To dob in family member - benefits

Well said.

The Ops of these types of threads always think they know a lot about the person they perceive to be claiming fraudulently, but usually they don't understand how PIP and DLA work 🤔
Its gone To tribunal but still the Op thinks they know better.

Nor me, but I think a lot of these threads are false, and just aim to start the frothers off. 🙄

Maybe the government should send an assessor round to my friends house once a month to just to see if her legs have grown back?

Once again, PIP is not an out of work benefit. It is not means-tested. PIP claimants and 'working people' are not two mutually exclusive groups as you appear to think. I work full time and receive the higher level of both components.
As I have said elsewhere, I have a disability which is both immediately obvious and have the kind of disability which few would quibble with, having been born without eyes and with multiple joint deformities.
I guess this makes me one of your 'deserving' disabled people. However, yours, in common with multiple similar posts on this thread, actually make me realise that there are some advantages to being obviously disabled, at least I don't have judgemental nosy strangers deciding I am not 'disabled enough', based on a cursory glance, and that I must therefore be a scrounger and reporting me to the DWP based on no evidence or knowledge!

Seems to be a phenomenon peculiar to MN doesn’t it ? So many people posting that their friend, relative, NDN, cleaner, dog walker etc etc have no problem telling them they are claiming - and seemingly no problem admitting they’re doing so fraudulently. I have no idea why anyone would do that, given the trouble it would cause if they were reported.

And this is where savings can be made in the system. If a claimant has a higher rate award and there is little chance of their condition ever changing for the better, it’s absolutely pointless and expensive to keep assessing and reassessing. What most people don’t realise is that for the more severe conditions which warrant an open ended award, there is still a review, but it’s a light touch one where the claimants GP or other HCPs they are involved with are contacted to see if anything has changed. In most cases the claimant is unaware that a review has taken place because they are not contacted directly if there is no need/

It's down to the department that awards benefits. Leave it to them to review recipients' claims.

Yes. I know. And I don’t quite get the deserving/undeserving mindset. Mind you, I’ve never had random people telling me all that they are claiming, either at bus stops, shops or the pub. 🙄

The fact that this poster thought that the agencies helping claimants to fill in the forms are somehow responsible for making sure they are genuine, is a clear indication that the poster has no idea of what it takes to secure a PIP claim and clearly thinks it’s just a case of filling in a form and telling the DWP you are disabled. It’s so far from the truth it’s laughable.

Just because someone tells you they are disabled, doesn’t mean they are.

But in the context of PIP, it’s not a case of claimants just telling the assessor they are disabled. There needs to be evidence to back it up. In the absence of the claimant’s own medical reports - and sometimes in spite of them - the assessor will carry out a full assessment and make a recommendation to DWP based on their findings.

If someone has a PIP award you can be assured that someone a lot more qualified than a random in the street has ensured that they meet eligibility. In OP’s case, the claimant they are talking about has been to tribunal and every bit of evidence has been scrutinised by an expert panel. Who do you think has a better idea of their condition and how it affects them ?

But, it’s not your role in life to judge. Best leave it to the professionals and jog on with life. 😉

No, I know. My late husband could walk 20 metres, but only by hanging onto lampposts on the way. NHS induced MRSA caused it. 🙄

And once again, what business is it of OP’s ? PIP awards are based on the impact of a disability or health condition being present for at least 50% of the time. So the impact may not have been evident at the time, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This person has not only been awarded PIP, but the award has been made by a tribunal so there is likely to be much more expertise and medical evidence to back up the claim. Why on earth would OP want to challenge that on the basis that they don’t think the person looks disabled enough ? The lack of understanding of what a PIP claim entails and what disability actually is, is quite depressing.

Why do you think you have the right to designate people as "truly deserving" or "scroungers"?

The OP thinks they know a lot about the claimant. Chances are they don't

Why? The assessors have assessed this person, and have seen fit to uphold his claim. What exactly is there to query?

But it appears that OP does know a lot about the claimants and their activities, and if they are able to do the things described, then it’s not unreasonable to query why they get benefits.

My DLA is an indefinite award. Neurological problems and lung issues don’t end - they progress. 🤷‍♀️

I agree that just because someone tells you they are disabled doesn't means they are disabled. However, I do believe that if: someone tells a specialist that they are disabled backed up with years of doctors / phycologists reports, then persuades a judge that they are disabled, we can safety conclude that they are over some fools opinion who thinks they don't look disabled enough.

Thank you for your reply and explanation.

Just a brief response re:

Just because someone doesn’t look disabled doesn’t mean they are not.

And in some cases,

Just because someone tells you they are disabled, doesn’t mean they are.

Agree. And that’s the root of the problem here. If you’re not 100% in possession of all of the facts concerning someone’s condition/benefit claim, and you don’t have a working knowledge of the requirements for PIP, then you really have no business interfering based on what you think might be going on. The consequences to the claimant can be devastating.

Yes. The distance for the higher rate on DLA used to be 50 metres. It was reduced to 20 metres for PIP by the coalition government when they consulted with disability organisations. Their excuse was that the respondents to the consultation had suggested that 20 metres was a fairer gauge of difficulty - Esther McVey, the then minister for the disabled, actually reported that as fact in the Commons. She was forced to apologise when it was made public that no such opinion had ever been expressed by anyone taking part in the consultation, and that it had been the plan all along to reduce the distance to 20 metres.

You are correct about the distance rules too. They are not set in stone - they are guides. It’s perfectly possible for a claimant to be able to walk significantly more than 20 metres and still be awarded the higher rate, because what matters is not whether they can walk the distance, but the degree of difficulty they have in doing it, for which several factors are taken into account. It’s not, and never has been a case of ‘boom, you can walk 20 metres so you don’t qualify’ as many posters here seem to think.

Outreach workers like myself aren’t medically qualified to assess whether someone is being truthful about their disability on the application form, or to try to ascertain their abilities. That’s not our remit. We have no impact on the decision - we are purely there to make the best possible claim on behalf of the claimant using the information they give, which can be self reporting and/or backed up with their own medical evidence. It would be pointless me going for a walk with a claimant because I’m not equipped to assess their ability.

And this is the point I’m trying to make here. Just because someone doesn’t look disabled doesn’t mean they are not. Just because they don’t appear to be having difficulty at a particular moment in time doesn’t mean they don’t at others. PIP can be awarded on the basis of the impact of a disability or health condition being present for at least 50% of the time. Assessors are the ones in possession of all of the facts, and the knowledge to apply the descriptors and inbuilt safeguards to arrive at a conclusion. Generally Joe Public doesn’t have all those facts at their fingertips and can potentially be putting a genuine claimant through the stress of a fraud investigation just because they seemingly don’t look disabled enough.

Disability is complex. Distance descriptors for PIP are guides, not set in stone, and higher rate awards can be made to claimants who can walk significantly more than 20 metres. What matters is the degree of difficulty they have and the impact on their overall health while doing it.

That may be your experience but it’s not fact. Where a claimant has a congenital disability which is static they are more likely to have an open, or indefinite award. My particular area was Spina Bifida and Neural Tube disabilities which tend to be on the more severe end of the scale. My experience is that in those cases higher awards tend to be made, and they are mostly open ended because there is little to no chance of change for the better.

With lower awards and end date may be built in to check that the condition hasn’t worsened to the point where a higher award would be appropriate, but that’s a safeguard with these kinds of disabilities.