Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I get the impression that you seek to defend the current system at every opportunity. I am no expert in this area but reading a few of the recent pages of this thread, your position is to deny any problem and then argue from that position.

A quick check shows:

Complaints about PIP assessments up 6,000 per cent in three years

Statistics like this clearly show such a system is cleary indefensible and needs urgent reform yet you, and please correct be if I am wrong, seem to deny this. Why is this?

Surely, in any compassionate society, such a system that is clearly distressing the very people who need help the most, is morally unfit for purpose.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I'm pointing out facts.

Any major change to any of the Welfare systems by whichever government, has a "bedding down" period where rules are clarified.

EG People complain about somebody with a recently discovered tumour being denied ESA. The article pointed out that they were denied it because they had a partner who was working. They hadn't been assessed, never mind turned down. The article also stated that they had been awarded PIP anyway.

Whether the system should be changed where there is a partner, so they get some money(not the full ESA amount) is another matter. Labour had a lot of years to implement changes, and didn't.

On the "bedroom tax". Rules that have been in place for decades with the private rented sector, are suddenly complained about. Again, if they were that illegal or unfair, then Labour had plenty of opportunities to change things.

Eg Somebody dies whilst in the Jobcentre. It is claimed by somebody they had diabetes and had been found "fit for work". As my links showed, it doesn't by itself make you "unfit for work". Additionally, it was revealed he hadn't been found "fit for work", and had been attend the jobcentre for around a year.

Time after time, when a specific example is used, the truth is later on in the article. People too readily buy into the tone of the headline, without reading and comprehending the full article. My personal experience with the DWP is similar to that. They buy into the "headlines", and don't read and comprehend the whole application and evidence. The classic one, is where they phone you up to supposedly give a full verbal explanation of their decision, and don't explain a single point of anything. They just keep reiterating the line "we've looked at all the evidence". The legal purpose of the explanation is that it's meant to clearly demonstrate they have looked at all the major points raised, and explained their reasoning. The legal intention is that even if the claimant doesn't agree with it, they must understand it.
I suppose that in essence, is what I try to do in this thread.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

But you seem only to point out "facts" that align with your agenda. Fair enough, that is the modern condition on social media but what is more disturbing is that you seem to challenge the veracity of the issues that people raise as a starting position irrespective of the relative merits. It is possible and seemingly probable that the Tory welfare system needs more than just "bedding down".

I know it is obvious but you can never apply your own individual experience about anything and use it to make conclusions at the macro level.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I think that's what the majority of people do though, they take what they see and use it as a basis. The other alternative is to believe what others say - whether on media sites, poll results, or word of mouth.

The only 'truth' people know, is what they themselves experience

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Nomadking claims to be trying to help people understand haha. The biggest poster of disinformation and distractions in the thread.

Rather than subjective opinion I much prefer facts and statistics. What is the DWPs rate for losing PIP appeals now? 71%, 78%? I keep losing track.

If, as he disingenuously suggests, this is simply a "bedding in period" - PIP was introduced in 2013 and ESA in 2008 surely their performance would get better, not worse?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Cameron said that the Bedroom Tax was introduced to free up under utilised council properties to house homeless families and not to save money (yeah, right).

In the main it has failed to meet this objective as most council properties were built to house families of various sizes and there simply isn't enough alternative accomodation designed for single people, yet these people are having their Housing Benefit/Universal Credit reduced. Even those ready and willing to move to smaller accomodation, but can't because none is available, are still penalised.

Many councils are finding it hard to let out properties which would attract a bedroom tax and they are lying empty, some have even demolished them to cut costs.

On top of the hardship imposed on people, it hasn't saved any money. Yes, it will have cut down on the benefits bill, but this has been outweighed by the extra cost of administration, appeals (many where the Government has lost), extra Discretionary Housing Payments etc.

One area where it is vastly more expensive is where a family cannot afford to top up their rent out of the (frozen since 2012) money that is meant to cover essential day to day living expenses. They get into arrears and are evicted, the same council then has a duty to find them emergency accomodation. This is usually a bed & breakfast costing hundreds of pounds a week, on top of the extra social costs of children having to travel miles to get to school or their parents actually having to give up work and claim extra benefits.

Private accommodation is much more diverse than the public sector, ranging from a room in a house to a detached house with a swimming pool. If someone chooses to move into an overlarge or expensive privately rented property, it could be argued that they should be expected to make up any shortfall. Previously, they wouldn't have known that their home would have had a reduction in the Housing Benefit payable for being above 'a reasonable market rent' or 'overlarge'*, so the Government introduced a system where they could get a decision about this before they accepted the tenancy. But would the landlord be prepared to wait, or would they simply let out the property to someone with the cash in their hand?

* Not all 'overlarge' private tenancies have their eligible rent reduced, as opposed to the arbitary Bedroom Tax imposed on council tenants. As a result of all the appeals and court cases arising, anyone currently paying the bedroom tax is advised to seek professional advice.

I suspect that your uncompromising stance on the benefit cuts is because you are a Tory supporter. It will be interesting to see if your position changes should we have a different party in Government in a few weeks.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I disagree. Some people do this but a large number try and form an objective opinion by cross referencing any claims. I hate to disappoint but there are more than the two options here.

This quote:

is puzzling to say the least. What is true is sometimes contextual: if you are content with the Welfare System, it does not make it true that everyone is. To apply this maxim leads to a very dark place ..

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

This seems to be the real answer here ..

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

As someone who relies on ESA, PIP, carers allowance etc, it doesn't give my opinion any authority over anyone elses. The way things are just aren't fit for purpose. That much has been proven. Other than that, I think the nail has been hit squarely on the head. You're not going to get much of an fair argument on this Tory (biased) forum. Best to just not bother, go elsewhere.

But if you do need advice on these certain matters, then I hope I and others will certainly help. :)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I would just point out that the reduction in benefit to those with more bedrooms than they needed simply removed the anomoly that council tenants had been given an unfair advantage over private tenants, who were not allowed to claim that benefit.. The private tenants were doubly disadvantaged compared to tenants in social housing, because private tenants have to pay higher rents, often for worse accommodation.

There is no 'bedroom tax', as you know.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

You make a fair and honest point. In answer to your forum point, most sensible people have either left or never want to contribute to these, sometimes toxic, unfairly moderated and right wing dominated, sub-forums.

Just look at the numbers: 94,845 members in total and look how many of these are active in the Current Affairs forums? Maybe 20-ish? Sort of proves the point ..

Then again, we all left, this place would just be a Daily Mail Comments parody site .. ;)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

So which "facts" go against my "agenda". People keep making absurd claims and links.

Eg X refused ESA, dies after falling over. The reason for falling over is found to be an undiagnosed brain tumour. But still his death is somehow linked to being refused ESA. The undeniable fact is that the 2 things are unconnected.

My personal experience is mentioned to point out I'm not exactly a fan of the DWP and how it operates. It's vitally important to focus on the real errors, not the fake news. It is fair to point out that Labour are not being held to the same standards, and that people are only griping about so many different things that were mysteriously not a problem when Labour were in power. That is hypocrisy on their part.

How many of the specific claims in this thread over being denied benefits have been shown to be true? They are mostly(if not all) demonstrated not to be valid for one reason or another. As I keep pointing out the truth is often exposed later on in the linked article.
Eg Claim:- X commit suicide because of delays in in UC and threat of eviction. Truth:- He was in so much debt for such a long time before he resigned his job, that even an immediate approval of his claim would have made no difference. He was going to be evicted regardless.
Eg Claim:- Person with a recently diagnosed brain tumour is denied ESA. Truth:- Later in the article it says that he was ineligible because he had a partner who works. He hadn't even been assessed for ESA. He was actually awarded PIP.
Eg Claim:- Person found "fit for work" dies in JobCentre. Truth:- He hadn't been found "fit for work", and the cause of death has not yet been specified.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Labour when they were in power were just as culpable with the introduction of ESA which was as much of a disaster as Universal Credit which like ESA was ill thought out and chaotic.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The real errors presumably being the 78% of PIP appeals that they refuse on flimsy copy and paste evidence from an alleged "medical professional" who sees the claimant sometimes for as little as six minutes.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The notion of UC(ie a single working age benefit) was proposed in 2009, perhaps before then.

The DWP do make errors and outright sloppiness in decision making, but the examples used in this thread are not usually amongst them. Concentrate on the real errors going on, not the headline ones, which are often false or simply a total misunderstanding of the rules.

Eg Maximus Medical report states "breathlessness on exertion", Hospital and GP also state that, medical reason for it identified(which is important), but not taken into account when deciding anything on the basis of "no breathlessness when brushing teeth".:confused: Lost at Tribunal, but won a rehearing from the Upper Tribunal, but not on any medical basis. I won it on a strange thing in the rules, that is really a physical state of affairs and isn't something that I would have got a medical note from a GP for. Eventually I won the rehearing at the First Tier Tribunal(they stopped it before the end) on the basis of "breathlessness on exertion".

Eg You can't complain about losing benefits claimed under the special rules(expected to die within 6 months), when you're still alive 2 years later. You might still be eligible, but not under the special rules.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

"Not usually among them" in your armchair opinion given you are simply a recipient of DWP benefits, not a qualified medical professional, and are simply ideologically backing the Conservatives.