Disability vouchers instead of cash

Provide links, then, rather than just statements, please, or a screen print of the £30k calculations…

(Such as "an actual Upper Tribunal decision that is publicly available.")

[Taf]

The idea has been around since Labour was last in power. Not "vouchers" per se, but a list of items or modifications you could claim from a central supplier. From walking sticks or wheelchairs, to lower kitchen units or stairlifts, or even hoists to shower rooms.

All used to come under "Disabled Facilities Grants" and only available until the annual budget for an area was used up. And that moment could arrive within days of the financial year starting if a few house extensions were planned.

Several think-tanks put forward plans to push large numbers of disabled people into work, thus reducing the budget to their "customers" instead of trimming their own fat of excess office staff. The advent of Work From Home has seen a "significant" number move into work, a lot of which was "welcomed" by former claimants. (according to the DWP).

The use of external companies to assess claimants for Personal Independence Payments seems to have been done to deny claimants what they should have been entitled to. Our own twins were assessed as not qualifying for any help at all, but Tribunals quashed those decisions and the DWP was obliged to award PIP.

The newest idea seems to be to allow claimants to pay for items and modifications directly out of their PIP awards, so no cash would change hands. It's a bit like the Motability scheme, where people can swap their Mobility Allowance to hire a car for 3 years.

Our daughter used to get Disabled Living Allowance, a one-off access to a Disabled Facilities Grant (Open gas fire changed to a modern boiler) and Education Support Allowance. The latter was supposed to pay for up to 3 return trips a week to college, but it only covered one return taxi ride. So I drove her there instead. That was halved, then stopped altogether, with the council saying that she had to use her Mobility Payment.

The fear amongst many is that PIP will effectively cease to exist, with claimants having to live off Employment Support Allowance and other things like Housing Benefit and Poll Tax reductions. But many live with parents or partners, and if they earn anything, those Benefits would disappear. It's a bit like this latest Means Testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, with only those who didn't work enough to get a full State Pension and didn't save much for their retirement being qualified.

So PIP goes, ESA gets absorbed into Universal Credit, and the bureaucratic cycle turns vicious for disabled claimants.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Provide links, then, rather than just statements, please, or a screen print of the £30k calculations…

(Such as "an actual Upper Tribunal decision that is publicly available.")

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v NJ: [2024] UKUT 194 (AAC)

The Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the claimant’s temporary absences from Great Britain in order to be treated by exposure to sunlight at her family home in Spain fell within the exception in regulation 153 of The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 so that she continued to be entitled to benefits while abroad.

UC without rent £240.55/week
PIP(standard daily living + enhanced mobility) £148.20/week
Rent assume low figure of £100/week

Gives £25,415 + council tax reduction.
Feed £30,000 salary into this website, and the take home is £25,120/year.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You get the money to pay the rent, so it's not just the basic amount. The point remains that the equivalent salary required would be in excess of £30K, nearer £40K with London rents. As I said, I haven't plucked the figure out of thin air. It is an actual calculation.

You get a choice whether it's paid directly or not.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stephen

You get a choice whether it's paid directly or not.

Irrelevant whether paid directly or not, it's still an "income" to be included in these figures.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Taf

The idea has been around since Labour was last in power. Not "vouchers" per se, but a list of items or modifications you could claim from a central supplier. From walking sticks or wheelchairs, to lower kitchen units or stairlifts, or even hoists to shower rooms.

All used to come under "Disabled Facilities Grants" and only available until the annual budget for an area was used up. And that moment could arrive within days of the financial year starting if a few house extensions were planned.

Several think-tanks put forward plans to push large numbers of disabled people into work, thus reducing the budget to their "customers" instead of trimming their own fat of excess office staff. The advent of Work From Home has seen a "significant" number move into work, a lot of which was "welcomed" by former claimants. (according to the DWP).

The use of external companies to assess claimants for Personal Independence Payments seems to have been done to deny claimants what they should have been entitled to. Our own twins were assessed as not qualifying for any help at all, but Tribunals quashed those decisions and the DWP was obliged to award PIP.

The newest idea seems to be to allow claimants to pay for items and modifications directly out of their PIP awards, so no cash would change hands. It's a bit like the Motability scheme, where people can swap their Mobility Allowance to hire a car for 3 years.

Our daughter used to get Disabled Living Allowance, a one-off access to a Disabled Facilities Grant (Open gas fire changed to a modern boiler) and Education Support Allowance. The latter was supposed to pay for up to 3 return trips a week to college, but it only covered one return taxi ride. So I drove her there instead. That was halved, then stopped altogether, with the council saying that she had to use her Mobility Payment.

The fear amongst many is that PIP will effectively cease to exist, with claimants having to live off Employment Support Allowance and other things like Housing Benefit and Poll Tax reductions. But many live with parents or partners, and if they earn anything, those Benefits would disappear. It's a bit like this latest Means Testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, with only those who didn't work enough to get a full State Pension and didn't save much for their retirement being qualified.

So PIP goes, ESA gets absorbed into Universal Credit, and the bureaucratic cycle turns vicious for disabled claimants.

ESA is pretty much part of UC already. If you claim both, your ESA totally monthly amount is deducted off your total UC amount.

So realistic the only perk to ESA is getting it paid every two weeks rather than the once a month UC payment. You don't actually get any extra.

So using myself as an example. After rent auto deducts and the ESA amount is also deducted we are left with about £400 a month. Not enough to live off for the month realistically.

As for PIP or ADP then it's meant to go towards the extra costs involved with your disability or illness. Many in receipt of it can and do still work. Where it's part time or full time employment.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Taf

The idea has been around since Labour was last in power. Not "vouchers" per se, but a list of items or modifications you could claim from a central supplier. From walking sticks or wheelchairs, to lower kitchen units or stairlifts, or even hoists to shower rooms.

All used to come under "Disabled Facilities Grants" and only available until the annual budget for an area was used up. And that moment could arrive within days of the financial year starting if a few house extensions were planned.

Several think-tanks put forward plans to push large numbers of disabled people into work, thus reducing the budget to their "customers" instead of trimming their own fat of excess office staff. The advent of Work From Home has seen a "significant" number move into work, a lot of which was "welcomed" by former claimants. (according to the DWP).

The use of external companies to assess claimants for Personal Independence Payments seems to have been done to deny claimants what they should have been entitled to. Our own twins were assessed as not qualifying for any help at all, but Tribunals quashed those decisions and the DWP was obliged to award PIP.

The newest idea seems to be to allow claimants to pay for items and modifications directly out of their PIP awards, so no cash would change hands. It's a bit like the Motability scheme, where people can swap their Mobility Allowance to hire a car for 3 years.

Our daughter used to get Disabled Living Allowance, a one-off access to a Disabled Facilities Grant (Open gas fire changed to a modern boiler) and Education Support Allowance. The latter was supposed to pay for up to 3 return trips a week to college, but it only covered one return taxi ride. So I drove her there instead. That was halved, then stopped altogether, with the council saying that she had to use her Mobility Payment.

The fear amongst many is that PIP will effectively cease to exist, with claimants having to live off Employment Support Allowance and other things like Housing Benefit and Poll Tax reductions. But many live with parents or partners, and if they earn anything, those Benefits would disappear. It's a bit like this latest Means Testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, with only those who didn't work enough to get a full State Pension and didn't save much for their retirement being qualified.

So PIP goes, ESA gets absorbed into Universal Credit, and the bureaucratic cycle turns vicious for disabled claimants.

My original point was that for some, the money handed out is more than they need, but for others not enough or just ok. There's no one size fits all payment.
If anything it's the ESA side of things that is going to disappear, as eligibility shifts to eligibility for PIP and the Severe Disability Premium has been removed from new UC claims.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v NJ: [2024] UKUT 194 (AAC)

UC without rent £240.55/week
PIP(standard daily living + enhanced mobility) £148.20/week
Rent assume low figure of £100/week

Gives £25,415 + council tax reduction.
Feed £30,000 salary into this website, and the take home is £25,120/year.

Thank you - very interesting (and unusual) case (full ruling below).

https://assets.publishing.service.go...000576-ESA.pdf

I have to question the cost effectiveness of the legal fees of a Barrister and all the support work of the Government Legal Department through all the appeals, against an alleged ESA overpayment of £4,753.11…

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thank you - very interesting (and unusual) case (full ruling below).

https://assets.publishing.service.go...000576-ESA.pdf

I have to question the cost effectiveness of the legal fees of a Barrister and all the support work of the Government Legal Department through all the appeals, against an alleged ESA overpayment of £4,753.11…

I had read the full ruling and couldn't quite believe it.
The issue wouldn't have been the overpayment, but principle of being allowed to stay overseas(in Spain) for 26 weeks of the year, rather than the normal limit of 4 weeks. Now imagine if that catches on. People could spend 6 months of the year abroad, because they are getting "treatment" of getting a tan.

IMO Quite staggering that she got away with it. She was getting medication for the mental health condition, so there should've been no existing impact of any sort.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

She was getting medication for the mental health condition, so there should've been no existing impact of any sort.

From personal experience, and that of my wife and our daughter, medication only very rarely reduce all symptoms to anywhere near zero. Full doses often have very bad side effects, so Doctors err on the side of caution, especially during the first months. And then monitoring must continue as many medications' effects reduce over time.

I worked with a woman whose daily dosage would have put me to sleep for a week.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Taf

From personal experience, and that of my wife and our daughter, medication only very rarely reduce all symptoms to anywhere near zero. Full doses often have very bad side effects, so Doctors err on the side of caution, especially during the first months. And then monitoring must continue as many medications' effects reduce over time.

I worked with a woman whose daily dosage would have put me to sleep for a week.

But in this case spending 6 months of the year in Spain, magically cures her condition. Is that going to be prescribed on the NHS? Her husband is a retired doctor.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

With UC, PIP, rent paid, and council tax reduction it can all add up to an equivalent of a £30+K salary. That's before considering rents in London.

There are websites where you can enter an annual salary, and it will tell you the take home pay. You can take the total amount received in benefits and work out the salary it would need to get that amount. I didn't pluck the £30+K figure out of thin air.

To say there isn't massive fraud on the mental health side of things is quite delusional. It's NOT about whether you have X, Y, or, Z, but how much that impacts your life AFTER treatment. Eg Somebody SUCCESSFULLY claimed they should be allowed to spend 26 weeks of the year at a 2nd home in Spain, because of the sunshine. Not based upon a media report, but an actual Upper Tribunal decision that is publicly available.

But we are talking solely about PIP. There are many people who only receive this because they aren't eligible for any other benefits.

---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

With UC, PIP, rent paid, and council tax reduction it can all add up to an equivalent of a £30+K salary. That's before considering rents in London.

There are websites where you can enter an annual salary, and it will tell you the take home pay. You can take the total amount received in benefits and work out the salary it would need to get that amount. I didn't pluck the £30+K figure out of thin air.

To say there isn't massive fraud on the mental health side of things is quite delusional. It's NOT about whether you have X, Y, or, Z, but how much that impacts your life AFTER treatment. Eg Somebody SUCCESSFULLY claimed they should be allowed to spend 26 weeks of the year at a 2nd home in Spain, because of the sunshine. Not based upon a media report, but an actual Upper Tribunal decision that is publicly available.

The zero level of instances of fraud recorded for PIP is as stated by the DWP under the last Government.

I don't see what the problem is with someone going to their holiday home if the sunshine is advantageous for their health.

---------- Post added at 01:23 ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

UC pays the rent. It's deducted of what you receive. I'm sure there is a limit to what they will pay also. It's not as kushy as some people think.

Indeed. I can't think of anybody who wouldn't give up PIP in return for their disabilities to magically be waved away.

---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

ESA is pretty much part of UC already. If you claim both, your ESA totally monthly amount is deducted off your total UC amount.

So realistic the only perk to ESA is getting it paid every two weeks rather than the once a month UC payment. You don't actually get any extra.

So using myself as an example. After rent auto deducts and the ESA amount is also deducted we are left with about £400 a month. Not enough to live off for the month realistically.

As for PIP or ADP then it's meant to go towards the extra costs involved with your disability or illness. Many in receipt of it can and do still work. Where it's part time or full time employment.

Indeed. And it's been pointed out in the consultation that the abolition of PIP could well be counter productive as some disabled people would have to give up work.

The Sunak Government launched a consultation for people to respond to their ideas (now closed). The new Starmer Government stance is that they are to look through the responses received and make any announcement in due course.

I expect PIP is like any other benefit, there are the majority who correctly get it, and a minority who abuse or scam it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But we are talking solely about PIP. There are many people who only receive this because they aren't eligible for any other benefits.

---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 ----------



The zero level of instances of fraud recorded for PIP is as stated by the DWP under the last Government.

I don't see what the problem is with someone going to their holiday home if the sunshine is advantageous for their health.

---------- Post added at 01:23 ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 ----------



Indeed. I can't think of anybody who wouldn't give up PIP in return for their disabilities to magically be waved away.

---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------



Indeed. And it's been pointed out in the consultation that the abolition of PIP could well be counter productive as some disabled people would have to give up work.

The Sunak Government launched a consultation for people to respond to their ideas (now closed). The new Starmer Government stance is that they are to look through the responses received and make any announcement in due course.

You don't receive PIP because you're not eligible for any other benefits. There may be those with an income and/or savings which make them not eligible for any other benefits.

Difficult and a lot of effort to prove fraud. NOT ZERO cases, just a low %age. Eg 0.9% for 2023. As the number of new claims soars with non-disprovable "mental health" claims, any level of identified fraud get diluted.

They had a holiday home long beforehand(over 20 years before). They didn't go there for her "health". It was a case of being caught out and trying to come up with excuses. They stayed mainly in the summer and not in the winter months. Sun lamps are ALSO suitable. If staying in Iceland helped her condition, then they wouldn't have gone there. All contradictory to her claim.

My point remains that, could people claim holidays on the NHS as a "treatment"?
I don't think the perceived issue is with those ONLY receiving PIP alongside other earned income, such as a job. It is when combined with UC/ESA etc, that people can get large sums for doing nothing. There is no incentive to look for work. Even Labour say they are going to address that.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the reason for ESA and PIP. IIRC The extra money with ESA is meant to be a form of compensation for not being able to work, so that you're not on very basic benefits. IIRC the principle is that you are unable to increase your income any other way. PIP is meant to be for aids and assistance, and not for general living expenses.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You don't receive PIP because you're not eligible for any other benefits. There may be those with an income and/or savings which make them not eligible for any other benefits.

Difficult and a lot of effort to prove fraud. NOT ZERO cases, just a low %age. Eg 0.9% for 2023. As the number of new claims soars with non-disprovable "mental health" claims, any level of identified fraud get diluted.

They had a holiday home long beforehand(over 20 years before). They didn't go there for her "health". It was a case of being caught out and trying to come up with excuses. They stayed mainly in the summer and not in the winter months. Sun lamps are ALSO suitable. If staying in Iceland helped her condition, then they wouldn't have gone there. All contradictory to her claim.

My point remains that, could people claim holidays on the NHS as a "treatment"?
I don't think the perceived issue is with those ONLY receiving PIP alongside other earned income, such as a job. It is when combined with UC/ESA etc, that people can get large sums for doing nothing. There is no incentive to look for work. Even Labour say they are going to address that.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the reason for ESA and PIP. IIRC The extra money with ESA is meant to be a form of compensation for not being able to work, so that you're not on very basic benefits. IIRC the principle is that you are unable to increase your income any other way. PIP is meant to be for aids and assistance, and not for general living expenses.

No, one doesn't receive PIP simply because they don't receive any other benefits per se, but they can do, one of the reasons is given in your example.

If any sick or disabled person receives a higher amount than the unemployed (not all do thanks to the Cameron Government) this isn't compensation for not being able to work, but to reflect the additional expenses of being disabled. This began in 1988 when the Thatcher Government scrapped the 'Additional Requirements' payments in favour of premiums targeted at certain groups.

PIP fraud is officially so low that it registers as zero in Government figures, it's one of, if not the benefit least likely to be claimed fraudulently.

There has been a large increase in young people claiming for mental health problems, that is true. The Government has for some time taken steps to tighten up what they call the 'Gateway' to benefits ie to stop fraudulent or exaggerated claims entering the system in the first place and PIP is no exception.

Cameron introduced PIP as a way to reduce the cost of DLA for adults. It was made much harder to claim by changing the criteria to qualify, scrapping one of the Care Components and requiring face to face interviews by so called health professionals. These have been widely criticised for being set up to make claimants fail, even by former members of staff of the privatised companies paid to carry out the interviews.

So, as you can see, PIP isn't easy to get either legitimately or fraudulently.

There is talk of going back to the old DLA system where it's based on what is wrong with a person and requiring a formal diagnosis as opposed to the current system based upon how it affects them.

This could address your concern that those with mental health problems are, in effect, making it up as a diagnosis would be needed by a qualified person.