Home News Forum Articles
  Welcome back Join CF
You are here You are here: Home | Forum | The state benefits system mega-thread.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.


Welcome to Cable Forum
Go Back   Cable Forum > General Discussion > Current Affairs

The state benefits system mega-thread.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-11-2019, 23:15   #2491
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,626
jfman has reached the bronze age
jfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze age
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.
jfman is online now   Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Old 21-11-2019, 10:24   #2492
ianch99
cf.mega poster
 
ianch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,920
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
People die all the time for a variety of reasons.
Diabetes by itself is not life threatening.
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

Quote:
The number of complaints to the government about the PIP assessment process has surged by more than 6,000 per cent in three years, prompting fresh concerns that the system is “flawed” and harming disabled people.

This marks a surge of 570 per cent in two years and 6,463 per cent in three years. The overall number of PIP claims has risen by 67 per cent since 2016.

Thousands of disabled people refused PIP claimants challenge the decision each year with 73% winning their appeals at an independent tribunal.
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.
__________________
pfsense + BT Whole Home WiFi
ianch99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 11:34   #2493
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 5,681
nomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appeal
nomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 View Post
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.
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.
Quote:
36.The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration.
I suppose that in essence, is what I try to do in this thread.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 13:53   #2494
ianch99
cf.mega poster
 
ianch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,920
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
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.
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.
__________________
pfsense + BT Whole Home WiFi
ianch99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 14:16   #2495
Carth
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: At the Leaving door
Posts: 1,334
Carth has reached the bronze age
Carth has reached the bronze ageCarth has reached the bronze ageCarth has reached the bronze ageCarth has reached the bronze ageCarth has reached the bronze age
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 View Post
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.
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
__________________
'The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it' ~ T. Pratchett
Carth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 14:36   #2496
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,626
jfman has reached the bronze age
jfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze age
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?
jfman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 16:15   #2497
RichardCoulter
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,698
RichardCoulter has disabled reputation
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
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.
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.
RichardCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 16:31   #2498
ianch99
cf.mega poster
 
ianch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,920
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth View Post
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
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:

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter View Post
I suspect that your uncompromising stance on the benefit cuts is because you are a Tory supporter.
This seems to be the real answer here ..
__________________
pfsense + BT Whole Home WiFi
ianch99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 17:43   #2499
peanut
NUTS !!
 
peanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,230
peanut has a nice shiny starpeanut has a nice shiny starpeanut has a nice shiny star
peanut has a nice shiny star
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.
__________________
Oh what fun it is

Last edited by peanut; 21-11-2019 at 18:28.
peanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 18:44   #2500
OLD BOY
Experience is everything
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes; Ultimate oomph; Now TV, Amazon and Netflix; VM broadband and landline
Posts: 10,458
OLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze array
OLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze arrayOLD BOY has a bronze array
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter View Post
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.
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.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 19:18   #2501
ianch99
cf.mega poster
 
ianch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,920
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
ianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appealianch99 has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut View Post
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.
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 ..
__________________
pfsense + BT Whole Home WiFi
ianch99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 19:41   #2502
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 5,681
nomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appeal
nomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by nomadking; 21-11-2019 at 19:59.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 19:47   #2503
denphone
Still alive and fighting
 
denphone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the land of beyond and beyond.
Services: XL BB, 2 V6 boxes , XL TV.
Posts: 53,074
denphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver bling
denphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver blingdenphone has a lot of silver bling
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
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 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.
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.
__________________
“The only lesson you can learn from history is that it repeats itself”
denphone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 20:11   #2504
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,626
jfman has reached the bronze age
jfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze agejfman has reached the bronze age
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
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.
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.
jfman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2019, 20:22   #2505
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 5,681
nomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appeal
nomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appealnomadking has a bronzed appeal
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone View Post
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.
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". 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.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:48.


Server: xenon.zmnt.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.