabled peers.  

And I am not knocking it nor those that claim it, just pointing out its not really about those that "need it" as a cash benefit is ultimately amount means (whereas a blue badge, for example, has practical benefit that in principle cash cannot buy)

I appreciate what it is supposed to be for and wont argue against it however it does lead to some interesting, hopefully non emotive, questions... should the shop worker on NMW be paying towards money given to the blind millionaire? (appreciate most millionaires wont be going through the pain of application). Also, the reality is many are disadvantaged in life through no choice of their own and so why aren't others given funds to be on "an equal footing" @spoonie_turtle?

The reality surely is that the blind millionaire will more likely be paying towards the benefits and low taxes of the shop worker. Most people are net receivers from the state... get out more than they put in... while the wealthy (especially those earning the wealth rather than inheriting) contribute disproportionately more along with business.

But it is a principle thing.... to give that equal footing in daily life...i.e. avoid discrimination against disabled... it's not particularly scientific and as discussed the amounts involved probably bare little to no meaning when considering common extra costs associated with disability like a carer. Yes many are disadvantaged in life in other ways... in the UK class arguably is the most important and divisive driver of life outcomes and opportunities.... but then we're heading well into political policy territory... Sure starts....etc etc. The answer to your question is likely to involve politics, practicality and legal matters like human rights laws.

As you recognise.... wealthy disabled may never consider applying for disability benefit payments... it's simply not worth it although inherently they may be better placed to prove entitlement if they can for example rely on private healthcare professionals 'to do their bidding'.

leeloolee

DullGreyGuy said:

elsien said:

It’s not means tested. Which means that the government decided that it is absolutely fine for someone to claim it if they need it regardless of income.

In no way reflecting on the OP and absolutely agree that they are entitled to claim based on what they have posted.

However I am confused by the comment "if they need it" @elsien. Given PIP is just a cash payment then "need" on the surface really would mean its a means test

The government has decided you can claim it if you qualify... it's nothing to do with "needing" it. An associate is a senior partner in a law firm and blind; I understand he would qualify for PIP (no idea if he claims or not, not my business) but I'd strongly suspect that as he bills out at £1,500 per hour that £68/week is unlikely to even be noticeable in his account and so question how you'd think he "needs" it?

The way it was explained to me by the person who mentioned it to me is that I should not be financially disadvantaged by my disabilities to the point that I can't afford to do what non-disabled person would do with their money and have nothing left for anything nice. If I earn 'good' money but I can't afford to do anything other than survive, then I'm not really any better off than someone who isn't working, and I also have to deal with the significant mental and physical effects of full-time work. A non-disabled, single, childless person on my salary would have a good bit of disposable income to spend on things like socialising, holidays and other non-essential things that make life worth living. 

I guess your associate would have a hard time convincing the assessors that he "needs" PIP if he's on that kind of money, but what if his disabilities were so expensive and required so much special equipment that it would make a difference? It's an interesting question - do the assessors actually ask how much you earn? Are they allowed to? 

poppy12345

leeloolee said:

DullGreyGuy said:

elsien said:

It’s not means tested. Which means that the government decided that it is absolutely fine for someone to claim it if they need it regardless of income.

In no way reflecting on the OP and absolutely agree that they are entitled to claim based on what they have posted.

However I am confused by the comment "if they need it" @elsien. Given PIP is just a cash payment then "need" on the surface really would mean its a means test

The government has decided you can claim it if you qualify... it's nothing to do with "needing" it. An associate is a senior partner in a law firm and blind; I understand he would qualify for PIP (no idea if he claims or not, not my business) but I'd strongly suspect that as he bills out at £1,500 per hour that £68/week is unlikely to even be noticeable in his account and so question how you'd think he "needs" it?

I guess your associate would have a hard time convincing the assessors that he "needs" PIP if he's on that kind of money, but what if his disabilities were so expensive and required so much special equipment that it would make a difference? It's an interesting question - do the assessors actually ask how much you earn? Are they allowed to? 

How much you earn has nothing to do with any PIP claim and that's not something they would ask you because it's irrelevant. PIP isn't awarded because of the extra costs a disability may cause.

Being entitled will depend on how your conditions affect you against the 12 PIP acitivities.

Muttleythefrog

leeloolee said:

DullGreyGuy said:

elsien said:

It’s not means tested. Which means that the government decided that it is absolutely fine for someone to claim it if they need it regardless of income.

In no way reflecting on the OP and absolutely agree that they are entitled to claim based on what they have posted.

However I am confused by the comment "if they need it" @elsien. Given PIP is just a cash payment then "need" on the surface really would mean its a means test

The government has decided you can claim it if you qualify... it's nothing to do with "needing" it. An associate is a senior partner in a law firm and blind; I understand he would qualify for PIP (no idea if he claims or not, not my business) but I'd strongly suspect that as he bills out at £1,500 per hour that £68/week is unlikely to even be noticeable in his account and so question how you'd think he "needs" it?

I guess your associate would have a hard time convincing the assessors that he "needs" PIP if he's on that kind of money, but what if his disabilities were so expensive and required so much special equipment that it would make a difference? It's an interesting question - do the assessors actually ask how much you earn? Are they allowed to? 

As above... would be completely irrelevant.... assessors are there specifically to look at disablements in relation to the activities looked at like dressing and undressing or mobilising while also making observations to justify their determination of disablements and their durability. There is no financial angle of assessment or enquiry for PIP at any point by anyone. There is an activity which looks at ability to manage budgeting decisions but that enquires in a very different way about mental functioning rather than resource.

In theory at least, as I referenced above, for someone of wealth they may be better placed to claim PIP because significantly the challenge of getting PIP is proving disablements in a system that can be quite hit and miss or dismissive and requiring of particular approaches to describe and explain disablement. Someone with resource could potentially acquire private medical reports tailored, or helpful, to applying for PIP whereas someone without may struggle to even get GP appointments.

For quick reference... the PIP activities and descriptors...
(Daily Living 10 activities, Mobility 2 activities. 8 Points required for standard award of either component or 12 for enhanced award)

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/adviceguide/pip-9-table-of-activities-descriptors-and-points.pdf

My firm advice would be put aside financial thoughts other than that PIP is absolutely underpinned with explanation for existence precisely for people like you. Focus now entirely on the technical - should you qualify according to the activities looked at and your level of disabilities experienced. If you think so then I would advise applying.

Importantly when looking at the descriptors (point scoring statements of disability) you must bear in mind that to be considered able to do something you must be able to do it reliably... and by reliably for PIP that means 

• Safely
• To an acceptable standard
• Repeatedly
• In a reasonable time

i.e. if you can get dressed and undressed but it takes 2 hours to do either then that's not in reasonable time. 

leeloolee

Muttleythefrog said:

leeloolee said:

DullGreyGuy said:

elsien said:

It’s not means tested. Which means that the government decided that it is absolutely fine for someone to claim it if they need it regardless of income.

In no way reflecting on the OP and absolutely agree that they are entitled to claim based on what they have posted.

However I am confused by the comment "if they need it" @elsien. Given PIP is just a cash payment then "need" on the surface really would mean its a means test

The government has decided you can claim it if you qualify... it's nothing to do with "needing" it. An associate is a senior partner in a law firm and blind; I understand he would qualify for PIP (no idea if he claims or not, not my business) but I'd strongly suspect that as he bills out at £1,500 per hour that £68/week is unlikely to even be noticeable in his account and so question how you'd think he "needs" it?

I guess your associate would have a hard time convincing the assessors that he "needs" PIP if he's on that kind of money, but what if his disabilities were so expensive and required so much special equipment that it would make a difference? It's an interesting question - do the assessors actually ask how much you earn? Are they allowed to? 

As above... would be completely irrelevant.... assessors are there specifically to look at disablements in relation to the activities looked at like dressing and undressing or mobilising while also making observations to justify their determination of disablements and their durability. There is no financial angle of assessment or enquiry for PIP at any point by anyone. There is an activity which looks at ability to manage budgeting decisions but that enquires in a very different way about mental functioning rather than resource.

In theory at least, as I referenced above, for someone of wealth they may be better placed to claim PIP because significantly the challenge of getting PIP is proving disablements in a system that can be quite hit and miss or dismissive and requiring of particular approaches to describe and explain disablement. Someone with resource could potentially acquire private medical reports tailored, or helpful, to applying for PIP whereas someone without may struggle to even get GP appointments.

For quick reference... the PIP activities and descriptors...
(Daily Living 10 activities, Mobility 2 activities. 8 Points required for standard award of either component or 12 for enhanced award)

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/adviceguide/pip-9-table-of-activities-descriptors-and-points.pdf

My firm advice would be put aside financial thoughts other than that PIP is absolutely underpinned with explanation for existence precisely for people like you. Focus now entirely on the technical - should you qualify according to the activities looked at and your level of disabilities experienced. If you think so then I would advise applying.

Importantly when looking at the descriptors (point scoring statements of disability) you must bear in mind that to be considered able to do something you must be able to do it reliably... and by reliably for PIP that means 

• Safely
• To an acceptable standard
• Repeatedly
• In a reasonable time

i.e. if you can get dressed and undressed but it takes 2 hours to do either then that's not in reasonable time. 

Those criteria are incredibly confusing to me. For example, the first one...on a good day I can cook a decent meal to a good standard without prompting, supervision, or assistance, but on a bad day, I can't really do it at all. For example today, I've woken up feeling rotten, sluggish and fatigued, and all I've managed is a cup of tea and two biscuits, and it's half 3 in the afternoon. I'm starving, but I just don't have the ability to make anything and I've got no money left for a takeaway. So what would I choose as an answer there? I'd say on my worst days, I cannot cook and prepare food at all, so would I choose that, or would that be fraudulent given that most of the time, I can? Last week I was super organised, managed to make a stew in the slow cooker and meal prep for 3-4 days, but this week I just don't have the 'spoons' at all. That's extremely typical of my condition - it takes so much energy to do the most basic things that I end up burnt out from what most people consider normal life. 

Likewise, the stuff about social engagement...I'm sitting in all weekend again because I just can't work up the energy to go to a Meetup group or interact with anyone. At other times, I'm capable of putting a good 'mask' on, chatting up a storm and making a good impression. So do I choose what it's like at its worst? It might be better if I had someone to 'prompt' me, but I'm single and live alone, largely because I hardly ever get to meet people...because of my disabilities!

elsien

Is this any help?
https://www.mypipassessment.co.uk/updates/how-are-fluctuating-medical-conditions-handled-under-personal-independence-payment-pip/

They suggest keeping a diary so you can evidence the good days and bad days so that might be something you want to start thinking about now