The state benefits system mega-thread.

[jfman]

I think we’re missing three more likely scenarios:

1) 4x4 driver didn’t have a blue badge at all.
2) The car had a blue badge but the person entitled to the benefit wasn’t present. (Not a legitimate use of the badge but who is going to know?)
3) It’s an entirely fictional event.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Mobility Allowance wasn't for those over 65 and was means tested.
From Hansard

If somebody has such a severe mental health condition that they qualify, then they almost certainly shouldn't be driving.

I've never known it to be means tested

We can't be sure that it was the disabled person driving though, although some conditions would still enable a person to drive, whilst others preclude this.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I've never known it to be means tested

We can't be sure that it was the disabled person driving though, although some conditions would still enable a person to drive, whilst others preclude this.

The Mobility Allowance Scheme is now closed. The following rules applied when it was in operation:
You are eligible for a Mobility Allowance if you meet the following conditions:

• You are unable to walk, even with the use of artificial limbs or other suitable aids, or your health is such that the exertion required to walk would be dangerous
• The inability to walk must be likely to last for at least a year
• You must not be medically forbidden to move
• You must be in a position to benefit from a change in surroundings
• You must be living at home or in a long-term institution
• You must pass a means test.

[RichardCoulter]

Pretty sure that's incorrect info on that site, or perhaps it's referring to the Motability scheme and has been transposed??

AFAIK, the principle has always been to make disability benefits tax free and not to be counted as income when calculating other benefits, so as to ensure that disabled people benefited from the extra help in full. I've never known it to be means tested.

I'll ask someone who will know, it would be interesting to find out if it was actually means tested when it started in the 1976.

[Taf]

DLA and PIP are not means tested, Carers Allowance and ESA are.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Pretty sure that's incorrect info on that site, or perhaps it's referring to the Motability scheme and has been transposed??

AFAIK, the principle has always been to make disability benefits tax free and not to be counted as income when calculating other benefits, so as to ensure that disabled people benefited from the extra help in full. I've never known it to be means tested.

I'll ask someone who will know, it would be interesting to find out if it was actually means tested when it started in 1976.

I've asked someone who is a benefits expert, he said that whilst it had some strange rules, such as being required to have 'enhanced facility for locomotion', it was never means tested.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Pretty sure that's incorrect info on that site, or perhaps it's referring to the Motability scheme and has been transposed??

AFAIK, the principle has always been to make disability benefits tax free and not to be counted as income when calculating other benefits, so as to ensure that disabled people benefited from the extra help in full. I've never known it to be means tested.

I'll ask someone who will know, it would be interesting to find out if it was actually means tested when it started in the 1976.

Oops. Just looked at the web address of the reference I used and it is for Ireland(ending .ie).

[RichardCoulter]

That explains it then

At least we now know that it's means tested in Ireland.

[RichardCoulter]

How the DWP refers to claimants in private and sometime accidentally in public seems at odds with Amber Rudd's high opinion of DWP employees.

"in this lying bitches [sic] case"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...as-lying-bitch

The DWP argued the woman could not be disabled enough to be eligible for PIP because she drove a car, was responsible for two children, and was claiming carer's Allowance.

Only a few weeks ago Amber Rudd told us:

"Across the DWP, there is already huge commitment to helping disabled people navigate the obstacles they face. It is obvious to me that my colleagues in jobcentres and policy teams in Whitehall are in their jobs because they want to help people – and they do enormous good every day."

"I want to build a strong relationship, based on trust and mutual understanding, between work coaches and claimants"

Just to add that, depending on the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be a carer and disabled at the same time.

[Taf]

That article refers to "cut and paste" and it was obvious in my daughter's assessment report and award letter.

And the usual lies and calculated omissions to try to make her seem not disabled at all. Total refusal to accept her psychiatrist's letter about diagnosis and treatment, in fact the letter was listed as "documents received" and never again in the whole report.

The request for Mandatory Reconsideration has been sent off, but I won't hold my breath that it will lift her from zero points. So then it'll be a long wait for tribunal.

I ended the request letter with a quote:

"As The Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP recently wrote:

"72% of PIP appeals heard found in favour of the claimant. Now that number is too high"."

Originally Posted by Taf

That article refers to "cut and paste" and it was obvious in my daughter's assessment report and award letter.

And the usual lies and calculated omissions to try to make her seem not disabled at all. Total refusal to accept her psychiatrist's letter about diagnosis and treatment, in fact the letter was listed as "documents received" and never again in the whole report.

The request for Mandatory Reconsideration has been sent off, but I won't hold my breath that it will lift her from zero points. So then it'll be a long wait for tribunal.

I ended the request letter with a quote:

"As The Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP recently wrote:

"72% of PIP appeals heard found in favour of the claimant. Now that number is too high"."

How about reading that quote in context?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...and-experience

We’ve stopped requiring the reassessment of those with the most severe and lifelong conditions, who already receive Employment and Support Allowance or Universal Credit. Those who’ve been awarded the highest level of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), whose needs are unlikely to decrease, now receive an ongoing award – with only a light touch review a decade later. This change recognises that people with the greatest health difficulties should be acknowledged as such, and treated in a way which respects their circumstances.

We are now trialling the video recording of PIP assessments. It is hoped this measure will make assessments more transparent for all concerned.

We can and must go further. We have already committed to reforming the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), and are continuing to collaborate with external stakeholders on this.

But I am aware there is more we need to do.

Of particular concern are the cases referred to tribunal following both PIP and WCA decisions. For example, between July and September 2018, 72% of PIP appeals heard found in favour of the claimant. Now that number is too high. We should do more to gather the evidence we need to make the right decision earlier, so that fewer claimants have to seek redress through tribunal. I will be looking at this matter over the coming months.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just to add that, depending on the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be a carer and disabled at the same time.

In some cases yes, but it would appear contradictory if someone was deemed to be unable to manage their own care needs (dressing, personal care, preparing meals etc) but claiming to care for another person for 35 hours per week.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

In some cases yes, but it would appear contradictory if someone was deemed to be unable to manage their own care needs (dressing, personal care, preparing meals etc) but claiming to care for another person for 35 hours per week.

The regulations don't preclude this, but yes, it all depends on the circumstances of the people involved.

The whole culture seems to have changed at the DWP from wanting to help people, to viewing them with suspicion and contempt.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The regulations don't preclude this, but yes, it all depends on the circumstances of the people involved.

The whole culture seems to have changed at the DWP from wanting to help people, to viewing them with suspicion and contempt.

While the regulations do not preclude this it would be a peculiar set of circumstances where someone can provide care to another person for 35 hours yet require attention throughout the day and night to support their own care needs.

I would doubt its a culture change at DWP as it is among the electorate. People voted for the benefit freeze as part of a Conservative manifesto. Reducing public expenditure has consequences.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The regulations don't preclude this, but yes, it all depends on the circumstances of the people involved.

The whole culture seems to have changed at the DWP from wanting to help people, to viewing them with suspicion and contempt.

With DLA it was possible to have a problem in just one area, eg not being able to bend down, but with the point scoring system of PIP you are likely to need problems in several areas in order to qualify.


The emphasis with sickness and disability claims has always been that the claimant has to "prove" their claim. It would be nonsense to simply take their word for things.