To dob in family member - benefits

And again the interpretation of the 20m rule is wrong. That’s a guide. There is more to the assessment of walking ability than just the fact that you can or can’t walk that distance.

I’ve had many claimants be awarded higher rate mobility despite being able to walk much further than that. It’s the degree of difficulty they would have and whether their walking ability is useful or not. For that the assessor would consider things like pain, exhaustion, the manner in which they walk and whether it’s likely to adversely impact themselves or others, to name but a few.

The notion that someone just looking at a claimant would instantly be able to tell the decision was wrong (especially one as a result of a tribunal, which considers the legality of the decision, as well as whether it’s appropriate for the claimant) and ‘DOB them in’ for fraud is utterly abhorrent.

Have you any idea of the impact of a fraud report on a claimant ? Are you aware that a successful PIP claim is based on the impairment and impact being present for 50% or more of the time ? So if you see a claimant on a good day, you would automatically think they were claiming fraudulently ? Do you not think disabled people have enough to put up with, without sanctimonious busybodies like the OP sticking their noses in to things they know absolutely nothing about ?

PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day.
The fraud would be doubtful disability, but it’s quite hard to prove and requires a fair bit of surveillance. Usually we would look at people who are doing undeclared work, claiming they can’t work as they are too disabled. People who say they use equipment to get around, a wheel chair for example, but can be seen running or doing physical work.

MN likes to pretend benefit fraud doesn’t happen for some reason.

I’m not reading anything. I’ve been a part of the PIP system since 2013 and the notion that reviews don’t take place to ensure there have been no changes in a claimants’ condition is just ridiculous. Only those with open ended awards with conditions unlikely to change for the better escape the review system. All other claims have a built in end date at which point a review takes place. It might take a while for that review decision to be delivered because there are backlogs but they are part of the system and to suggest otherwise indicates that you have little idea of how that system works.

And again the interpretation of the 20m rule is wrong. That’s a guide. There is more to the assessment of walking ability than just the fact that you can or can’t walk that distance.

I’ve had many claimants be awarded higher rate mobility despite being able to walk much further than that. It’s the degree of difficulty they would have and whether their walking ability is useful or not. For that the assessor would consider things like pain, exhaustion, the manner in which they walk and whether it’s likely to adversely impact themselves or others, to name but a few.

The notion that someone just looking at a claimant would instantly be able to tell the decision was wrong (especially one as a result of a tribunal, which considers the legality of the decision, as well as whether it’s appropriate for the claimant) and ‘DOB them in’ for fraud is utterly abhorrent.

Have you any idea of the impact of a fraud report on a claimant ? Are you aware that a successful PIP claim is based on the impairment and impact being present for 50% or more of the time ? So if you see a claimant on a good day, you would automatically think they were claiming fraudulently ? Do you not think disabled people have enough to put up with, without sanctimonious busybodies like the OP sticking their noses in to things they know absolutely nothing about ?

And the medical professional, judge and person with experience of disability who made the tribunal decision.

What makes you more qualified to assess whether someone is disabled than the medical professionals who are involved in the PIP assessment?

Do you have a medical background and access to the claimant's medical files?

"PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day."

No they are not.

This!

If they are getting a motoribility car then they either are saying that they cannot reliably mobilise more than 20m or they cannot leave the house alone and plan and follow a journey due to psychological distress on the majority of days.. These would be the two main criteria for someone being awarded enhanced rate mobility which is what they need to participate in the motorbility scheme. If neither of these apply ( which you seem to be suggesting ) then YANBU.

I too know of a distant family member who do this , he says to doctors he is suffering with arthritis all over his body can hardly walk, what the doctors don't know is, every weekend his at the nightclubs dancing all night and getting drunk.

PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day.
The fraud would be doubtful disability, but it’s quite hard to prove and requires a fair bit of surveillance. Usually we would look at people who are doing undeclared work, claiming they can’t work as they are too disabled. People who say they use equipment to get around, a wheel chair for example, but can be seen running or doing physical work.

MN likes to pretend benefit fraud doesn’t happen for some reason.

PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day.
The fraud would be doubtful disability, but it’s quite hard to prove and requires a fair bit of surveillance. Usually we would look at people who are doing undeclared work, claiming they can’t work as they are too disabled. People who say they use equipment to get around, a wheel chair for example, but can be seen running or doing physical work.

MN likes to pretend benefit fraud doesn’t happen for some reason.

PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day.
The fraud would be doubtful disability, but it’s quite hard to prove and requires a fair bit of surveillance. Usually we would look at people who are doing undeclared work, claiming they can’t work as they are too disabled. People who say they use equipment to get around, a wheel chair for example, but can be seen running or doing physical work.

MN likes to pretend benefit fraud doesn’t happen for some reason.

Absolutely this.

I’m a professional disabilty outreach worker - over 20 years experience. Where am I wrong ?

PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day.
The fraud would be doubtful disability, but it’s quite hard to prove and requires a fair bit of surveillance. Usually we would look at people who are doing undeclared work, claiming they can’t work as they are too disabled. People who say they use equipment to get around, a wheel chair for example, but can be seen running or doing physical work.

MN likes to pretend benefit fraud doesn’t happen for some reason.

The worst thing about this post is that we could have people in our lives that think this about us secretly and then post like this online whilst being nice to our face

Having an immediate family member who is in receipt of PIP and has reviews etc I know exactly how it works and have been active in this with them for the last 10 years so you’re once again wrong.

Well be clearer then. Because from what I’ve read you have no understanding of the system.

I’m not reading anything. I’ve been a part of the PIP system since 2013 and the notion that reviews don’t take place to ensure there have been no changes in a claimants’ condition is just ridiculous. Only those with open ended awards with conditions unlikely to change for the better escape the review system. All other claims have a built in end date at which point a review takes place. It might take a while for that review decision to be delivered because there are backlogs but they are part of the system and to suggest otherwise indicates that you have little idea of how that system works.