Just been on a course about new benefit system

I wish the government would make ATOS pay for the appeals system

My goodness, yes.

Can you imagine a supplier to the private sector getting away with a 40% failure rate and a 16-week backlog on a multi-million pound contract, with only vague promises to 'review' and 'propose' improvements?

They get away with it because ATOS and its sister companies own practically all the government's IT systems. The few independent procedures left are those that are done in person, by hand - like the tribunals. Given that the main purpose of UC is to allow full automation, I'm agog to see how it's going to cock up work in practice.

OhDo- you are correct on the taking action about relatives. its two people, not the whole family. the rest of us are normal.

I had only met DPs mum say 10 times before she died of cancer. so she was a very nice lady she cannot be a relative after such as short contact with her. by the time she was diagnosed she was not treatable, although she has steroids also.

its not that i think people on benefits are on the fiddle anymore than anyone else. but in my experience when i have seen people up close who really need help, not all close family members step up and the state provides little.

so IME you are pretty much on your own, bar a very few number of people you can depend on, and you have to be as independant as possible. these threads are all about how much we can depend on each other as a society.

Ok so we are agreed that Labour didnt 'bring in' housing benefit.

AmberLeaf - yes, they gave it a new name instead of making a radical change and using the money to build more social homes. The caps on LHA were needed and perhaps some of the savings will eventually be used to build social homes, rather than paying rich landlords.

How much money is all this reassessing all the claims all the time going to cost?

I'm probably being cynical but it seems to me that this whole exercise is going to end up costing the taxpayer more the same, but less money will go to those who need it, and more money into the pockets of the private companies who will be badly administering the whole thing.

Tilly
You can't just base this on your experience. Yes your relatives fiddle, it doesn't mean others do.
You also said further up that those that can work should. The problem is, the idiot french firm doing the assessments aren't actually capable of judging, so people who are dying are being declared fit for work.
I have just re-done dhs dla forms. It took me three weeks. So far the dwp have had them for ten weeks. I've had a letter stating that they are seeking futher information from the GP and consultants. He couldn't fiddle it if he tried, and this is the case in the majority of claims.
We have resigned ourselves to the fact that we'll probably have to appeal, the stress of which will probably put dh in a unit for six weeks, but hey ho.

Orwellian-they just gave it a new name.

Housing benefit just became local housing allowance.

Huge housing benefit subsidies have benefited nobody except greedy landlords. I agree that this money should have been used to build more social housing.

AmberLeaf - Labour brought in LHA (housing benefit for private rentals) on 7th April 2008. They could have used all that taxpayer money to build thousands more social homes but decided instead to keep funnelling it to rich landlords.

When your experiences are so limited.
Yes.
When are you going to report all of the fruadsters?
Its been going on for ages yet you do nothing about it.

Its people like you that are costing the state so much money.

BTW
'yes and DP's mum etc etc'
DP's mum IS a relative and etc etcs dont count because they are not real people.

So as I said, you are basing you views on some relatives.
You do this for pages and pages and pages on thread after thread.
You are informed, you are given valid, up to date information, linked to statistics yet you still insist your view is correct because your dad didnt get DLA and the rest of your family are claiming it fraudulently.
Whilst you look on and do nothing.

Labour brought in tax credits and housing benefit which have only acted as a sticking plaster so that employers do not have to pay a living wage as they know a low wage will be subsidised by the taxpayer via tax credits. Likewise, landlords are being subsidised by housing benefit

Labour did not bring in housing benefit! Its been around for years! But yes employers should be paying better wages.

You seem to be basing your views on how social care should work on the case of your poor dad and some relatives whom you claim are commiting fraud (whilst you collude with them).

yes and DPs mum, etc. etc

you are talking about how it should work, i am talking about how it does.

any what is wrong with basing my view on my experiences? isnt that how yours are formed?

Orwellian
I agree with much of what you say.
But the solution is not to punish the workers by withdrawing benefits.

Do you not remember the howls of protest when the minimum wage was bought in? It took years of campaining. Held back by businesses wailing that they would go bust if they were forced to pay a minimum wage (not a living one, a minimum one).

Talk about landlords profiting from HB on MN and you will be accused of unfairness towards honest, hardworking people just trying to make a living.

Cut the benefits and people will suffer because not enough people give a toss about what will happen to them.

If there was treatment available your dad would have got it.
If the treatment had worked but left him disabled (unfortunately a common side affect of treatment for brain cancers), your dad would have had access to support and DLA.

You seem to be basing your views on how social care should work on the case of your poor dad and some relatives whom you claim are commiting fraud (whilst you collude with them).

Lots of people correctly state that many people on benefits are in work.

Well, if people in work still need to rely on benefits because the cost of living is too high, surely it means employers are not paying enough?

Labour brought in tax credits and housing benefit which have only acted as a sticking plaster so that employers do not have to pay a living wage as they know a low wage will be subsidised by the taxpayer via tax credits. Likewise, landlords are being subsidised by housing benefit. This is not what tax should be used for --> to funnel taxpayers money into the pockets of large, rich employers or to help BTL landlords pay their mortgage.

If large companies can no longer find people to work because they are no longer being subsidised by tax credits then they will have to pay more. Likewise, if landlords can no longer demand a certain guaranteed taxpayer funded rent and have to accept what the market can support then rents will slowly fall as there are only a certain amount of people who can realistically support high rents.

Tax credits and unlimited housing benefits keep wages low and housing costs high and the taxpayer gets a rotten deal.

it was a defused tumor in the brain stem. not like a lump, more like feathery through the brain stem.

there wasnt any treatment, except 1 course of steriods.

Stephrick - I got child benefit and child tax credits mixed up.

Child benefit x 3 would be = £2,455
Child tax credits x 3 would be = £8,617. But the figures would still be the same and all the benefits together do add up to £36,011.

Check on Turn2Us if you don't believe me or I can do a screen grab, no problem.

You can have an improvement from incurable brain cancer?

Have you informed the BMJ?

What on earth can you mean?
Are you saying that your father was denied care by the NHS?

What do you think we pay tax for? Having the rubbish you create with your consumerism removed by the state is less of a luxury than being cared for when you are unable to work?

really? Cant you get your stuff to the dump? My OH is disabled and we manage it when we have to.

You know that your posts dont make any real sense dont you?

because diagnosis arent a fixed as you see them.

another family member has. because it could have gone away. because we need to have systems. because he could have had an improvement.

OhDo - Social care is the basics. i agree this is how it should be but i have not seen anyone friends/family, including people on low incomes, cared for by the state to a signifiant level. so its not my experience of how it works.

i think we have been sold an idea, work, pay tax and the state will look after you. i dont know if it ever really worked like that or if we just thought it did. but i dont think it does work like that now.

Ha, well I win my bet-with-self about when you would brag about your criminal relatives - in whose crime, by the way, you are colluding by not reporting.

But other than that, you haven't really answered the question.

Why would you want your father reassessed at 6 month intervals to see if his incurable brain cancer had gone away?

If he was lying, he would have been found out at the first assessment. Scans and all that.

And if he wasn't lying, and the cancer was progressive, what was the gain to anyone of repeated assessments?

Re balancing the books, I wish the government would make ATOS pay for the appeals system, as currently it's the taxpayer who pay for ESA appeals, not the private company.

The system might suddenly alter if ATOS actually had a financial incentive to get it right first time.