PIP

Im finding it difficult to understand PIP
We are both 68, arthritic and diabetic and dh also has coronary artery disease,
Yet because he can peel a potato he doesnt qualify

He had a son he waa profoundly disabled and sadly died, who he claimed it for its not just about the money ,i t can open doors to several services
And no there is no cut off you can be living in a mansion wit millions in the bank oe scraping by in a coyncil.flat
As long as you meet the criteria.

I still think it should be capped for millionaires etc. there's a lot of people in this country doing without and a couple of hundred quid extra could mean alot to some when really do the likes of millionaires need that cash when they likely get more than that a month interest?

This is mentioned every time someone makes another one of these tedious threads. The cost of means testing would outstrip any savings and risk making it even harder to ensure the right people get support. Despite clever accountants I'm pretty sure most millionaires pay enough in to cover it.

It isn't at all.

PIP is a gateway benefit, no PIP, no access to other things for example, in some areas, no PIP, no blue badge. No PIP, no carers allowance, no way of getting a carer into various places. No PIP, no motability vehicle.

Truly millionaires on the whole, don't bother jumping through the PIP hoops if they don't need the above, because it is so hard. There are few of them, realistically speaking.

Generally 'well off' people do, because of the above, those who need to prove some sort of point (ie, 'the system works') do (politicians!)..

Means testing adds an extra layer of paperwork and expense - it is why heating allowances for pensioners are not means tested, it would cost more to do it than just giving them all the money.

Government do like a way of generally counting the disabled people and now we do not hold a register of all the cripples in the country, this is the next best thing, means testing would alter that significantly.

The few outliers who truly are so astronomically wealthy that the costs of being disabled are irrelevant, are so few, and the numbers of people who would wobble between 'entitled' and 'not entitled' as savings/income waivered around the cut off point would be so huge, it would be a total fucking nightmare to manage.

How would you, would you hold a database of people who are disabled but not entitled, and just grant them the benefit when savings dip, how long would savings have to dip, would you be giving them a motability car for six months then taking it away when Uncle Fred kicks the bucket and leaves them 10K?

Or would you re-test from scratch, in case their disability got better in the time their funds ran out? It is already taking months to YEARS longer to sort out claims than it should...

To prevent a tiny tiny number of people from getting a benefit they financially don't need, you would be denying a vast number of people who ARE in need.

We're already doing that for other reasons and it is causing shocking suffering, I don't really think we need to do it more (reducing successful claimants by 20%, when the fraud figures are less than 1%...)

Why do you think that and what do you think tightening up would look like? What is your argument for means testing?

As someone on PIP, I actually think criteria should be broadened slightly. The daily living criteria miss out two key activities: cleaning and laundry. You can't live in a dignified manner without laundry being done anymore than you can live in a dignified manner without bathing. Paying for a cleaner and a laundry service is a significant expense, but I don't score high enough on daily living to qualify for that.

Of course it costs you money. You pay for all the additional insurance etc as part of your monthly payment, you quite often pay a lump sum at the beginning too.

I understand. My comparison isn't based on what you would do anyway if you were getting a car without Motability. You have to pay deposit, etc for a car without it anyway, so it's not as if you're spending what you wouldn't without Motability.

The benefits are still majorly on Motability side and that's okay. That's why it's needed for genuine claimants because it helps so much with costs otherwise. It doesn't mean that some chancers don't take advantage of it.

Don’t ’faux curious’ if you don’t want to hear the truth.

You've clearly never claimed have you? It's hard enough already

I think the rules for claiming need to be tightened up. But on the other hand I can also see an argument for means testing.

@keye
Sorry I don't respond to being sworn at and spoken to aggressively. Though I don't see where my post replied to you, if you have some corrections to make and want an actual conversation, I can accept it and we can agree and disagree as adults, not petulant kids. Won't be reading that. Thanks.

but I can’t help thinking that if very rich people didn’t claim it, then there’d be more for poorer people.

The rate of PIP isn't going to change because less people claim it. Neither will the qualifying criteria. People will not get more and more people will not get based on claimant numbers.

but I can’t help thinking that if very rich people didn’t claim it, then there’d be more for poorer people.

I was until just now actually for rich people to not claim PIP just because they can but a post got me thinking differently. However I still think some can afford to not claim anyway.

However, I doubt rich people not claiming will cause there to be more for others as they have no impact on the rates of these benefits. There is no limited number of spots for disability benefits.

"I find it baffling that the people arguing against means-testing PIP are the very people who would benefit from there being a bigger pot of money for the non-wealthy claimants. I don’t claim PIP so it makes no difference to me, but I can’t help thinking that if very rich people didn’t claim it, then there’d be more for poorer people."

But there won't be more money for those who need it. Under DLA there's 3 rates of care and 2 mobility. There's 2 rates of care and mobility under PIP. It was made clear this was to save money. But they're not giving more money to more people. They're instead wasting it on tribunals, constantly reassessing people and face to face assessments.

@ExcellentFabulous

Yes but subsidised and you don't pay for some things like insurance, servicing and breakdown, and for some cars, MOTs too and maintenance for powered wheelchairs and scooters.

I pay for a package that includes that just as people do when leasing a car

You also get to trade them and for a new car after x number of years and miles or something.

Yes, it's usually a 3 year lease but you can extend to 5 if you want. The annual mileage is 20,000

There are much benefits to having motability cars. Plus you 'pay for them' with your enhanced mobility benefit instead of receiving the money yourself, so you're not out of pocket. You get to save money and a lot of drama.

Of course i 'pay for it' (wtf ' '?) I pay £284 every 4 weeks, not even monthly as I make 13 payments a year. I am out of pocket becsue of o didn't pay for the car I would have an extra £71 a week in my pocket. Surely this isn't difficult to understand?

I think the only disadvantage is that you could lose the car at any time if you lose your enhanced award at any review. So it's basically not yours. A lot of people have to weigh that against the benefits.

It's massively stressful in terms of reviews and not always cost effective to have a motability car. It depends how much you actually need/use a car.

Please don't be telling me I don't fucking pay for my car though.

Oh, you also neglected to mention advanced payments on cars, there are some that are £0 but depending on need, the advance payment can be quite high. Mine was £3999 for a car that fully suited my needs. Nothing flashy.

@MyOtherNameToday my brain is fine thank you, but I think you haven’t understood what I said. Where in my post did I say I would stop you getting PIP? I’ve read and re-read my post, and I can’t find anywhere in which I stated an actual figure as the cut off. I’m wondering why you are assuming it would affect you. Unless you’re a multimillionaire, in which case I stand by what I said, which is that you shouldn’t be claiming PIP because you’ve got plenty of money already.

@C0ldasIc3 yes but you’re not a millionaire are you. The very fact that you are having to worry about money shows that you’re not in the bracket of people who don’t need to claim PIP. Unlike, for example, the Beckhams, if one of them had a disability.

I find it baffling that the people arguing against means-testing PIP are the very people who would benefit from there being a bigger pot of money for the non-wealthy claimants. I don’t claim PIP so it makes no difference to me, but I can’t help thinking that if very rich people didn’t claim it, then there’d be more for poorer people.

The disability part of the welfare system is not means tested and should be available to everyone, including higher earners who are funding the whole thing if they need help.

This is a good point. Never thought of it that way when it comes to high earnings.

Of course it costs you money. You pay for all the additional insurance etc as part of your monthly payment, you quite often pay a lump sum at the beginning too.

What's the problem if she is entitled to it? She will be paying a lot of tax on her income. There are plenty of people who have never paid into the system getting a lot more than that. The disability part of the welfare system is not means tested and should be available to everyone, including higher earners who are funding the whole thing if they need help.

Just for the record, I have reported this thread to Mumsnet mods. Really depressing how ablist, ill informed and goady posts are allowed to stand. Not saying PIP shouldn't be discussed but people with disabilities have enough to deal with without this.

Yes but subsidised and you don't pay for some things like insurance, servicing and breakdown, and for some cars, MOTs too and maintenance for powered wheelchairs and scooters.

You also get to trade them and for a new car after x number of years and miles or something.

There are much benefits to having motability cars. Plus you 'pay for them' with your enhanced mobility benefit instead of receiving the money yourself, so you're not out of pocket. You get to save money and a lot of drama.

I think the only disadvantage is that you could lose the car at any time if you lose your enhanced award at any review. So it's basically not yours. A lot of people have to weigh that against the benefits.

Motability cars are just rented though, you pay for them like anything else.

I completely agree. I just don’t tell anyone. But then I kind of wonder if by doing that I’m actually perpetuating the ignorance surrounding hidden disabilities because if people aren’t confronted with people like me then how will they ever learn? But then again; you can’t teach those who don’t want to learn…!