disability living allowance

[nomadking]

From DWP Decision Makers Guide
See Chapter 61

61318
All aspects of a claimant’s walking ability must be considered, which result from physical disablement, and an evaluation of its quality then made. This is on the basis that firstly, walking achieved only with severe discomfort is discounted and secondly, that appropriate attention is paid to manner, speed, distance and time. All factors must be viewed before the onset of severe discomfort.

61319
Distance is the total distance walked before the onset of severe discomfort (see also DMG 61309 et seq).

So according to the Rules/Law, it is the distance before severe discomfort, which does not just mean pain. So even if you could walk 10km but suffered from severe discomfort after 20m, you are meant to be classed as only being able to walk 20m. This is meant to be the Law, so when are the DWP going to start obeying it?

[Osem]

What annoys me is that they dole out child benefit to all and sundry regardless of income, need, etc. yet make it sooooo difficult for genuinely disabled and vulnerable people (including children) to claim what they're entitled to.

[Tony.]

Originally Posted by Osem

What annoys me is that they dole out child benefit to all and sundry regardless of income, need, etc. yet make it sooooo difficult for genuinely disabled and vulnerable people (including children) to claim what they're entitled to.

Whilst I sympathise with anyone in need of help you must agree there is a section of the community that is abusing this system. Therefore bearing this in mind how would you suggest they are denied this service whilst helping genuine cases?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Tony.

Whilst I sympathise with anyone in need of help you must agree there is a section of the community that is abusing this system. Therefore bearing this in mind how would you suggest they are denied this service whilst helping genuine cases?

There is always going to be a proportion of every section of society who abuse the system. My point is that things are made disproportionatley difficult for those who due to their disability often find it hardest to go through the process. There is, for example, clearly a sizeable group of able bodied but entirely seflish people who abuse the Blue Badge scheme in various ways, many of which don't involve abuse of the DLA system yet which impact adversely on genuine DLA recipients. Making the DLA forms even more onerous won't affect those who steal or buy fake badges but doing so would make the lives of people who already have a tough time even harder. From my recollection the child and working tax credit forms are nowhere near as complex or demoralising as the DLA forms yet I bet the amount of money falsely claimed via the former system vastly outweighs that wrongly obtained in the latter.

Abuse of the system is always wrong but disproportionately penalising the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and/or needy in society isn't the way to put that fact right.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Tony.

Whilst I sympathise with anyone in need of help you must agree there is a section of the community that is abusing this system. Therefore bearing this in mind how would you suggest they are denied this service whilst helping genuine cases?

i would suggest you dont bother doing anything other than prosecuting when caught

we spend around £1.50 at the moment for every £1.00 we get back from the departments that deal with fraud and most cases that get to court are from reports from people who know those cheating not from investigations

this is just a waste of money and ends up depriving those with need from the help they need because of then over zealous people denying claims which are then overwhelmingly won on appeal

but i expect that not many will agree with me as they have been brain washed by the press who seem to think the disabled are about as dangerous as the Americans thought the commies were

Tony the problem is most of the **** scamming the system know all the loopholes and are very rarely the people that have the trouble getting the benefit because they already know exactly how to word everything and how to fake obvious symptoms. This is why i believe that a classification of medically confirmed should be introduced whereby a claimant has undergone a whole range of tests and consultants appointments before being diagnosed.

Most genuinely disabled people have already been through that and already have that medical evidence so how about limiting claims to those with the accompying medical evidence. While not perfect it is better then what we have now and isn't that hard to implement. But it would also mean that the government wouldn't have such an easy scapegoat the next time there is media inspired hysteria about how the benefit system is abused by the tiny small minority of those who do abuse it.

What we shouldn't have is a process in place that makes it extremely hard for those who genuniely are entitled to get those benfits they should, and a system that does not make those using it feel they are second class citizens in this country and that is what we have right now.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i would suggest you dont bother doing anything other than prosecuting when caught

we spend around £1.50 at the moment for every £1.00 we get back from the departments that deal with fraud and most cases that get to court are from reports from people who know those cheating not from investigations

this is just a waste of money and ends up depriving those with need from the help they need because of then over zealous people denying claims which are then overwhelmingly won on appeal

but i expect that not many will agree with me as they have been brain washed by the press who seem to think the disabled are about as dangerous as the Americans thought the commies were

Roger, where did you get those figures?
£1.50 spent for every £1.00 we get back.
That seems alarming enough, until you also factor in the wages for the fraud staff, plus the expenses paid for accomodation claims and childcare for the staff, if these costs are met by the taxpayer.
If your calculations are correct and then factor in any expenses claimed then I would also just say prosecute when caught.
There was an interesting debate on the local radio about bus passes, they were on about means testing for them.
But in order for the means testing to be done requires staff, which drains more money from the system, so why bother means testing for them when in reality the money saved could well be less than the money spent.
Anyway, all this mullarky is a great distraction from the mp's expense fiasco.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Tony the problem is most of the **** scamming the system know all the loopholes and are very rarely the people that have the trouble getting the benefit because they already know exactly how to word everything and how to fake obvious symptoms. This is why i believe that a classification of medically confirmed should be introduced whereby a claimant has undergone a whole range of tests and consultants appointments before being diagnosed.

Most genuinely disabled people have already been through that and already have that medical evidence so how about limiting claims to those with the accompying medical evidence. While not perfect it is better then what we have now and isn't that hard to implement. But it would also mean that the government wouldn't have such an easy scapegoat the next time there is media inspired hysteria about how the benefit system is abused by the tiny small minority of those who do abuse it.


What we shouldn't have is a process in place that makes it extremely hard for those who genuniely are entitled to get those benfits they should, and a system that does not make those using it feel they are second class citizens in this country and that is what we have right now.

#Yes that in theory sounds fair enough. However how do you deal with crooked doctors bought and paid for by the DWP.

If you don't think these exist then your in cuckoo land.

Originally Posted by CAROLWHITIE

#Yes that in theory sounds fair enough. However how do you deal with crooked doctors bought and paid for by the DWP.

If you don't think these exist then your in cuckoo land.

Through experience Carol I would say that your alleged crooked doctors are the least of the problem.
My late father had to be virtually dying before he got his DLA.
He was a bevin boy during the war, he was around 18 years old at the time, working in the pit wrecked his back, he could barely walk long distances without terrible pain.
How he would have liked to have dropped a doctor a tenner hey?
On the other extreme, a guy I worked with suddenly decided he did not want to work any longer, he did not need a crooked doctor, he just created an alcohol dependancy problem.
Said he could not face the world without a 6 pack first, what employer would employ him?
So now he is claiming long term sickness benefits.
So yes the system needs looking at, but only getting £1 back for every £1. 50 spent? there is something really wrong there.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Roger, where did you get those figures?
£1.50 spent for every £1.00 we get back.
That seems alarming enough, until you also factor in the wages for the fraud staff, plus the expenses paid for accomodation claims and childcare for the staff, if these costs are met by the taxpayer.
If your calculations are correct and then factor in any expenses claimed then I would also just say prosecute when caught.
There was an interesting debate on the local radio about bus passes, they were on about means testing for them.
But in order for the means testing to be done requires staff, which drains more money from the system, so why bother means testing for them when in reality the money saved could well be less than the money spent.
Anyway, all this mullarky is a great distraction from the mp's expense fiasco.

from their own figures i will dig out the web site again later i did post them in a similar thread before

the only people benefiting from the fraud department are those working for it

here is one item about it
http://www.nao.org.uk/news/0708/0708102.aspx

Originally Posted by rogermevans

from their own figures i will dig out the web site again later i did post them in a similar thread before

the only people benifiting from the fruad department are those working for it

Thanks for that Roger, and it certainly looks that way.

Originally Posted by CAROLWHITIE

#Yes that in theory sounds fair enough. However how do you deal with crooked doctors bought and paid for by the DWP.

If you don't think these exist then your in cuckoo land.

And you're being slanderous.

btw, The doctors work for ATOS Origin, an outsourcing operation, and not for the Disability and Carers Service (part of the DWP).

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

And you're being slanderous.

btw, The doctors work for ATOS Origin, an outsourcing operation, and not for the Disability and Carers Service (part of the DWP).

The Appeals Tribunals are also meant to be independent, but I know from experience, of outright lies by both groups about things said/done. The lawyers at the tribunal will say that there has been a recent judicial decision which goes against your case, they won't specify anything about it and afterwards(ie too late) you find out the decision was in your favour or that there was no such recent adverse decision in the first place. So the legal points used to support the appeal are totally correct but you can do nothing about it.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Through experience Carol I would say that your alleged crooked doctors are the least of the problem.
My late father had to be virtually dying before he got his DLA.
He was a bevin boy during the war, he was around 18 years old at the time, working in the pit wrecked his back, he could barely walk long distances without terrible pain.
How he would have liked to have dropped a doctor a tenner hey?
On the other extreme, a guy I worked with suddenly decided he did not want to work any longer, he did not need a crooked doctor, he just created an alcohol dependancy problem.
Said he could not face the world without a 6 pack first, what employer would employ him?
So now he is claiming long term sickness benefits.
So yes the system needs looking at, but only getting £1 back for every £1. 50 spent? there is something really wrong there.

Crooked doctors my well be the least of the problem but they exist, bought and paid for by the DWP in order to short change you. Normally these are retire old dinosaurs and usually drunks and are there to do you no favours only to get you off DLA.

TAKE AS YOU WISH AS LONG AS YOU ARE AWARE.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

and you're being slanderous.

Btw, the doctors work for atos origin, an outsourcing operation, and not for the disability and carers service (part of the dwp).

the correct word is libellous and there can be no libel in the truth. Besides do you think anyone is stupid enough to post what they can not substantiate. I can substantiate all i post and if you want a few doctors names who are in the pocket of the dwp email me for them.

The governmnet loves you sort...believe all they tell you.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

FOLLOW THIS ITS MORE ENLIGHTENING........

It’s been an extraordinary fortnight since this campaign began. So, apologies for the long email, but we want to get everyone caught up.

AA & DLA WON’T END ON 13 NOVEMBER
Firstly, we want to make it absolutely clear that AA and DLA are not going to be abolished on 13 November, because some people seem to have got that impression.

We’re asking you to make your voice heard before the green paper consultation period ends on 13 November because, if you don’t, it makes it much more likely that disability benefits will be handed over to local authorities at some time in the future.

EMAILING DISABILITY ORGANISATIONS
Over 19,000 people have now signed up to the campaign and last week disability charities were deluged with emails after we asked campaigners to contact them and ask what they are doing about this issue. So much so that after a few days we had to ask you to stop sending emails, as they were simply being met with standard responses and were very unlikely to even be being read.

But you got the message across in astonishing numbers and with extraordinary speed and effectiveness. It is very unlikely that there is a disability charity in the UK that is not highly aware of this issue and also aware that their members are watching how they deal with it. You can read more about this at:

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/new...-your-response

We think it would be excellent if as many disability charities as possible were monitored over the coming months to check the degree to which they publicise this issue, consult with their members and respond to the green paper. It’s not something we have the resources to do here. But we’re hoping that groups of claimants with an interest in a particular charity might get together to do this.

The Carer Watch website below has made a forum available for anyone involved in this campaign to use for free, you don’t have to be a Benefits and Work member. You might want to try to meet up there with people with an interest in the same organisation.

CONTACT YOUR MP
This week we’re asking you to contact your MP and/or regional assembly member and ask them what they are going to do about this issue.

Once again, we’re not going to provide a standard letter because we think that will be taken a great deal less seriously than your personal opinions. But some of the things you might want to include are:

Tell your MP that you are concerned about proposals in the green paper to hand disability benefits over to local authorities.

Would the proposals make you less independent or affect your quality of life?

Ask them to ask the secretary of state for work and pensions to provide a precise list of which benefits may be affected now or at some time in the future. You might also want to ask for an explanation of why such unclear terms were used in the green paper when people’s future is at stake and they are supposedly being consulted with.

If your MP isn’t Labour, ask them what their party’s policy on this matter is.

Whatever party they belong to, ask them if they are prepared to give an assurance that they personally will vote against any plan to transfer funding from attendance allowance or disability living allowance to local authority control.

Would you vote for another party if you thought they would be less likely to cut your benefits? If so, tell your representative. – they may be interested to hear that.

You can write to your MP at their constituency office or at the House of Commons (though it may take longer to get a reply from there as MPs are on holiday at the moment) or use Write to Them which is also useful just for identifying who your representatives are:

www.writetothem.com/

WHERE TO SHARE YOUR REPLIES: CARER WATCH
Rather like the disability charities last week, we were completely overwhelmed by your emails. There’s no possibility of us being able to answer them all. However, if you’re a member, you can post information in our discussion forum at:

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/for...owcat&catid=13

Whether you’re a member of Benefits and Work or not, you can also post in the Carer Watch forum below.

Although set up by carers, Carer Watch is being used by sick and disabled claimants as well. We’ve heard a lot from Carer Watch in recent weeks about the work they’ve done to try to get carers organisations to be more assertive in relation to benefits and to consult more with members and we’ve been very impressed, particularly as they are an entirely unfunded group.

They’ve set up a special forum for this campaign, you have to register to post, but it has the huge advantage that it’s entirely free:

carerwatchdotcom.myfineforum.org/about748.html

We’ve also written a brief article about the kind of responses you’re likely to receive from your MP:

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/new...e-weasel-words

AND FINALLY . . .
Congratulations on what you’ve achieved so far. The campaign has grown so quickly and spread awareness of this issue so widely that we’ve dropped our original plan to send out an email with a new task each week. The idea of chipping away bit-by-bit at different disability agencies that we originally had no longer seems to make sense. But there will be more emails over the coming weeks – we have at least one more major task after this one - and we’ll be keeping people informed after that.

What would be really excellent now is if the realisation that there are many thousand of claimants out there who are able to get together and act for a common purpose could be translated into something longer lasting. There’s no point in a private sector company like ours trying to spearhead this – we are far too open to the accusation that we are only in it for the money.

Is it time for someone to revive the idea of a Claimant’s Union?

Good luck,

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by CAROLWHITIE

Crooked doctors my well be the least of the problem but they exist, bought and paid for by the DWP in order to short change you. Normally these are retire old dinosaurs and usually drunks and are there to do you no favours only to get you off DLA.

TAKE AS YOU WISH AS LONG AS YOU ARE AWARE.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 ----------




the correct word is libellous and there can be no libel in the truth. Besides do you think anyone is stupid enough to post what they can not substantiate. I can substantiate all i post and if you want a few doctors names who are in the pocket of the dwp email me for them.

The governmnet loves you sort...believe all they tell you.

A sweeping generalisation that the doctors in question are 'usually drunks' is, indeed, libellous, in that you've written it down in your post. However, if you're willing to put it on here, you've probably uttered it to other people, making it slanderous.

As a point of fact (and having known a few of the doctors in question), I'd argue that the ones in your area might be 'on the take' (to coin a phrase), but they're definitely not round here.

That's the problem with sweeping generalisations - they tend to get caught out when you take into account the remaining 90% of the people you're referring to...