The state benefits system mega-thread.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

The management of the DWP give staff policies, procedures & guidance to work to. No doubt Government ministers have leaned on them to use the areas open to interpretation and reasonableness to the detriment of claimants. This is then cascaded down to frontline staff.

Eg is it 'reasonable' to sanction a man for 'failing to complete a medical assessment' because he had a heart attack in the middle of it? Most right thinking people would say no (even though the reason for the sanction is technically correct). I'm confident that DWP staff would have made a sensible decision in the past, but under Cameron's continuing 'stricter benefits regime', he was sanctioned for this.

Man with broken back has enough of being repeatedly found fit for work eventually kills himself:

https://welfareweekly.com/benefit-cl...r-work-by-dwp/

[ianch99]

It is clear to all with a reasonable and objective view that the Welfare System under the Tories is not fit for purpose. The callousness of the current administration should not surprise anyone. It really is all about the money to them, nothing else matters.

Yes, you will get the Tory apologists coming along soon with a weak excuses but these will just be shallow attempts at redirection & spin. The evidence is there for all (except the ideologically blind) to see ..

[denphone]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is clear to all with a reasonable and objective view that the Welfare System under the Tories is not fit for purpose. The callousness of the current administration should not surprise anyone. It really is all about the money to them, nothing else matters.

Yes, you will get the Tory apologists coming along soon with a weak excuses but these will just be shallow attempts at redirection & spin. The evidence is there for all (except the ideologically blind) to see ..

Hugh is not a Tory apoligist l can guarantee you that as one cannot blame the staff who are making the frontline decisions as they have to be politically neutral civil servants in their jobs and they also have to adhere to the rules and criteria set in front of them no matter who the government of the day is.

Don't forget Labour have history with the ESA fiasco so its not just the Tories involved in these benefit fiasco's.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is clear to all with a reasonable and objective view that the Welfare System under the Tories is not fit for purpose. The callousness of the current administration should not surprise anyone. It really is all about the money to them, nothing else matters.

Yes, you will get the Tory apologists coming along soon with a weak excuses but these will just be shallow attempts at redirection & spin. The evidence is there for all (except the ideologically blind) to see ..

Bless.
That's classic comedy gold

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Bless.
That's classic comedy gold

Hey, what does a smurf know?

The welfare safety net is not fit for purpose says Work and Pensions Committee

The welfare safety net is not fit for purpose for people living on the breadline, and disabled people are at higher risk of falling into, and becoming trapped in, poverty than non-disabled people, says a report published today by the Work and Pensions Committee.
The Committee conducted an inquiry into the current state of the UK’s welfare safety net, prompted by the evidence of debt, hunger and homelessness it has heard across several recent inquiries.

In highlighting the contrast between the DWP’s characterisation of poverty and hardship since 2010, the report says that:

“It is difficult to avoid concluding that the Department simply does not understand the impact of its reforms on some of the most vulnerable people it supports. DWP’s policy decisions have a direct impact on the incomes of millions of people. There is no excuse for a lack of understanding or transparency about the effects of those decisions.”

The new report is clear that disabled people are at higher risk of falling into, and becoming trapped in, poverty than non-disabled people:

Originally Posted by ianch99

Hey, what does a smurf know?

The welfare safety net is not fit for purpose says Work and Pensions Committee

Quite.

A committee made up of (at time of formation) five Tory and six opposition MPs. By the time the report was published there were only 3 government bench MPs named on it. Politically neutral, it isn't.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Quite.

A committee made up of (at time of formation) five Tory and six opposition MPs. By the time the report was published there were only 3 government bench MPs named on it. Politically neutral, it isn't.

Interesting, you think the opinions of Parliament Select Committee should be ignored on the grounds of "not enough Tories". The members of committees are selected by their parties through an internal ballot, for agreement by the House - see https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-agreed-17-19/

I think in light of the current brazen and consistent lies of the Tory Party, they are probably the last ones who might qualify for such an important role.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Interesting, you think the opinions of Parliament Select Committee should be ignored on the grounds of "not enough Tories". The members of committees are selected by their parties through an internal ballot, for agreement by the House - see https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-agreed-17-19/

I think in light of the current brazen and consistent lies of the Tory Party, they are probably the last ones who might qualify for such an important role.

Err, no, what I think is what I posted. The committee is not politically neutral and its report should be read critically, not simply posted on an Internet forum as if its mere existence were the final proof of the point someone is trying to make.

[RichardCoulter]

It makes it all the more poignant when you see the faces of those killed by the welfare cuts/changes:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...terity-5642530

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The management of the DWP give staff policies, procedures & guidance to work to. No doubt Government ministers have leaned on them to use the areas open to interpretation and reasonableness to the detriment of claimants. This is then cascaded down to frontline staff.

Eg is it 'reasonable' to sanction a man for 'failing to complete a medical assessment' because he had a heart attack in the middle of it? Most right thinking people would say no (even though the reason for the sanction is technically correct). I'm confident that DWP staff would have made a sensible decision in the past, but under Cameron's continuing 'stricter benefits regime', he was sanctioned for this.

Man with broken back has enough of being repeatedly found fit for work eventually kills himself:

https://welfareweekly.com/benefit-cl...r-work-by-dwp/

The heart attack case will be miscommunication between the assessor and the DWP or the DWP missed the reason. The DWP will have been informed the assessment wasn't completed. The assessor won't have known at the time that it was a heart attack. Even a hospital doesn't immediately know without further tests.


The "broken back" case doesn't specify too much. Eg Why wasn't the condition medically treated? When did it start?
Link

Mr Sycamore worked his whole life as a mechanic and handyman before a crippling back injury in his early 50s.

That would suggest before 2010, ie died in 2017 aged 62. So first turned down under Labour and their rules.

The 58-year-old said it was the third or fourth time that Mr Sycamore had been declared "fit to work".

Although this should have helped his situation.

On previous occassions he had provided additional evidence to the DWP to prove his was unable to continue working, and his benefit payments were reinstated on each of those occassions.

Not being able walk without significant discomfort isn't the only measure. Although back problems would also likely lead to problems using a manual wheelchair.

---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It makes it all the more poignant when you see the faces of those killed by the welfare cuts/changes:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...terity-5642530

Any article that includes this:-

But now it has been ordered by the Information Commissioner to disclose by early June the number of Incapacity Benefit and ESA claimants who have died between November 2011 and May 2014.

Cannot be taken seriously. They were all receiving benefits at the time.



If I asked for the number of deaths in Labour controlled councils, would that have any significance? Of course not.

[RichardCoulter]

So far, 43% of disabled people have lost their adapted cars as a result of being moved onto PIP:

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/...-adapted-cars/

Meanwhile, it appears that Esther McVey is being called out again with her falsehoods. This time by a fellow Tory MP regarding the Motability Scheme (Lord Sterling who founded the scheme):

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/...on-motability/

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

So far, 43% of disabled people have lost their adapted cars as a result of being moved onto PIP:

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/...-adapted-cars/

Meanwhile, it appears that Esther McVey is being called out again with her falsehoods. This time by a fellow Tory MP regarding the Motability Scheme (Lord Sterling who founded the scheme):

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/...on-motability/

And?

There recently was a documentary (on channel 5?) about problems with parking. One person was a Blue Badge holder. He didn't really care how far away from his destination he was, he just wanted priority. If the distance didn't matter, was he really eligible? If distance doesn't matter, then you're in the same boat as everybody else who doesn't have a Blue Badge or even a car.

Eg Amputation of one leg may make you eligible at first for PIP or DLA, but as the stump settles down, you may NOT be eligible any more. Nothing new about that. People incorrectly assume that loss of a leg means automatically eligible. That isn't the case and never has been. Loss of both legs above the ankle is another matter. That situation IS automatically eligible for DLA/PIP, and that is specifically set out in the rules.
DLA Decision Makers Guide

61255 The higher rate is payable to people who
1. are unable or virtually unable to walk because of a physical disability1 (see DMG 61276 et seq) or
...
5.have had both legs amputated either through or above the ankle7 (see DMG 61332) or
6.are for any reason without both legs to the same extent as if they had been amputated either through or above the ankle8 (see DMG 61332 - 61333).

PIP

‘Standing’ means to stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground with or without suitable aids and appliances (note – a prosthesis is considered an appliance, so a claimant with a unilateral prosthetic leg may be able to stand, whereas a bilateral lower limb amputee would be unable to stand under this definition).

One awkward situation around this issue, is that they lose the car fairly quickly, when a reconsideration or appeal may reinstate entitlement. Not sure how you can get around that. Difficult to justify the DWP continuing to pay out for a car, but not paying non-car drivers the benefit instead. Especially if they lose the appeal, and then appeal to the Upper Tribunal etc which could delay things for more than a year.


Too many misconceptions about entitlement and the rules. There are errors and outright "misconduct in public office" issues with DWP staff, but it is important to differentiate between those and public misconceptions.

[RichardCoulter]

Most have lost their cars due to them changing the goalposts when they are transferred over to PIP.

Since the loss of their adapted cars, many disabled people are now isolated. Ironically, some have had to give up work...

Some good news about this young man. After suddenly being declared fit for work, this profoundly disabled young man has had his benefit restored after the DWP did a U turn:

https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard...ts/?ref=twtrec

These assessments should be made fit for their actual purpose, what if this man hadn't have had family to stand up for him?

[RichardCoulter]

Petition to save public money and, at the same time, make life easier for those with irreversible disabilities or progressive conditions:

It's time to scrap Cameron's obsession with testing all disabled people over and over again (to her credit, May has already scrapped this for pensioners):

https://www.change.org/p/government-...ive-conditions

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Petition to save public money and, at the same time, make life easier for those with irreversible disabilities or progressive conditions:

It's time to scrap Cameron's obsession with testing all disabled people over and over again (to her credit, May has already scrapped this for pensioners):

https://www.change.org/p/government-...ive-conditions

Define irreversible.
I've already given an example of something that might appear irreversible but the overall situation can improve. Eg Leg amputation. Plus you have reported examples of fraud where people have got away with faking a condition, even something like blindness.
There will be cases that are fully diagnosed and aren't likely to improve, but it's not as clear cut as people are making it out to be.