Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Yes, you are probably right ... in a very similar way to your (many) posts from the order-order.com website.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

This site:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/

Has a feature about an interesting book about what has been done to disabled people since 2010:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.co...rnments-shame/

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Completely devoid of facts. Just as the same as the 100,000+ deaths claim.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Do you believe that Stephen and the awful situation he finds himself in through no fault of his own is due to his "choice" or any failure to comply?

One woman is to take on the DWP over her daughters death:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...L&guccounter=2

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

She was asked to provide proof of her hospital stay, she didn't. At the very least that would have been the hospital discharge form. She had received notification, she just hadn't opened the letters. Only some benefits were stopped, not all of them. She didn't wait for the result of the Mandatory Reconsideration, although that decision was still a no. She still hadn't exhausted all appeal options, which would have kept the money coming in, and allowed time to get any evidence together.Any time during the final appeal phase the DWP can change their mind, if you happen to supply the evidence. She had sought advice from CAB, so they would have been able to give the options. Failing all that, she could have signed on for JSA, and immediately started an Extended Period of Sickness(EPS), which can last up to 3 months. That would have given her more time to sort things out. Where was her mother in all this?



The facts are all out there.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

European court ruling says that the UK Government must pay compensation to a victim of domestic abuse who suffered discrimination regarding the Bedroom Tax:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...dealt-20714008

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

So yet again:rolleyes:, what similar measures were in place for the private rented sector under Labour? If they had been any, they would have automatically been included. Why is it after decades of something not being the case, that under the Conservatives is magically different?:confused:
In that sort of situation, you do what everybody else on the planet has always had to do, and move elsewhere. If you're in that much known danger, a panic room isn't going to make much difference. They will wait until you go outside and/or surprise you.


Doesn't sound like she's even been attempted to be attacked in all that time(6 years).

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Our resident DWP member of staff leaps to their defence once again.

The reality is they’ve introduced a bad policy not properly impact assessed against a wide range of protected characteristics and human rights. They deserve to lose every time in court.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Nothing whatsoever to do with the "bedroom tax". As I pointed out, any similar rule has NEVER been in place for the private rented sector. So why was something that is now supposedly deemed illegal, not deemed illegal before 2013 or even before 2010?
UK Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
No mention of any subsequent attacks, attempted or otherwise, so the whole thing was unsurprisingly unnecessary in the first place.


If it is supposedly a matter of the evil Tories and the evil "bedroom tax", then the same goes for Labour and Housing Benefit.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I'll stick to the European Court of Human Rights interpretation, thank you very much as it's a higher court. Which I'm sure the DWP will have trained you on the hierarchy. What has or hasn't happened previously is an irrelevance. The DWP introduced a bad policy, and deserved to lose the case.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The DWP haven't trained me in anything.

Nothing was introduced, at any time, by anybody, that is actually related to this case. If it's illegal now, then it was illegal in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950 etc. But it wasn't illegal in those decades and nobody complained about it.

The UNUSED "panic room" IS a bedroom. It would've made more sense for her to sleep in there, if she was actually in danger.

The other part of their decision.
So that decision is ok?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It’s incorrect to claim the circumstances are the same now as the 1960s. The whole case is premised upon changes to Housing Benefit.

I’m not familiar with the second case but if the European Court of Human Rights have made a ruling as a lay person I’m not inclined to disagree with them in the absence of any evidence or facts at my disposal.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The 2nd case is also in the Mirror article.

The principle of excess bedrooms existed BEFORE 2013, and BEFORE 2010. If the house had been in the private rented sector, they still wouldn't have received the 3 bedroom rate, only the 2 bedroom. That would've have been the case in the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, 1970s etc. It was NOT a case of something that was allowed in the private rented sector, was suddenly not allowed in the social sector. Prior to 2010, an extra bedroom wouldn't be allowed for a carer or medical equipment. Now it might be, depending on individual circumstances. That happened from 1st April 2011. Those evil Tories have actually relaxed the previous rules. If Labour had still been in power, the rules wouldn't have been relaxed. So which side is evil?:rolleyes:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The Tories are evil. That’s an easy one.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The weak minded are easily brain washed.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Indeed they are, as could be said for anyone who believes societies ills are because of public spending, benefit claimants or the number of immigrants in the UK, and not the industrial scale of tax evasion/avoidance.

The financial crisis wasn’t caused because I used to get by bin emptied once a week.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Tory MP condemns decision to continue to deprive bereaved families of benefits, despite Supreme Court ruling:

https://welfareweekly.com/bereaved-f...-court-ruling/

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The article isn’t well written but Frank Field MP is Labour and appears to be the one condemning. The unnamed Tory minister appears to justify it.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Frank Field was Labour, but is now independent and AFAIK is standing as an independent in his Birkenhead constituency at this election.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

1) Nothing whatsoever connected to the links in the post I was replying to.
2) Nothing whatsoever to do with benefits.
3) Nothing whatsoever to do with nonsense claim of 100,000+ deaths of people who were merely receiving benefits.
4) Not much was changed prior to 2013, after which the main changes came in, and yet.
So more cuts from 2013, led to fewer deaths.:confused:
5) 2010 should be discounted from any figures, because any budgets will have been set by Labour.
6) The figures are based upon per person. If you let over 1m people in, the per person figure will go down. As the incomers were supposedly younger and more healthy, a smaller proportion of them will have needed social care. That again distorts the true per person figures.

7) Cuts started BEFORE 2010.Link

As the 2009/10 figure was an 8% drop, it can be concluded that the 9 years of 2010/2011 to 2018/2019 had an average increase of 2.5%. Yet the annual average increase under Labour was 2.2%.
8) Aspects of Social Care have been devolved to councils. Makes coming up with the true budget figure more complicated.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

https://fullfact.org/health/adult-so...nurse-numbers/

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

BBC reporting that between December 2011 and February 2014, 90 people a month died after being found totally fit to go out to work:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34074557

All party group of MP's calls for Camerons two child limit to be scrapped:

https://welfareweekly.com/no-governm...benefit-limit/

New fund to help vulnerable people claim Universal Credit excludes those too ill to work!

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/...-need-it-most/

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The BBC aren't "reporting"* it, they reported** it, over 4 years ago...

btw, the word "totally" isn't used in that article.

*present tense...

**past tense...

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

For the umpteenth time, anything that happens close to the changeover has nothing to do with the government that takes over. No new rules were in place until 28th of March the following year. Any new rules wouldn't have applied to anyone applying before 28th March 2011. The new rules were mostly, if not all, suggested under Labour, eg use of of wheelchair only giving 9 points rather than 15.
7,540 people died in the assessment phase, compared to 2,380 who died after found "fit for work". Those in the "fit for work" group will still have had the reconsideration and appeals phases to go, and would've still been receiving ESA all that time. Even then they were ALL still receiving ESA or JSA, otherwise the DWP wouldn't know about them, and wouldn't be included in that figure. As the numbers of people that didn't die aren't included, it's impossible to assess the comparative mortality rates. Even more so when the pre-2010 figures are not there, and conveniently not asked for in the first place.

BUNCH OF MEANINGLESS FIGURES FROM 4 YEARS AGO.

Still nowhere near the claimed figures of 100,000+ deaths.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Tories back candidate who thinks that benefit claimants should be "put down":

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-remarks-gower

Since benefits were frozen and people were pushed below the poverty line at the same time as cuts were made to other benefits, the Trussell Trust has found that most food bank users are now living on an average of £50 a week after housing costs have been paid. They are expected to pay bills and buy food with this, so the Trusell Tr7st has called on the Government to increase benefits. Next years increase of about £1 a week is nowhere near enough and has probably only been done due to the forthcoming general election:

https://welfareweekly.com/food-bank-...earch-reveals/

Video about the real effects of Universal Credit on people:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dtKI_B7RghI

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw

More DWP lies with your hard earned taxes.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

What else can you expect from the Kafkaesque DWP.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Independent report on Tory austerity deaths:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...OkkVyODCREj_Vg

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

ooooh 'Ad Blocker Detected' . . either log in or subscribe
err . . no thanks, I'll just click that red X at the top right thanks ;)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Didn't you notice my reply (post #2437) to the first time around you posted a link to that article.


EG
So more cuts from 2013, led to fewer deaths.:confused:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Our daughter's DLA to PIP scenario just took a strange turn.

PIP refused at first assessment (December 2018)

PIP refused at Mandatory Reconsideration (May 2019)

Tribunal requested (21st May 2019)

Tribunal cancelled by the DWP (29th May 2019) Maximum points awarded by their Decision Maker, backdated to December 2018.

On reading the Award Letter, we saw that they had been overly generous with the points, giving her points for something that does not affect her often enough to warrant the award. So I sent them a letter highlighting this. It was signed-for on 6th June, but no response has been received.

Then today we have received a request from the Tribunal Service for a copy of her Mandatory Reconsideration in order for her Tribunal to go ahead. ? ? ? ?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Sounds like the DWP told you about the cax. But forgot to tell the tribunal. Maybe send the tribunal a copy of the cax. and award letters and see what happens?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Cax?

The only way to contact the Tribunal is by phone. 0300 number, so I racked up a bill hanging on to their muzak this afternoon. No reply. :(

I'll just take the documentation to them next time I'm in town.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Does the DWP conceding, cancel the process? The appeal is brought by the claimant. Perhaps it's the claimant that then has to cancel it, pointing out the issues had been resolved.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

They have email. You can even send documentation that way.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Cancellation, when you’re typing in a hurry :D

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

If the DWP has changed its mind and made the award there is nothing to appeal and the tribunal would be cancelled. Obviously an error has occured somewhere.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

As I said, once it has reached the independent appeal stage, it is the claimant that has to initiate any appeal. In that sense the claimant is in control. If you think of the more general situation with appellant and respondent, the respondent shouldn't be able to cancel anything without the explicit agreement of the appellant.

I had a similar situation where I had to query what would happen if the DWP conceded, as a different Tribunal had made a favourable decision just a few months before. The first-tier tribunal office didn't know the answer. In the end, on the day of the hearing the DWP sent a representative to concede, and the Tribunal had separately also agreed in my favour before the hearing started. The Decision Notice was on the table when I entered the room.


At the very least send in a copy of the DWP decision as evidence, and change to the tribunal being based on the papers rather than having to attend any hearing.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I believed that the process would end with the DWP conceding and then the DWP informing the Tribunal.

I haven't been able to find an email address online or in any of their correspondence. :confused:

---------- Post added at 11:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

I'll drop it off in person as they might also be able to help with the letter I sent to DWP about our concerns that the award was too generous.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

If it's the Cardiff office on Newport Rd, then the link below has all the contact details, including email and Fax.
Link

Link to find other Tribunal contact details

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Cheers! :)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I dropped in and gave them the docs to copy. The guy who dealt with it said the DWP have often failed to send a form to them when a case is resolved by both claimant and DWP. Their giving maximum points was a ploy to ensure the case could not be contested further.

But I showed him a copy of the letter we sent stating that they had been over-generous. He suggested I should keep proof of them receiving that letter (Post Office Signed-for) in case they ever decided to claim over-payment. The Tribunals deal with that scenario a lot.

When I got home, my daughter said that someone from that office had called asking for a "reference number". She did not understand what that meant, so I hope they'll call again. I suspect they want the P.O. receipt number, to put on her records in case the DWP decides to play silly buggers.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

What an absolute minefield. You must have to approach this like some military strategist to stay on top of it all.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

That just about sums it up in a nutshell.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I am ex-military and ex-civil service, so I have got the habit of keeping perfect records, or as best as the situation allows.

Failure to do so can open you to comebacks, even years later. :(

The DWP has the habit of asking "On what date did you first become a Carer?" or something equally memory-blasting.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

From the benefits and work website:

TRIBUNALS SERVICE OVERWHELMED BY PIP APPEALS

A report by the Tribunals Service admits that they can’t keep pace with the number of PIP appeals.

The ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ Annual Report’ admits that “the rapid rise in appeal numbers has outstripped our ability to recruit and train sufficient numbers of panel members to keep pace”.

Appeal numbers plummeted in 2013, from a high of over half a million, after the DWP introduced its cynical mandatory reconsideration hurdle.

However, numbers are on the rise again, more than doubling from 112,000 in 2014 to 238,000 in 2018.

To try to cope, the Tribunals Service appointed 130 new judges, 225 medically qualified members and 125 disability qualified members last year.

They are also trying other methods to reduce the backlog, including cramming more PIP appeals into each session and trying to resolve more cases before they reach a hearing.

But the one thing that would really cut their workload - the DWP getting more decisions right - is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

More appeals doesn't necessarily mean more wrong decisions taking place.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

This would tell you otherwise...

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.co...-in-two-years/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42862904

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/ne...-back-payments

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

That's all due to changes made to the rules and law. Not really "wrong" has such. Mainly down to interpretation of a few words/terms. Same sort of thing happens with other newly introduced benefits.



Still nothing to do with new demand for Tribunals.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The DWP announced ages ago that it wanted to move all Tribunals online "to save money".

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Similar to what happened to me last year. PIP denied after missing out by 1 point. Skipped firsts steps and deaf blind Scotland rep that helped me requested tribunal right away. After a few months I got a call offering standard rate of living and mobility. I was only looking for living. Accepted the for and 4 months later I got the letter of invite to tribunal as DWP had not bothered yo contact them to advise it was settled. I had to call DWP to prompt them to send info to say it was settled.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The social security system has never been in such a mess in this country.

Some good news for those with severely disabled partners. The supreme court has unanimously ruled that applying the bedroom tax on 'spare' rooms that are used to store medical equipment is a breach of human rights:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...er-bedroom-tax

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Just as well we don't tax bedrooms, then.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It only affects those on Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

So its not a tax then is it.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It's a shame that you're more interested in nit picking over terminology than the plight of severely disabled people who have wrongly had their benefits reduced.

In any case, this has been covered before if you check further back in this thread.

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:22 ----------

Yes, I saw this on the 1pm BBC news. It featured a lady who was bi polar who has had the extra stress and worry to obtain her entitlement, which won't have done her state of mental health any good.

At the end, she said something poignant as in "this could all be sorted out if they began to care".

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It's a shame you're more interested in using a negatively emotive term which wrongly describes something than being accurate - you would be very upset (rightly) if someone described severely disabled people as "burdens on the taxpayers"; words have power, especially if used negatively and incorrectly.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I suggest that you take it up with the newspaper then.

This issue has already been covered recently in this thread, I see no point in going over old ground again, particularly when I suspect it's being done in order to deflect from the real issue under discussion.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Suspicion is not actuality...

Repetition of falsehoods, no matter who said/printed them, doesn't make them any more real.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

By restoring this benefit, we would be discriminating against those renting accommodation from the private sector. How is that fair?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The Public Law Project has launched a site to help those at risk of innaproppriate sanctions:

https://www.thejusticegap.com/new-we...ctions-regime/

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

A Public Advocacy setup here was closed after HMG declined further funding, and the council refused to help either.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/18/man-d...work-11174319/

Man found fit to work DIES in the queue at a job centre.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

People die all the time for a variety of reasons.
Diabetes by itself is not life threatening.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

People do indeed die all of the time for a variety of reasons. The poor DWP here, having their quality robust decision making undermined by luck and chance!

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It is complete and utter nonsense to link the 2 things. That is the issue. If he was at the Jobcentre it is probable that a Tribunal also made a decision against him.


Eg There was a case of somebody who was refused ESA, but he died of an undiagnosed brain tumour. No connection whatsoever between the two things.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

"It's probable" is just your sheer guesswork. Do people waiting on ESA appeals not have to sign on?

What is true is that people are statistically more likely to die in the dole queue due to poor decision making by THE DWP refusing ill health benefits to people who are entitled to them with copy and paste decision making.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I said probable because the usual process is to remain on ESA until a Tribunal has decided. Impossible to be 100% sure. He might for some reason not taken that step. It would be improbable not to have taken the Tribunal appeal stage. Still remains the fact that there is absolutely no evidence provided that the two things are linked.

Diabetes by itself doesn't cause death.
Just found this.
Official advice

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

"famous UK diabetic sports achievers" haha. What about all those asthmatic cyclists? Utterly laughable to compare the medical plight of hundreds of thousands to one or two athletes.

Your rush to defend the DWP at every turn is truly laughable. I just had a Google and it did not indicate the "usual process" was for an appellant of a fit for work decision to not have to claim Jobseeker's.

I can't believe I got banned from the Brexit thread for the week for the rather unambitious prediction that you work for them.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I'm defending facts and the truth. I am unemployed and receive ESA and PIP, so I do know and have experience of the process.

The quote says "Sportsmen and women with diabetes are common". So not so rare. Also, "Sport, or exercise of some form, is recommended for all people with diabetes".


Citizen's Advice.
You can even get it backdated to start from the date of the decision, thereby covering the gap between that date and the mandatory reconsideration. Of course that all depends on your GP still issuing medical notes.


All irrelevant in this case, because apparently it is fake news.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I’m, as ever, struggling to see the relevance as you attempt to clutch at straws here.

You ‘can’ however I’d dispute your previous use of the ‘usual proess’. Can you advise me of the process the DWP put you down while appealing without any further intervention?


As is the fact you claim to receive both ESA and PIP. Of course, there’s no way to test the veracity of any such “claim” on your part. It would however be convenient for the purposes of misinformation to make such an assertion, without any mechanism to test it.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I wasn't aware of that and as such withdraw my third point from my most recent post. Points one and two stand.

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.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The "Not usually amongst them" bit, is simply because I don't want to traipse through the whole thread checking every single example so that I can claim "X% are not amongst them". I have given specific examples of where a claim(not the ESA/PIP claim referred to) made within a post, is untrue, and why it's untrue.
Eg Link

The TRUTH being:-
Furthermore:-
What is wrong about pointing out the truth?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

You haven’t pointed out the truth though, all too often you are offering another mere subjective opinion, similar in vain to the “man in the pub” in the absence of material facts about the individuals involved or the claims made.

It’s total bull from you time and again. Anything to depend the DWP when against any measure going their performance in administering benefits is atrocious and getting worse. A Government department failing to administer laws it creates is nothing short of scandalous and for any supposedly “neutral” person to clutch at straws to defend them is, frankly, despicable.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

DWP doesn’t create the laws they administer- Parliament does.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The secondary legislation that covers much of benefit rules/regulations would be developed and impact assessed by DWP policy officials after being given a steer by Ministers/special advisers/budget etc. While Parliament has to approve (affirmative procedure) or at least not object (negative procedure), the Department and it’s lawyers are very much responsible for their creation.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Higher court decisions and even some Upper Tribunals decisions(ie Reported decisions) do amend the law.
DWP Decision Makers' Guide.
That is why looking at Upper Tribunals decisions can be informative when dealing with benefit issues.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

No they don’t. No court can amend statute law - not even the Supreme Court. Courts create precedent in case law, but this is not amending law, it is creating law in a previously grey or undefined area.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I point out the facts that are mentioned in the SAME article about the individual. How is that subjective opinion? Being "subjective" and not being fully aware of the claimants situation works both ways. For the most part, having medical condition X doesn't automatically mean that you are eligible for benefits. In that example that was used, the claim is that he was turned down for ESA. The claim never got that far. The bit in the article that initially raised my suspicions was that he was diagnosed in July, but the suggestion was that an assessment and decision had been made a few months later. That timescale was unlikely, and sure enough the reason he was "turned down", was the income of his partner, NOT his health or lack of it. No DWP decision on ESA had really been made.
EG Man alleged by man sitting next to somebody else(ie "man in the pub" situation) to have died after having been found "fit for work", HADN'T been found "fit for work". That NOT subjective, that is FACT.

Where have the Government dept failed to administer laws, expect where AFTER the fact somebody comes along and says the way something has been applied is suddenly illegal, when it wasn't before?

---------- Post added at 23:39 ---------- Previous post was at 23:28 ----------

They are not amending the law, but those decisions do change the rules and how they've been applied in the past. They effectively add amendments to the law. The DWP decision makers are meant to stick to those amendments. Their guidance supplies references to the base law as well as those amendments.


It is still beneficial to look at those other decisions in conjunction with the base law to get a fuller picture of how the decisions are meant to be arrived at.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

They don't amend the law. They clarify interpretation of the law.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I think most people would think there is little difference between the two.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I would generally agree - however my starting point was that the DWP policy officials develop these regulations and get them wrong. Then DWP operational staff, in conjunction with the third party assessors, get their application wrong resulting in the massive amounts of appeals being lost.