Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Is it possible to have a sensible discussion about disability benefits?

869 replies

Pjnow · 30/10/2025 19:09

According to Google 10% of working age people are in receipt of PIP and 6% of 0-15yos receive DLA.

I'm a proper lefty who believes absolutely in the welfare state, a safety net and that we should care properly for those with disabilities. A society should be judged on how it cares for its most vulnerable.

However 10% in receipt of disability benefits can't be sustainable. I know many people receiving PIP also work, it's not about that.

I'm just wondering what (if anything) can be done to make sure those who need support get it, without paying it to 10% of the population. I know not all disabilities are visble etc, but 10%?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 22:55

Currently, in order to be found to have LCWRA one has to:

  • not be expected to live 12 months.
  • be receiving, shortly receiving or recovering from cancer treatment.
  • be pregnant with a serious risk to your or baby’s health unless you refrain from work and work-related activity.
  • have a substantial risk to you or others because of disease or disablement if found* *not to have a limited capability for work-related activity.
  • meet at least one of the following:

1. Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid is normally or could reasonably, be worn or used.
Cannot either:
(i) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;
or
(ii) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.
2. Transferring from one seated position to another.
Cannot move between one seated position and another seated position located next to one another without receiving physical assistance from another person.
3. Reaching.
Cannot raise either arm as if to put something in the top pocket of a coat or jacket.
4. Picking up and moving or transferring by the use of the upper body and arms (excluding standing, sitting, bending or kneeling and all other activities specified in this Schedule).
Cannot pick up and move a 0.5 litre carton full of liquid.
5. Manual dexterity.
Cannot press a button (such as a telephone keypad) with either hand or cannot turn the pages of a book with either hand.
6. Making self understood through speaking, writing, typing, or other means which are normally, or could reasonably be, used unaided by another person.
Cannot convey a simple message, such as the presence of a hazard.
7. Understanding communication by—
(a) verbal means (such as hearing or lip reading) alone;
(b) non-verbal means (such as reading 16-point print or Braille) alone; or
(c) a combination of (a) and (b), using any aid that is normally, or could reasonably be, used unaided by another person.
Cannot understand a simple message, such as the location of a fire escape, due to sensory impairment.
8. Absence or loss of control whilst conscious leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder, other than enuresis (bed-wetting), despite the wearing or use of any aids or adaptations which are normally or could reasonably be worn or used.
At least once a week experiences
(i) loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder; or
(ii) substantial leakage of the contents of a collecting device sufficient to require the individual to clean themselves and change clothing.
9. Learning tasks.
Cannot learn how to complete a simple task, such as setting an alarm clock, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
10. Awareness of hazard
Reduced awareness of everyday hazards, due to cognitive or mental disorder, leads to a significant risk of:
(i) injury to self or others; or
(ii) damage to property or possessions,
such that the claimant require supervision for the majority of the time to maintain safety.
11. Initiating and completing personal action (which means planning, organisation, problem solving, prioritising or switching tasks).
Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 sequential personal actions.
12. Coping with change.
Cannot cope with any change, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder, to the extent that day-to-day life cannot be managed.
13. Coping with social engagement, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the claimant.
14. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Has, on a daily basis, uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.
15. Conveying food or drink to the mouth.
(a) Cannot convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without receiving physical assistance from someone else;
(b) Cannot convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without repeatedly stopping, experiencing breathlessness or severe discomfort;
(c) Cannot convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without receiving regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence; or
(d) Owing to a severe disorder of mood or behaviour, fails to convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without receiving:
(i) physical assistance from someone else; or
(ii) regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence.
16. Chewing or swallowing food or drink.
(a) Cannot chew or swallow food or drink;
(b) Cannot chew or swallow food or drink without repeatedly stopping, experiencing breathlessness or severe discomfort;
(c) Cannot chew or swallow food or drink without repeatedly receiving regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence; or
(d) Owing to a severe disorder of mood or behaviour, fails to—
(i) chew or swallow food or drink; or
(ii) chew or swallow food or drink without regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence.

It isn’t a case of someone merely saying they can’t work.

SleeplessInWherever · 31/10/2025 22:58

Perzival · 31/10/2025 22:49

The thread is about disability benefits. I think people claim disability who should't and the system should change so that they can't.

Trying to guilt trip isn't a good look. If i was in that situatutio it would be an improvement and one i'd happily accept.

We don’t set the “how disabled is disabled enough” parameters, and frankly I don’t feel we should. It’s not up to us, and what happens when those changes trickle down to families who really need that money to get buy, with their disabled children/partners etc etc.

I’m not trying to guilt trip anyone, that’s the reality. Certainly for some people.

There are parents of children like ours who cannot afford to meet their needs without state input. DLA barely scratches the surface for us, we fund the rest ourselves by managing to hold down full time jobs that facilitate pretty much his every cost, of which there are many.

I recognise that not everyone is as fortunate, and maybe you should too.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 22:58

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 22:55

Currently, in order to be found to have LCWRA one has to:

  • not be expected to live 12 months.
  • be receiving, shortly receiving or recovering from cancer treatment.
  • be pregnant with a serious risk to your or baby’s health unless you refrain from work and work-related activity.
  • have a substantial risk to you or others because of disease or disablement if found* *not to have a limited capability for work-related activity.
  • meet at least one of the following:

1. Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid is normally or could reasonably, be worn or used.
Cannot either:
(i) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;
or
(ii) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.
2. Transferring from one seated position to another.
Cannot move between one seated position and another seated position located next to one another without receiving physical assistance from another person.
3. Reaching.
Cannot raise either arm as if to put something in the top pocket of a coat or jacket.
4. Picking up and moving or transferring by the use of the upper body and arms (excluding standing, sitting, bending or kneeling and all other activities specified in this Schedule).
Cannot pick up and move a 0.5 litre carton full of liquid.
5. Manual dexterity.
Cannot press a button (such as a telephone keypad) with either hand or cannot turn the pages of a book with either hand.
6. Making self understood through speaking, writing, typing, or other means which are normally, or could reasonably be, used unaided by another person.
Cannot convey a simple message, such as the presence of a hazard.
7. Understanding communication by—
(a) verbal means (such as hearing or lip reading) alone;
(b) non-verbal means (such as reading 16-point print or Braille) alone; or
(c) a combination of (a) and (b), using any aid that is normally, or could reasonably be, used unaided by another person.
Cannot understand a simple message, such as the location of a fire escape, due to sensory impairment.
8. Absence or loss of control whilst conscious leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder, other than enuresis (bed-wetting), despite the wearing or use of any aids or adaptations which are normally or could reasonably be worn or used.
At least once a week experiences
(i) loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder; or
(ii) substantial leakage of the contents of a collecting device sufficient to require the individual to clean themselves and change clothing.
9. Learning tasks.
Cannot learn how to complete a simple task, such as setting an alarm clock, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
10. Awareness of hazard
Reduced awareness of everyday hazards, due to cognitive or mental disorder, leads to a significant risk of:
(i) injury to self or others; or
(ii) damage to property or possessions,
such that the claimant require supervision for the majority of the time to maintain safety.
11. Initiating and completing personal action (which means planning, organisation, problem solving, prioritising or switching tasks).
Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 sequential personal actions.
12. Coping with change.
Cannot cope with any change, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder, to the extent that day-to-day life cannot be managed.
13. Coping with social engagement, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the claimant.
14. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
Has, on a daily basis, uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace.
15. Conveying food or drink to the mouth.
(a) Cannot convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without receiving physical assistance from someone else;
(b) Cannot convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without repeatedly stopping, experiencing breathlessness or severe discomfort;
(c) Cannot convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without receiving regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence; or
(d) Owing to a severe disorder of mood or behaviour, fails to convey food or drink to the claimant’s own mouth without receiving:
(i) physical assistance from someone else; or
(ii) regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence.
16. Chewing or swallowing food or drink.
(a) Cannot chew or swallow food or drink;
(b) Cannot chew or swallow food or drink without repeatedly stopping, experiencing breathlessness or severe discomfort;
(c) Cannot chew or swallow food or drink without repeatedly receiving regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence; or
(d) Owing to a severe disorder of mood or behaviour, fails to—
(i) chew or swallow food or drink; or
(ii) chew or swallow food or drink without regular prompting given by someone else in the claimant’s presence.

It isn’t a case of someone merely saying they can’t work.

Ok but i'm saying the disability benefit eligebility should change?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Kirbert2 · 31/10/2025 23:00

Perzival · 31/10/2025 22:58

Ok but i'm saying the disability benefit eligebility should change?

What would you change it to?

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:01

Perzival · 31/10/2025 22:58

Ok but i'm saying the disability benefit eligebility should change?

Yes, you’ve made that perfectly clear. You think the threshold should be where your DS is. So which of those do you feel shouldn’t be found to have LCWRA?

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:01

Kirbert2 · 31/10/2025 22:53

So you do think disabled people who might be able to work with accommodations should have accommodations at work? That didn't seem very clear from previous comments.

Edited

I think that would be ideal but in the real world an employer would actively choose an non disabled person over a disabled because it is easier. The disabled person has to work hard to overcome that in the same way others that are disadvantaged have to overcome their situations.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:02

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:01

Yes, you’ve made that perfectly clear. You think the threshold should be where your DS is. So which of those do you feel shouldn’t be found to have LCWRA?

I haven't said that at all.

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:08

So you didn’t post “By my eyes many of those who class theseselves as disabled aren't in comparrison to my ds. How does that work? As a country we can't afford to support everyone who declares themselves to be in need and who do we make the baseline comparison to? Someone at some stage has to take responsibility for themselves.” And when I responded to that post you didn’t say “There has to be a cut off. At any level there will always be those who don't agree.”

GagMeWithASpoon · 31/10/2025 23:09

Perzival · 31/10/2025 22:58

Ok but i'm saying the disability benefit eligebility should change?

Change how exactly?

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:19

Kirbert2 · 31/10/2025 23:00

What would you change it to?

Truthfully i'd remove all lower rate dla and standard and medium rate pip. So only higher rate paid. I'd change the criteria for hrm dla to remove virtual inability to walk. If someone was claiming for mh issues (no ld) that could walk i'd make them automatically ineligable for mobility.

These are personal views, others may not like them or have different views. That's ok, we live in a society that allows this.

I'd like to see a full overhaul of all benefits. I'd remove the right to buy, social housing would be just that and one person wouldn't be allowed to stay in a multi bedroom house because they've lived there x years. The job centre would be able to allocate jobs which people wouldn't be able to turn down, i'd make single mums take qualifications etc change the educational system so kids can take skill based qualifucations from 11 if they aren't suited to formal education. Remove the triple lock and just have pensions raise at the same rate as other benefits, look at the £100000 cliff edge so people work over the threshold etc.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:24

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:08

So you didn’t post “By my eyes many of those who class theseselves as disabled aren't in comparrison to my ds. How does that work? As a country we can't afford to support everyone who declares themselves to be in need and who do we make the baseline comparison to? Someone at some stage has to take responsibility for themselves.” And when I responded to that post you didn’t say “There has to be a cut off. At any level there will always be those who don't agree.”

I did write that and what exactly is wrong with it? Many people who aren't massively disabled claim, as a coutry we can't afford it, where should the cut off be? - genuine question, even the current system has a cut off.

People do need to take responsibility for themselves, there is a limited number of people who can't because they are incapable of that type of concept due to their disability.

SleeplessInWherever · 31/10/2025 23:24

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:19

Truthfully i'd remove all lower rate dla and standard and medium rate pip. So only higher rate paid. I'd change the criteria for hrm dla to remove virtual inability to walk. If someone was claiming for mh issues (no ld) that could walk i'd make them automatically ineligable for mobility.

These are personal views, others may not like them or have different views. That's ok, we live in a society that allows this.

I'd like to see a full overhaul of all benefits. I'd remove the right to buy, social housing would be just that and one person wouldn't be allowed to stay in a multi bedroom house because they've lived there x years. The job centre would be able to allocate jobs which people wouldn't be able to turn down, i'd make single mums take qualifications etc change the educational system so kids can take skill based qualifucations from 11 if they aren't suited to formal education. Remove the triple lock and just have pensions raise at the same rate as other benefits, look at the £100000 cliff edge so people work over the threshold etc.

… Gross.

Key points, if you’re interested:

  • You’re removing only the benefits neither of our children get because they’re too complex. Coincidentally.
  • Plenty of people “can walk” but are still deserving of a mobility component. My kid “can walk.” Directly into traffic.
  • Removing right to buy takes people out of the market. Snobbery, much.
  • “Make single mums…..” I’ll just leave that one there.
  • Forcing people into work will do wonders for retention and you know… wellbeing.
  • People wouldn’t be “allowed” to stay in their homes.

All of it; disgusting.

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:29

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:24

I did write that and what exactly is wrong with it? Many people who aren't massively disabled claim, as a coutry we can't afford it, where should the cut off be? - genuine question, even the current system has a cut off.

People do need to take responsibility for themselves, there is a limited number of people who can't because they are incapable of that type of concept due to their disability.

I didn’t say it was necessarily wrong. It is your opinion. My point was you conveniently think the threshold should be where your DS is. As a pp said, it is very I’m alright Jack. People can still need support but have that type of concept.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:31

SleeplessInWherever · 31/10/2025 23:24

… Gross.

Key points, if you’re interested:

  • You’re removing only the benefits neither of our children get because they’re too complex. Coincidentally.
  • Plenty of people “can walk” but are still deserving of a mobility component. My kid “can walk.” Directly into traffic.
  • Removing right to buy takes people out of the market. Snobbery, much.
  • “Make single mums…..” I’ll just leave that one there.
  • Forcing people into work will do wonders for retention and you know… wellbeing.
  • People wouldn’t be “allowed” to stay in their homes.

All of it; disgusting.

In your view not in mine. A welfare state is a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:32

I'd change the criteria for hrm dla to remove virtual inability to walk.

So you think someone virtually unable to walk because of e.g. cerebral palsy shouldn’t be entitled to HRM? Many of those will use wheelchairs. Some of those who use wheelchairs still won’t be eligible under the VUW criteria. And you think e.g. someone with a prosthetic leg who is virtually unable to walk shouldn’t be entitled to HRM?

If someone was claiming for mh issues (no ld) that could walk i'd make them automatically ineligable for mobility.

Why do you think someone with a LD is more deserving of the mobility component than someone with e.g. schizophrenia? Or someone with ASD (yes, I know, not a MH condition, but then neither is LD) who doesn’t have LD but is non-verbal?

So which of the LCWRA criteria would you remove?

SleeplessInWherever · 31/10/2025 23:35

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:31

In your view not in mine. A welfare state is a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

Except for a lot of people it’s a necessity. And for very few people is it a “life style choice.”

I’m not choosing to keep a 9 year old in pads and replace his bedsheets every 5 milliseconds. I’m also not choosing to spend £800+ on his individual food shop every month. It’s just either that or starvation.

Until very recently, he’d have been in your benefit cuts, because his banding was legitimate nonsense. Lucky for us we can afford 6372828271615 lasagnes.

I don’t say this to SENd parents very often. You might be the first. But you need to check your gigantic privilege.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:36

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:29

I didn’t say it was necessarily wrong. It is your opinion. My point was you conveniently think the threshold should be where your DS is. As a pp said, it is very I’m alright Jack. People can still need support but have that type of concept.

As i've wrote a few times now. Having a threshold at my ds' needs makes little difference as the LA take most of it anyway. The threshold could be much higher it would only impact the LA funding unless they changed the ca, scdpa etc

For those with the most needs changing eligibility threshold makes very little difference.

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:38

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:36

As i've wrote a few times now. Having a threshold at my ds' needs makes little difference as the LA take most of it anyway. The threshold could be much higher it would only impact the LA funding unless they changed the ca, scdpa etc

For those with the most needs changing eligibility threshold makes very little difference.

Many of those with the greatest need will be in receipt of CHC funding which, as I said, isn’t subject to financial assessment.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:44

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:32

I'd change the criteria for hrm dla to remove virtual inability to walk.

So you think someone virtually unable to walk because of e.g. cerebral palsy shouldn’t be entitled to HRM? Many of those will use wheelchairs. Some of those who use wheelchairs still won’t be eligible under the VUW criteria. And you think e.g. someone with a prosthetic leg who is virtually unable to walk shouldn’t be entitled to HRM?

If someone was claiming for mh issues (no ld) that could walk i'd make them automatically ineligable for mobility.

Why do you think someone with a LD is more deserving of the mobility component than someone with e.g. schizophrenia? Or someone with ASD (yes, I know, not a MH condition, but then neither is LD) who doesn’t have LD but is non-verbal?

So which of the LCWRA criteria would you remove?

Edited

Why should they be entitled, If an aid is appropriate?

They can claim under smi if they meet the criteria.

Why do you feel every disability should be financially compensated for regardless of if society can fund it or not?

SleeplessInWherever · 31/10/2025 23:47

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:44

Why should they be entitled, If an aid is appropriate?

They can claim under smi if they meet the criteria.

Why do you feel every disability should be financially compensated for regardless of if society can fund it or not?

Why should someone with cerebral palsy and limited mobility claim a benefit that supports that?

I don’t believe you. You’re taking the piss.

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:50

Why should they be entitled, If an aid is appropriate?

If you genuinely think an aid or appliance means someone who is VUW no longer needs HRM, you fail to understand other disabilities and the scope of VUW. Some with CP will only be able to leave the house because of their motability vehicle.

They can claim under smi if they meet the criteria.

Why do you think SMI is more worthy of HRM than someone with CP or missing limb who is VUW? Do you also object to the several other ways of qualifying for HRM DLA?

Why do you feel every disability should be financially compensated for regardless of if society can fund it or not?

Can you quote where I have said “every disability should be financially compensated”? You will struggle because I haven’t. In fact, I have said the exact opposite.

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:51

SleeplessInWherever · 31/10/2025 23:35

Except for a lot of people it’s a necessity. And for very few people is it a “life style choice.”

I’m not choosing to keep a 9 year old in pads and replace his bedsheets every 5 milliseconds. I’m also not choosing to spend £800+ on his individual food shop every month. It’s just either that or starvation.

Until very recently, he’d have been in your benefit cuts, because his banding was legitimate nonsense. Lucky for us we can afford 6372828271615 lasagnes.

I don’t say this to SENd parents very often. You might be the first. But you need to check your gigantic privilege.

his banding was legitimate nonsense? That makes no sense.

Your post is an example of the issue at hand.

Everyone feels entitled and when challenged are agrieved and seek to pull emotional response.

There has to be a cut off. Not everyone can be classed as disabled for every little thing. People have to start taking responsibility for themselves and by extent their children. Your child obviously made it through weaning, i'm assuming you didn't go from milk to lasagna so what happened? And if they did go from milk to lasagna why does society have to pick up the tab? Why can't you as a family cut your cloth differently?

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:53

2x4greenbrick · 31/10/2025 23:50

Why should they be entitled, If an aid is appropriate?

If you genuinely think an aid or appliance means someone who is VUW no longer needs HRM, you fail to understand other disabilities and the scope of VUW. Some with CP will only be able to leave the house because of their motability vehicle.

They can claim under smi if they meet the criteria.

Why do you think SMI is more worthy of HRM than someone with CP or missing limb who is VUW? Do you also object to the several other ways of qualifying for HRM DLA?

Why do you feel every disability should be financially compensated for regardless of if society can fund it or not?

Can you quote where I have said “every disability should be financially compensated”? You will struggle because I haven’t. In fact, I have said the exact opposite.

So why do you feel so strongly about vuw?

Kirbert2 · 31/10/2025 23:54

Perzival · 31/10/2025 23:19

Truthfully i'd remove all lower rate dla and standard and medium rate pip. So only higher rate paid. I'd change the criteria for hrm dla to remove virtual inability to walk. If someone was claiming for mh issues (no ld) that could walk i'd make them automatically ineligable for mobility.

These are personal views, others may not like them or have different views. That's ok, we live in a society that allows this.

I'd like to see a full overhaul of all benefits. I'd remove the right to buy, social housing would be just that and one person wouldn't be allowed to stay in a multi bedroom house because they've lived there x years. The job centre would be able to allocate jobs which people wouldn't be able to turn down, i'd make single mums take qualifications etc change the educational system so kids can take skill based qualifucations from 11 if they aren't suited to formal education. Remove the triple lock and just have pensions raise at the same rate as other benefits, look at the £100000 cliff edge so people work over the threshold etc.

Well, I'm very glad that you don't get to decide. I appreciate you answering though, thanks.

I have to say that I'm quite surprised that you'd want VUW to be removed as it often covers children who are profoundly autistic. Isn't that how your son receives HRM? Do you think he isn't disabled enough to receive HRM?

Damsonjam1 · 31/10/2025 23:59

Mental health conditions like ADHD and Autism are on a spectrum from mild to severe. Only those whose lives are severely impacted should be in receipt of PIP and likewise DLA for children. I have worked in mental health and know people who exaggerated their symptoms when applying for PIP. Being in receipt of PIP can also be a disincentive to get better. For some people in receipt of PIP, including a proportion of people who have a diagnosis of a psychotic illness, the money is spent on street drugs, worsening their mental health. There does need to be oversight in how the money is spent.
I also have a medical condition and am on a facebook support group. People are told to describe their worse day when applying for PIP so they meet the criteria.