Blind woman denied benefits because she attended DWP interview with help of mother

[SerendipityJane]

Looks like I need to stop helping people. Oh well, at least that's more time to read about how it's all the disabled fault these days.

(I have my own folio of "interesting" encounters with the DWP. I stopped posting them when no one believed them).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/09/blind-woman-denied-benefits-because-she-attended-dwp-interview-with-help-of-mother

I got my tin hat on, but if something happens to you which means you can no longer do the job you used to, but you can still work, albeit doing something else, then why shouldn't you work instead of claiming benefits? It's better for mental health to be working.

That is not an uncommon view. The problem is that it is sometimes peoples jobs, that could be causing them mental health problems. Also lots of employers are just not able/ willing to make adjustments that would enable some people with disabilities to access the workplace. That is a common barrier to lots of disabled people.

A friend used to be a nurse, he then suffered a brain injury, he can no longer walk or talk, he has limited use of his hands and arms. I look forward to you finding employment he can access via public transport from his assisted living facilty.

Yes exactly, there needs to be more support for disabled people to get into work. I think the new government is looking at this though aren't they. Agree it's certainly not easy.

Hopefully they'll start by looking at jobs that can be done from home that are needlessly being removed from people.

My Dd is disabled. She used to work part time because of the impact travelling to and from work had on her on her office days (she was hybrid pre Covid). Then during Covid she was WFH full time and she absolutely soared. She was promoted and then was able to go FT. Post Covid she stayed WFH FT with very occasional office days for training or get togethers. Now she has a mandatory 3/5 days in the office and because it's being strictly enforced, and no exceptions are being allowed in flexible working requests to be fair, she's having to drop back to PT.

The stupid thing is she doesn't work as part of a team that works together - they all work very separate from lists. The office she was based in closed so on her office days she goes into a different office, to a booked hot desk and often doesn't see or speak to anyone from her team at all. She basically does the same from the office as she does at home, but now she does it PT because she now has a 90 minute commute to the office (previously was 15 mins walk, now bus and walk).

There are at least 4 others on a FB for her condition that are in the same position with the civil service.

@NigelHarmansNewWife I can only answer for my own situation. I had a career I adored, I worked my way up through the business to a higher management position. But I started having to take time off, because I was ill but I didn't know what with. I was diagnosed with a progressive chronic illness, I was having to take more and more time off sometimes weeks at a time and was told by my GP and Consultant if I kept trying to work full time I was going tonhave no quality of life and become worse faster.

I had to give up a career I had worked so hard for because even part time I couldn't guarantee I'd be fit for work all the time and may still have to take a lot of time off.

How can I be a useful and effective employee?

Luckily my DH owns his own company and I work for him when well enough and when I'm not I stay home. But not everyone is as lucky as me they don't have the option of working in a family business that can cover for them when not well enough to work.

Life isn't as black and white as you would like to believe.

My friend works pt. She claims some benefits as has no legs below the knee and gets disability for a car... Every year she has to tick the No Change box. Because unsurprisingly she hasn't grown new legs.

I have no idea about this particular person, but it's an absolute insult to suggest blind people can't work. I work with a blind social worker, he has an assistance dog and gets on fine. Obviously he needs adapted technology and is funded to use taxis to home visits but surely we think this is great don't we? He certainly wouldn't rather be sitting at home having his wife look after him.

This case is awful.
Employers are not tolerant of people with physical or mental health issues anyway.

The lack of nuance is key. Some disabled people are able to work with employers making reasonable adjustments. But not all employers make reasonable adjustments. Making all employers make reasonable adjustments is a number one priority. Then making employers actually hire someone they have to make reasonable adjustment for rather than non disabled applicants.

Then recognising that some disabled people can't access the workplace regardless of reasonable adjustment and it is detrimental to their health and well-being to try and force them to do so with punitive benefit regimes or an ideological belief that work makes you free. Stop costly reassessment of lifelong disability.

My DS is reviewed every three years but I never hear back. I am sent a review questionnaire by second class post saying I have to reply within 28 days of the date of the letter - half of which have passed before I receive it - and then a reminder and then nothing until the next review. What does this achieve other than increasing anxiety?

This seems awful. But surely the fact she attended with mother can't be the only reason they alleged she could do some work.
Pip isn't to determine if you can work or not. So it must be ESA.
If she attended alone then surely that would make her more capable than if she had to have a chaperone? It's not like her mum could supervise her at work on a daily basis?
I hope she gets an appeal.

But not all employers make reasonable adjustments.

Well the DWP certainly doesn't. I know of a couple of offices that claimants are expected to attend which don't have level access.

I can't claim to have seen it myself, but I know of claims that ramps are removed when claimants are expected to attend.

Personally I do know of someone who was expected to attend an assessment at an office which wasn't open. My guess that it was a way to then mark the claimant as a DNA and reject the claim.

My advice to any and all is to remove any shred of giving the benefit of the doubt to the DWP and - more importantly - their lickspittle private army of "providers". They are total and utter cunts without a single shred of redeeming qualities.

And then you have the other end of the scale where I care for an autistic lady who has mild autism and can most definitely work, and is assessed as not able to! She travels independently and has visited friends 5 hours away by train, planned her own route etc. Can manage all her own care needs (trying to get her own place to live so she won't need to live with me going forward) I cannot fathom how she is determined not able to work.

I hear about so many who should be entitled but having to fight for it, something isn't working.

Which is pretty much what the poster you quoted was saying...even though there are adaptions so some roles would theoretically be able to be undertaken, it doesn't mean it's possible or feasible for all to get these jobs.

A lot is about knowing exactly how to engage with the DWP. Something that is really suitable for a full time 4 week course.

Any benefits assessors out there who can explain the thinking behind this sort of decision? It seems to me that we are seeing more and more decisions that are essentially performative cruelty on the part of officials whose only excuse is presumably that they are under pressure to save money. I see it far to often in this context and also in relation to provision for children with SEND.

DD was denied PIP after the assessor said, "She looks fine to me". DD has autism. I'm not sure what the assessor expected her to look like!

What's "mild Autism"?

I was also refused PIP after a stroke. I found the process so humiliating and degrading at an already stressful time of my life (only in my 30s) that I didn't fight it, or even know that I could or how. I'm still so angry about it as I could not work for a very long time but received absolutely no government help. It plunged us into debt at what was already the worst time of our lives

Job done then.

Any benefits assessors out there who can explain the thinking behind this sort of decision?

Not something you'd really put on your cv is it ? LinkedIn is hardly awash with posts from assessors telling us how their job enriches their lives.

I was denied after amongst other things she claimed I made eye contact which because of one of the conditions I have is physically impossible. And because I wear dark glasses you have no idea what I'm actually looking at.

The core issue is that Job Seekers Allowance is paid at a lower rate than the benefit paid for being sick or disabled. As if someone on JSA needs less food or clothing than a disabled person.
(I am not talking about the extra costs of disability covered by PIP).
So the government has a financial incentive to find people fit for work and put them on JSA.
This was an innovation brought in by Thatcher. It was intended to 'punish' people for being out of work, as they were less 'worthy' than sick/disabled people).

The solution is to give one rate of benefit, whether you are unemployed or unable to work.
Then those who are genuinely long-term disabled can still apply for higher rates or extra payments that they need.

This is set to get worse if the current government go ahead with reducing the numbers qualifying for LCWRA ( as was being proposed by the Tory's) and make it so that only those in receipt of PIP will qualify for LCWRA also. It may help people like the woman in the article as it sounds as though she has PIP, but could make things worse for many others.

There is a PIP assessor AMA that started yesterday. Might be worth posting on there.

I don't think people who are fit for work are considered less worthy and so get less money. Surely the thinking is that disabled people unfit for work are not in a position to increase their income but the able bodied fit for work folk can get work to increase their long term income.