To think this “crackdown” on benefit fraud is absolutely pathetic

Yet despite having all that information, we are still finding significant numbers of people being underpaid.

One of my colleagues has recently identified an underpayment that has been going on since 2012. The client's arrears payment will be iro £38k. After a year, they will lose their entitlement to means-tested benefits if they still have over £16k left.

How is that fair? They've suffered unnecessary hardship for 11 years, through no fault of their own, and will undoubtedly lose money in future as a result.

If they're going to use PIP to determine whether someone is too ill to work, I bloody well hope they improve PIP assessments and decision making.

Across the welfare rights team I work in, the success rate for getting PIP at the initial application stage is around 50%. The success rate for our appeals is 100%.

It's currently taking over a year from application to appeal, so that's a whole year that someone who is pretty unwell will be expected to look for work, hassled to attend appointments at the job centre etc. Our clients all have mental health problems, many of them are suicide risks. A lot of them are rarely well enough to leave the house, save for attending MH appointments.

This could well tip a lot of them right over the edge.

I think this is what a lot of people don’t understand. The eligibility conditions for PIP are entirely different from AA and the benefit is much more difficult to access. PIP intentionally holds working age disabled people to an entirely different and much more harshly assessed standard.

Not sure if this article will interest anyone here:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/disabled-people-work-from-home-laura-trott-benefits

What disturbs me is the rhetoric, "doing thier duty", etc. There is something deeply unpleasant about the attitude towards genuinely sick and disabled people, which makes me think that there is a rather 'diseased' mindset in government. It is as if we are being conditioned to remove all safety nets, which many of us may need in the future.
I do not claim any benefits, but am young enough and intelligent enough to know that anything could happen to any of us. We should not be taking this lightly.

But the rhetoric is the most disturbing element. The language that is becoming normalised regarding those who are unable to work.

@Rosscameasdoody I agree with you actually there are people who have been refused AA who do not understand this and answer more about their mobility issues than the care they need which is caused by their mobility problems, I actually advise on benefit FB pages and have helped people claim pension credit but the AA questions = blimey they seem to try and catch people out we were so lucky we had help from a housing manager neighbour who actually helps his clients claim this all the time other wise we would have been lost

Except that PIP is hugely more difficult to be awarded than AA.

Thanks @Crispedia . I'm actually not sure whether it's my case manager, as refuse to give me a name! When I changed my bank account, because I couldn't present myself at the job centre, they actually wanted to come and see me - in my bedroom no less - to physically check my new details for security. I told them I was happy for a video call, otherwise they could get lost.

I got my son to write to them (he's just got his law degree) accusing them of harrassment. I've heard nothing for about 3 months, but tbh I don't expect it to last long.

Agree @Rosscameasdoody

In my experience these consultations are only paying lip service - by the time they’re put in motion, the government has already decided what they’re going to do anyway, but they have to be seen to be asking advice. A lot of organisations put forward some excellent suggestions for assessing PIP eligibility - not one suggestion was adopted. Government also came in for a lot of criticism for suggesting that in the washing and bathing category, the standard of cleanliness required for the assessment didn’t need to be high, just ‘adequate for purpose’. Beggars belief.

Every single organisation questioned why incontinence - a major factor in a range of conditions - wasn’t properly assessed for. The answer came back that they couldn’t be expected to assess for everything !! As anyone with the condition will tell you, the associated costs can be huge. Yet the government deemed it adequate to assess for it via the amount of help needed by another person or any aids or adaptations needed. Utterly bewildering.

That would be an interesting change of legislation. It would be a very effective way (if you’re a government) of limiting people qualifying as well given at the moment for PIP you must need the help, but you don’t have to be getting it.

There was something in the consultation document about gathering information on how benefit claimants are spending their money. Not hard to see how this could be used against disability benefit claimants, but at present these benefits can be spent however the claimant wishes so there would have to be legislation to change this. And the ‘spying’ would be via an AI programme monitoring bank accounts - not cameras in claimants’ homes. Although I’m not sure I’d put this past them if they thought they could get away with it !!

The decision to reduce the mobility test from 50m to 20m was hugely criticised and in response the then minister for the disabled tried to claim that the change was as a result of suggestions made by the organisations taking part in the consultation. This was exposed as a lie and she was forced to apologise, but the die was cast and the change went ahead anyway, with the predicted disastrous results.

I remember. Thanks for taking part in the 2013 consultation on PIP, although they completely ignored it all :(

My disability support group took part in the 2013 consultation on PIP, and along with many other disability charities, advised the government that all that was needed was a few changes to tighten up the rules for existing DLA system. We all warned that PIP would end up increasing the benefit bill because it was designed to save money rather than provide any meaningful support, and that independent tribunals were highly likely to take the same view. We were proved right.

The decision to reduce the mobility test from 50m to 20m was hugely criticised and in response the then minister for the disabled tried to claim that the change was as a result of suggestions made by the organisations taking part in the consultation. This was exposed as a lie and she was forced to apologise, but the die was cast and the change went ahead anyway, with the predicted disastrous results.

Interesting to note that the Tories made a promise not to alter the DLA system in their election manifesto - David Cameron went to great pains to explain that he knew how important the benefit was to disabled people, because he had claimed it for his son. After the election, the coalition government took less than three months to announce it would scrap DLA and introduce PIP - the speed with which the consultation was set up proved that that was the intention all along.

Thanks for that. My friend would have qualified for Care and Mobility if she’d applied earlier. She finished work before State Pension age due to her poor health. One of those people who has always worked, and unaware she’d have any entitlement, because she knew she wouldn’t get any means tested benefits. She got AA higher rate straight away.

I think this new proposal is more about means tested benefits (which PIP isn't), but I would not be too complacent. They will be coming for everyone eventually.

You clearly don’t understand what avoidance is.
The government uses tax breaks to raise money for schemes which they want to take place but don’t want to fund directly or in advance. These schemes benefit us all and wouldn’t happen if the tax breaks weren’t offered.

I get PIP but just about manage to work part time.. so does this mean they will be spying on me and might put hidden cameras in my house??

PIP that replaced DLA in 2013 was supposed to reduce govt spending by 20% but ended up costing £2 billion more! So many suffered such as high rate of successful but stressful appeals or losing high rate mobility component and access to motability cars scheme as criteria tightened for high rate mobility award from 50 metres to 20 metres.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2019/january/obrwelfaretrends

I don’t think any announcement on the 22nd will be more than a bit of flesh on the bones of the proposals. The changes are slated to be introduced over the next five years but nothing can be formally announced as definitely going ahead until the required legislation is in place and this is a lengthy process. It has to be passed by both the Commons and the Lords, and with disability benefit legislation, traditionally the House of Lords slows things down by batting amendments back and forth. There isn’t time for any of that before a general election, so it then becomes a question of what a new incoming government wants to do - assuming Labour stay on track to win.

"My GP charges a whopping £180 for the necessary detailed letter."
And locally, that's about two months all day parking charge. So you would benefit from 10 months free parking, which seems fairly reasonable.

Wonderful stuff in theory, but the DWP are a law unto themselves. There is no good reason for anyone not receiving the benefits they are entitled to, I agree. But the DWP routinely employ methods to withhold benefits from genuine claimants which don’t hold up to the scrutiny of an appeal tribunal and as a result it costs the tax payer a fortune, not to mention the effect on the claimants’ mental health - and these proposals will make things worse for the most vulnerable.

The problem is not that the information isn’t in the public domain - most of it is. The problem is that the public don’t care if it doesn’t affect them, and many people buy into the government narrative of disabled people being cheats and driving around in ‘free cars’. Government controls the narrative here, and until that changes nothing else will.

@OnlyOpenMouthToChangeFeet , I am sorry you get calls from the job centre asking when you are thinking of returning to work despite being in the LCWRA group. Those in the the LCWRA group should have no work coach but will have a case manager. Is it the case manager calling you? Not right when you are too ill to work, v sorry.

But mobility component at the higher rate gives access to the Motability scheme, which a lot of older disabled people could benefit from. It can’t be accessed with AA and with DLA and PIP a mobility award would have to have been in payment before reaching retirement age, as no new claim for it can be made afterwards. In addition, if on reassessment after retirement age a mobility award is withdrawn or reduced, there is no right of appeal, so any motability vehicle would have to be handed back.

Doesn’t make it right though does it ?

Yes and it was found they were underpaying me so worked out in my favour.