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

[Pjnow]

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%?!

“but PIP is extremely hard to get and the very people spouting benefit fraud, admit that the actual rate of fraud is minuscule because the benefit is so hard to get!”

It’s really not difficult to get if you know what to put on the form. I’ve claimed it for people (who need it).
It is very hard to prove doubtful disability though, you need surveillance. There are no resources for that level of investigation.

The amount of people who claim UC and PIP and don’t live in the U.K. is phenomenal.

You can’t have a conversation about it because you’re ableist if you do. It does need looking at, the whole system does - god knows how it could ever be done though.

Civilised societies look after their vulnerable members

Advanced societies recognise and maximise talent and potential regardless of background and other characteristics

My first move would be a massive crack down on cash in hand working and tax evasion. I suspect that might have a strong a correlation with not paying child support. Failure of non-resident parents to support their children pushes families into poverty. Poverty leads to poorer health and education outcomes.

If it's not difficult to get why do 70% have to go tribunal who then win?

The amount of people who claim UC and PIP and don’t live in the U.K. is phenomenal.

This is a statement that requires evidence, otherwise Hitchens' Razor will be applied.

Because they are the ones who should get it and have been wrongly turned down. Those who think they’ll just give it a go don’t bother.

So clearly it's not that easy to get?

I wonder if you or the PP I quoted have actually tried to claim pip?

Yes as in the original post, I’ve claimed it for other people- because they’ve asked for help with it.
Even if you fail the first time, the majority will get it on appeal. Just edited to say those I assisted had medical evidence of their ailments and prescriptions, not just a form.

@pointythings I can’t give you ‘evidence’. I can’t give you stats, not sure it’s something the DWP would make public or if they even care to be honest.. I work in fraud for an LA and we’ve identified it as an emerging trend, along with other LA’s. 16 -20 claimants in one 2 bed property all claiming UC. DWP perform no checks and their systems cannot identify it. Luckily we are local and we can visit and get the claims shut down.

What has the issue of immigrants in house shares claiming UC got to do with PIP claimants purportedly living abroad?

I'm not buying it. Given that HMRC can wrongly shut down child benefit claims in weeks because they think someone has moved abroad, there is clearly data there to work with.

Hitchens' Razor is duly applied - anything which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I know what my DS had to present in terms of evidence to get his PIP award.

I’m not talking about religion either, but you’ve thrown in hitchen lol.
They aren’t house shares.
The occupants do not live in the U.K. and never did. We deal with it daily as fraud officers and managers- I don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t work for HMRC and neither do you, so I’m not sure where you are plucking that claim from either, I’ll apply Hitchen too then. If you don’t live here, you shouldn’t get benefit. End of.

It’s very clear you know nothing about benefit fraud and probably think it doesn’t exist.
Flight logs can be obtained from air lines, including passport data but it’s not part of a data matching exercise, it’s not routine to carry out those checks. If a child doesn’t present to school for a significant length of time an education investigation begins, children being born and registered in the U.K. with flight and education data evidencing they don’t reside in the U.K. just fly over now and then, pop something in their journal once a year, because if you have limited capability for work they see you once a year. Living together cases are a joke, complete piss take. Keeps me in a job though! The entire system needs an overhaul and they need to start prosecuting, not just closing claims down.

It's easy to get because they have evidence
It was easy to get DLA for my son because he has severe and complex disabilities, and we had tons of evidence
That's not the same as saying anyone can get it..,just because they claim they have a disability.

Well, for a start off, it would be interesting to know how many of those are sitting waiting for the NHS to get off its arse and do its job.

I currently qualify for PIP as I sit festering on a surgery waiting list of at least a year (after months of being fucked about by the NHS so I had to go private).

My income was decimated whilst I waited for a temporary (semi-working) fix, it cost the economy because I had to claim the paltry sickness benefit (thanks NHS), I’ve had to go into debt (thanks again, NHS), and I’ve not bothered to claim even though I know I qualify to help me afford to continue working , because I know I’ll get put through the sausage mill and it’ll be two years of fighting, so I’ll just go further into debt doing what I can to keep working with my barely singing, not dancing, temporary ‘fix’.

The appeal takes a long time. I know people who have waited 2 years

I can well believe this.

The welfare state is a very recent invention and its number is up. Unfortunately, this is because of shameless grifters with basically unfalsifiable diagnoses who feel entitled to other people's money because they "struggle" to wash up and organize their email inboxes.

In the near total withdrawal of benefits that is inevitably coming in the next decade or so, it'll be people with profound disabilities who get hurt.

the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire

@x2boys I’m not disputing that people have complex disabilities etc or chronic and disabling anxiety. I’m not benefit bashing.

But anyone can claim to have anxiety and depression and obtain PIP as a result. People can and do take advantage of the system. The bill is massive. It’s no wonder PIP is being targeted for reviews- but they will target the easy ones and make them go through gruelling assessments. LCWRA is even easier to obtain, if you look at the criteria you can see how easy it would be to work the system.

I don’t work in serious and organised fraud but there are some cases in the public domain where hundreds of thousands of pounds have been recovered- large scale investigations.

They still need evidence and not from the GP so from mental health professionals.

"Even if you fail the first time, the majority will get it on appeal. Just edited to say those I assisted had medical evidence of their ailments and prescriptions, not just a form."

That's a real 2+2 equals 5 statement. PIP isn't hard to claim if you understand the intent and scope of each descriptor, know the 4 conditionality criteria (safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and timely), are reporting accurately, and have medical evidence. All 3 of my children get the enhanced rate of PIP, and they all got it based on our application form and the medical evidence I supplied, without being assessed either by telephone, video or face to face. I recognise that I am privileged to have the intelligence and mental resources to be able to find, investigate, and digest the help and information that is available on the internet. I recognise that I am privileged that I have good communication skills so can explain their difficulties in a way that is clear, logical, and accurate. I recognise the 'double benefit' effect of the fact that I was able to use those skills to get them the Educational Health and Care Needs assessments they needed (alongside invaluable support from a poster on MN who gives tirelessly patient guidance), which meant that they have the specialist education they need, and all the assessments that reveal the extent of their needs, which in turn provides evidence to the DWP. In short, it was 'easy' to apply for PIP because the assessor could see clearly which points to award, and they had multiple different pieces of evidence that all said the same thing from slightly different angles.

Initial assessments often aren't easy to apply for because people don't realise what the questions are asking. For example, that when they are asked about cooking, the question is about cooking a simple meal for one person, with all the ingredients available, with all the aids that could reasonably be expected, and doesn't take into account real life. They don't care if you can't lift the heavy pan of boiling water. They don't care if you can't bend down to an oven. They don't care if you chop 10 carrots for your family, but get tired and are in pain after chopping 4 carrots, because one person would only need 2.

Assessments by claims assessors are looking to test the claim of the claimant. Someone that says they 'can't multitask' without explaining what that means, but then drives themselves to an assessment centre, is likely to be seen to contradict themselves. If they had understood that, they might have gone in to more detail about why tasks in the house allow them to get more distracted by external stimuli and competing demands, versus the multitasking that comes from pushing a pedal, steering a wheel, and observing the environment, but is all focused towards one goal and activity.

When they get to tribunal, the panel is trying to establish if the decision of the assessor is correct in light of the available evidence, and the claimant themselves is part of the evidence. So when they say 'You say you can't multitask but the assessor says you drive and that's multitasking', the claimant can say 'I meant that when I'm trying to do things at home I get distracted. So I start to make lunch, but then I notice some washing up that needs to be done so I start to fill the sink, then I forget that I've put food under the grill, until the smoke alarm goes off, then I turn around and the sink is overflowing, but the telephone rings and I'm in a complete mess. It takes so long to clean up that I'm exhausted and then I can't do x,y,z that I should be doing. When I'm driving, I'm trying to get from A to B, and everything I'm doing is focused on getting there safely. I have my phone turned off so it can't ring. I don't use the radio because it's distracting. I find driving stressful but the fact that I'm in the car on my own means I can use all of my energy to concentrate on driving.' This clears up the apparent contradiction.

Another situation might be 'claimant is not under specialist services for pain, so pain is not significant'. At tribunal, the claimant might point out that they were under a pain clinic, but moved house six months ago, and that the waiting time for pain clinic in their new area is 17 months.

They can't just 'claim' to have anxiety and depression. Even if they did, if they were claiming that anxiety and depression were significantly impacting their function enough to score points on multiple descriptors, they would need evidence of care that goes beyond 2 GP appointments where they mentioned they were low and got given some antidepressants.

I'm not saying nobody games the system, but your view of it is inaccurate.

Thank you for stating the obvious, genuinely.

I don’t “claim” to have anxiety. I do have it. Diagnosed GAD that is medicated day to day and requires more professional input when it “spikes.”

Telling the DWP that I have a diagnosis that I genuinely do, and sending over medical evidence that says I need enhanced support approximately once every 3 years, provided I take the prescribed medication that I do to manage my day to day “base levels”, would qualify me for precisely nothing - and rightly so.

All of this “just get an anxiety diagnosis” is offensive to actual sufferers who don’t receive or require benefits for it - it makes us all out as scam artists.

It’s even more offensive to people who suffer more greatly than I do and actually need the support, who still aren’t just “claiming” to have anything. They’re struggling with something those people wouldn’t understand.