To be delighted PIP assessments are to be face to face?

As detailed upthread, you cannot claim PIP for addiction or substance abuse alone. You can only make a claim if that addiction or substance abuse has caused a health condition which meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act. So why would supporting that disability do any more harm than supporting any other disability ?

Obviously

@CandidLurker thank you for your advice. We have a Macmillan representative in our oncology unit. I'll try and pop into them after I've had my next follow up. I think they have benefit advisors. At least I'll know when I can get the ball rolling. Thanks again.

I do wonder when there are complexities such as alcoholism/substance abuse whether pip helps or harms on the long term?

Obviously there are underlying conditions (which are usually the ones that are actually claimed for) but at the same time I do think about whether it encourage or discourages people from seeking help? Unfortunately a lot of the the homeless around here, are affected by it and undoubtedly some do use that to continue their addiction. But I'm not sure what the solution is? You can't exactly make it conditional on drug tests etc? I know it's not as simple as that. For many there is a history of severe mental illness sor abuse and they need more support with that. But for the ones who do refuse said support but still claim pip is it helping them with what they're dealing with?

PIP has to comply with the Equality Act 2010, so to be considered as being disabled for PIP purposes, the declared health condition would first need to meet the definition of disability as defined by the Act, and secondly would need to meet the eligibility criteria for PIP itself.

The initial application for PIP includes a telephone call with the claimant to ensure that they meet the definition of disability under the Act. As per my pervious post addiction/substance abuse does not in itself meet the definition of disability under the Act. Only underlying health conditions caused by the addiction or substance abuse would be considered, assuming they comply with the definition under the Act.

Similarly, MH conditions would need to meet this definition, and in addition, the claimant would need to demonstrate the high bar set by PIP for stand alone MH conditions. In general, primary care treatment from a GP for low level anxiety/depression would not meet this standard. Claimants usually need to demonstrate recent secondary consultant led care either in the form of ongoing treatment, or recent hospitalisation/monitoring. Low level mental health conditions would not meet this definition.

I agree as per pp someone who has not worked in 30 years has something wrong mentally

Your experience eh? Do you personally claim PIP for alcoholism alone? If so then your contribution to this discussion is very pertinent. If you merely know of someone who you believe claims PIP for alcoholism alone, with no other related or unrelated conditions, then I would be interested in how you know this. Did the person in question show you their application form and give you full access to their medical records or, like far too many posters on these tiresome threads, are you making snap judgements about the reason someone has been awarded PIP without having a detailed knowledge of their wider physical and mental health conditions?

There are criteria for PIP. You have to score a certain amount of points from certain categories. These are things like washing and dressing, communicating with others, managing your treatment.

No one gets PIP from any diagnosis. You use your diagnosis as evidence for what you say.

If you have a drug addiction, you would have to demonstrate how you are due points on any of the categories. And there are different levels within the category - most people only qualify for the lower levels so it's difficult to rack up enough points.

Here is how it works https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/pip/help-with-your-claim/how-decisions-are-made/

Strange because this has not been my experience at all ?

PIP is not awarded for alcoholism, or indeed any substance abuse/dependence unless it has caused an underlying disability, and then it’s only the disability that’s assessed. The Equality Act 2010 defines disability and alcoholism/substance abuse are not considered disabilities in themselves. Any resulting effects on health have to meet the definition of disability as defined by the Act.

And PIP is generally not payable for low level MH problems like anxiety and depression if treatment is GP led. The bar for MH PIP claims is high and there needs to be robust evidence of severe disability which requires consultant led treatment.

They assess how your condition affects your ability to do certain tasks. They also make judgements on how you look. I had a report once that said I didn’t appear to be in pain. I was doped up to the gills on morphine, codeine and NSAIDs. She asked if I could put my own clothes on my bottom half. I said no and she said ‘you appear to have full use of your arms’. At the time I had upwards of 30 open weeping abscesses in my armpits and groin.
If checking off criteria is all that’s needed then why get HCP involved at all? Get administrators to do it.

i think you may be right on the SSP. I was self-employed when I was diagnosed. To be honest I was lucky as my husband earned enough to support us both through that period so I just didn’t bother with benefits and assumed I wouldn’t qualify due to household income. However if you are in ongoing treatment then I’m sure an argument could be made for PIP as that is designed for more long-term conditions and their effects

please make sure you have a benefits check with someone who know their way around the system.

😂😂😂👏👏👏

I don’t like them but
The dog is very protective of his green triangles

😂🤩

I actually fucking love quality street! Though you appear to have eaten all my favourites, the green triangles.

Please
Have some of my quality street

This is the poster who posted about one of her oldest friends ^^ in a less than a complimentary way.

The ‘cousin poster’ was a bonus extra post from another poster.

These examples do tend to tumble onto the pages of the thread thick and fast, and can be difficult to follow given the scale of misinformation contained within and the strange arguments involved.

And yes, gratis also means free.

You've been very sore on me @Everlore.

Very sore.

It has in fact somewhat ruined my enjoyment of my evening snack (bourbon creams). I will however accept your gracious apology.

Won’t make a difference the assessors will still lie.

PIP is supposed to be a Personal Independence Payment- that is, a payment to help the recipient to be independent.

It is not intended as SO many MN users refer to benefits, as if they all had the same intended purpose, to be a “safety net” I.e. an emergency supply of funds. (Where did that phrase originate?)

Any assessor should be trying to see honestly what a person struggles with doing, according to the specific criteria they are to measure against, not determining whether they need money to help with that problem. Or, in other words, PIP doesn’t exist to neutralise the effect of a disabling condition by giving an amount of money, it exists to assist the person dealing with that disabling condition towards independence.

The “friend” of the pp above as described (with two children getting DLA because the mother decided they have ASD/ADHD), while she also gets PIP, is beyond hilarious.

My daughter receives DLA and the criteria for DLA are DIFFERENT from PIP for a reason. Partly it’s unlikely that this (imaginary ?)woman would be eligible for PIP and have 2 (no less!) children who qualify for DLA, such that at least one of the 3 qualified for higher rate mobility benefits (to get the “free car”) and yet still goes on multiple holidays. Unlikely is the kindest word I can think of.

My daughter receives higher rate DLA - to do so she had to demonstrate both very high care needs constantly or as near to as constantly (she does as she can’t do anything for herself) and very high mobility needs.

The criteria for DLA are that a child needs care and supervision far above a regular child including, for instance overnight care - turning them in bed, being awake while they are, or supervision to keep them safe (from running into roads or self-harm like banging against a wall) and not just ONE of those descriptors either. Mobility criteria are that the child cannot walk at all, or is in pain from doing so, is severely visually impaired, severely mentally impaired, etc.

If anything DLA is more difficult to evidence by lying than PIP.

Anyone saying “she just told the DWP her children have x, y or z” are talking out of their arses. I’m assuming to deliberately wind posters up.

APOLOGIES, I mixed up your compelling account with that of Themagicfarawaytreeismyfav
She was the one with a dear old pal (who she coincidentally loathes) who is also apparently fraudulently claiming benefits for herself and her whole family. You are the one with the cousin who has allegedly been committing successful benefits fraud for decades and is driving Schrodinger's car, which is simultaneously both free and not free. Apologies for the mix-up, it was my mistake. In my defence, it can be hard to get these terribly convincing and not at all fictitious stories of outrageously flagrant benefits cheats straight sometimes, especially as so many pop up on threads like this and are often eerily similar.

[Notwithstanding the fact you've confused my experience with the entirely different experience of an entirely different poster] You have (also entirely) missed my point.

To be clear: I am dissing malingerers. I am not dissing genuine claimants.

😉

Well, it isn't free. That will be corrected, especially from people who have paid thousands of pounds for their own motability car.

I can clarify m'lady the word 'friend' has not featured in any of my comments 🙈

The uber was, technically, free 😂