To be taken aback this woman is getting DLA?

[lesley33]

Was talking at work with the receptionist about the changes to DLA and the move to PIP. I am worried about how this will negatively affect some people. However I was taken aback when the receptionist said that she would lose lower rate DLA which she got for depression.

I know she had depression a couple of years ago. But since then she has been in work every day and always seemed fine at work. I know people can be depressed and seem fine, but really if you can manage to work with depression then surely you shouldn't be getting DLA?

Just to say she is a very honest type of person and I am sure wouldn't have lied to get DLA. She hasn't been off sick. And what sticks in the throat a bit is I know there are other colleagues on low wages who have honestly struggled with mental health problems during this time such as anxiety and depression.

And I know you can work and get DLA. I just think if your disability is depression and you can work fine then you shouldn't get DLA. I am her manager so I know she has had no sick leave and there are no special measures in place to support her.

nannyplum you said DLA is "an allowance to compensate for the hardship encountered by a person with a disability." Sorry but it isn't. It is there to meet the extra costs associated with a disability.

So my uncle who has leukemia that will eventually kill him doesn't get DLA. But that is because like many cancers elderly people have, it is a chronic cancer - so it could take 10 to 15 years to kill him. At the moment he doesn't have any extra costs at all associated with it, so he rightly doesn't get DLA.

In that context, hardship = extra costs that cause hardship. Just not put in the same way. The meaning is still clear, lesley33.

Well it obviously wasn't to me. No need to sneer

Actually, lesley33, I WASN'T sneering. I felt that YOU were sneering, picking apart that post, trying to find some 'discrepancy'. There wasn't one. It just wasn't put in as eloquent a way as some posters would put it.

I wasn't sneering - I said sorry before I made my point. And I explained my point as well.

And I wasn't trying to find a discrepancy - just explain the purpose of DLA.

huntycat - if you're epileptic and unable to work as a result, then yeah that's a disability! And yes, I think in your case getting some help is fair. It's annoying how criticising the system immediately makes people think I want to take all DLA away and shut down the system.

However, people keep bringing up anecdotal evidence in support of paying someone DLA, I'm talking about the principal of paying someone with depression DLA as an example of something I do NOT consider to be a disability.

In the example given the woman in question had no work absence, was doing a fine job etc. so she's clearly not disabled. And like I also said, I don't see how DLA is going to change her depression. I'm sure it'll "help" as much as £20 a week or whatever it is CAN help, but that's £20 a week for depression...what else are people getting money for?

I am also concerned about the cost of expanding the definition of disability to even include things which - on the surface - would be impossible for anyone working with that person to detect. So that could include depression which is also hard to diagnose, easy to fake, "impossible to understand" and all the rest of it.

If the Welfare State didn't cost as much as it does, and I think people are overlooking that cost when thinking about DLA and other benefits, then one would hope that all these horror stories people are posting would have been handled better. The last estimate I saw was for income tax revenues of £140B, and a welfare state cost of £160B. How can that be right? Or sustainable? If you were making £40k per year, would you give £50k per year to charity? How long do you think you could keep that up?

People talking about the benefits cap of £26k per year....I'm sure I'm not alone in being staggered that it's possible to get MORE than that at the moment. I'm sure lots of people on these boards think the cap is a bad thing, I think 26k itself is too high but obviously I'm a vicious jackbooted thug for saying as much (and a bad father according to other posters here)

The current system is hugely expensive at the top (thanks to Labour stuffing hospitals full of "consultants" on vast wages) and a welfare system that pays out huge sums in benefits (sorry but 26k per year for being unemployed is insane).

o naturally when times turn bad and income tax receipts fall, the first bill to be cut is the biggest which is the welfare state. People might become reliant on those payouts and suddenly they have them taken away. It's a way of creating a reliance on the government and it's socialism at it's worst.

I don't expect any of this to be considered since last time I was checking AIBU there was a person asking "AIBU to think we'd all be better of under communism" and a lot of people agreeing. There are a lot of extreme left-wing posters here and to me they're intent on building a country that is going to go the way of the Greeks.

wow hunty you must be so pleased as your deemed eligle by th mn dla police.
ffs this thread is unreal

I have a friend with severe depression, she is seen regularly by psychiatrists and is on a large amount of medication plus receiving psychotherapy. She is severely agoraphobic and can only leave the house in the company of someone else.

My friend receives DLA (low rate care) and ESA (which will cease in April now the Govt have ignored the HOL).

So what are her "extra expenses"?

She cannot use public transport and needs to use taxis or friends to get her around.
She has to get to regular hospital appointments.Hence the need for transport.

Not a great deal but £17 a week in DLA barely covers it. She is now learning to drive - (we have a friend who is a driving instructor who has taken her on - my friend feels safe and in control behind the wheel of a car and it's doing her self confidence no end of good. Obviously lessons have to be paid for.

My friend used to be a care assistant in a nursing home which she loved - this is where she wants to work in the future (you note that despite her illness she DOES see a working future).

So - why is my friend like this? Could be any number of reasons but most likely the effect of a very abusive childhood spent in and out of Refuges and also serious sexual abuse and rape ( and I am not talking only vaginal rape here) all when she was under 13 years old.

So PerfectFather - would you stop her DLA? Do you think she doesn't have any "extra" expenses?

I think that society is paying the cost of failing to protect her as a child. Interestingly she coped until her daughter was born. I think becoming a mother and more so the mother of a girl brought the feelings she had buried so long to the forefront. She is a lovely Mum and her daughter will never experience the abuse my friend did thankfully but until the feelings are resolved (if ever) she will need support from her friends and from the taxpayer.

Dillyday - so sorry about your friend. That has made me really sad, especially the 'society is paying the cost of failing to protect her as a child'. I do not begrudge that cost.

Also, I don't see why it is people legitimately getting DLA who are perceived to be the 'reason' why other people who should get help don't. Why blame them? Why not blame every parent getting child benefit? Or every person putting savings in a tax-free ISA? Or every widow/widower who inherits their partner's estate tax-free? Or every large corporation trading in the UK without paying UK taxes on their UK earnings? It seems most peculiar to me.

To be honest PerfectFather you sound like a jack booted thug on here. I can't comment on your parenting except to say I hope you demonstrate more understanding and tolerance to your children than you show here. In short I hope they are not also being brought up to dismiss disability which is invisible. Mental illness is not funny or a way to get cash. My friend would exchange her DLA & ESA in a heartbeat if she could get rid of the awful illness she has.

Sigh.

Can I just point out that according to govt stats fraudulent claims for DLA are 0.5%.

Really not sure what your point is OP.

I've just skimmed the messages on here but am really interested that people with depression may be able to claim DLA. My sister has suffered from terrible depression in the past - as a child she had an eating disorder and also self-harmed to the point that it is only her face and fingers that are not covered in large silvery purple scars.

She has it reasonably well under control now but struggles to find work. Partly I think because of the unconventional life she has adopted as a coping strategy for her depression.

She works whenever she can get it and does whatever is available. I won't say what she is trained as because it is very specialist and could give her / my identity away.

Does anyone know if DLA would be an option for her?

OP I'm sorry to hear that your uncle is ill. It is a terrible condition.

The purpose of DLA (or attendance allowance for older people) is for extra costs but is awarded due to extra care needs. It is not diagnosis-dependant but will depend on frequency and severity, and whether help is needed by day, at night, or both day and night.

I recently applied successfully on behalf of my mother who at the time had no formal diagnosis for her severe memory-loss but needed extra care. This was supported by medical professionals who had seen her.

The dementia may or may not kill her, and in the same way, my son's autism is life-long but if his need for extra care decreases then DLA will be downgraded or removed.

If he improves within the three years that his award is for, (and that is my greatest hope) it is my responsibility to inform the DWP who will assess again. To do otherwise is fraudulent. This applies to every case.

Hopefully that will be useful for you too simonscat

Thanks misty sounds like my DS probably would not be eligible as she does not receive any care for her depression.

I think it depends. Don't think those care needs need necessarily to be met by another person, just that there are everyday things the condition makes it harder or impossible to do. Things like preparing an adequate meal, washing, sleeping. And for how long and how frequently these needs arise. There are examples up-thread of how depression can affect people in this way.

what perfectfather said

Its a hard hard world out there, Europe is on the verge of recession, Greek people leave their kids in the street

There is NOT ENOUGH FUCKING MONEY

so if people have disabilities but are managing to work (good on em) they should not get money. There is not enough out there, they should try and manage on their salary, given the hard economic times. hard but true.

This means that there is MORE money for the people that really cannot work, cannot pay their bills, cannot heat their house

Its not rocket fucking science

Yes anyone who says this, gets a number of post from poor sods that cant work, thinking we are having a dig at them. WE ARE NOT

we cant help everyone, help needs to go to the most needy. there is not enough money to go around

so more people with disabiltys won't be able to work as they will no longer get DLA
wow that is clever, so more people stuck at home.
but hey who cares as long as jackbootdad and his ilk are happy.

You really think you have it all worked out don't you porca?

Let's take their DLA which helps these people work away. Then they will have to go on income support or JSA, Pay no tax and have no quality of life.

Hang on, Is that you Dave?

yeh yeh, cos the £19 quid a week makes such a fucking HUGE difference to the woman OP mentions! you really think that £80 means a difference between working or not? GET REAL

I am real, You're ignorance about depression is laughable.

In fact, You are just ignorant in general but if it makes you feel good to dismiss venerable people then go right ahead because your opinion means nothing :).

"A bore is one who can't change her mind and won't change the subject"

porcamiseria, an additional £19 a week could make a huge difference to someone's quality of life, and yes, be enough to pay or help pay for something that keeps someone in work. I'm not sure why that seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

porc - take a miute to try and understand, or if not understand then just consider that what some people are trying to explain (with examples) is actually a fact that you have to accept.
DLA, even at just £19 a week can and often is enough to enable people to continue to work. Take the money away and they can not work. I can not explain this any more simply.
Surely you do understand the extra cost should all these people be out of work, not paying tax and claiming benefits?