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.

porca- it's not about being able to afford to pay for your own help. The ethos of DLA is that a disability or long term illness often means that you have additional care needs which the non-disabled just don't have. Therefore, in order to receive the help you need to fully participate in society (which might include working) you are economically disadvantaged if you have to pay for that care out of your own funds, wherever they might come from or however much they might be. Thus, the government grants DLA to pay for additional care or mobility needs, to help put the disabled on an equal playing field to everyone else, financially and socially. DLA isn't means tested for a reason.

I get it floating, really I do

but in the midst of a recession, I sadly think it should be. there lies the difference

I think it's a matter of priorities. I guess I think that even in a recession supporting vulnerable members of society should be a top funding priority (not least because many people are at higher risk for developing serious mental health problems when times are tough due to financial stress, job insecurity and long term unemployment) What does it say about us as a society if we don't?

That's my view, but I understand that others may not see it that way.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhh

Lesley, do you know Sudaname's son personally? No, I didn't think so. So why are you 'surprised' at his need for a taxi?

Jesus.

OK, I used to earn £45 (before tax, my wage 8 yrs ago was roughly what NMW is now a day) when I was last working ft. If I had to take UNPAID leave, it covered the bills I could no longer pay.

YES £80 a month CAN AND DOES make the difference between being able to continue working or not. Or at least it did for me. Or maybe they get HIGH RATE care or mobility, and get MORE than £80 a month. I used to - and it almost exactly covered the wages from when I had to take time off sick unpaid. Which KEPT my income at the same level AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD I NOT HAD A DISABILITY.

And, again, I have had depression in the past, and I can honestly tell you that it was MUCH harder MORE OFTEN to get myself up and drag myself to work every day, and it left me with a much more miserable existance OUTSIDE of work, when I was depressed, than it did when I was working while suffering from epilepsy.

Those naysayers may like to pay heed to my story: My grandmother told my father when he was my Sole Carer that depression did not exist, and he needed to get on with things, after all, it's not like he was in a wheelchair...2 weeks later, my father was dead. He had hung himself. And I was without my sole carer. Depression DOES exist, it IS disabling, it CAN kill if left untreated.

Thankfully, the general public does NOT decide which conditions are disabling and may require extra care needs, and for that I am truly thankful, because depression can be a disability just like any other. It is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Epilepsy is caused by an electrical imbalance in the brain. Who can separate out the effects of either condition to decide who is worthy? IMO, BOTH are. Someone who is suffering from depression is as disabled as someone with epilepsy, or MS, or dealing with the effects of chemo.

On that note, I'm going to bow out of this conversation, because I obviously CAN'T change some people's minds.

Floatinglotus - couldn't have said it better.

Hunty - so sorry about your father. That must have been just awful. :(

Hunty, I am so so sad and so sorry that happended. really. I may have an opinon, but when people speak like you (rather than calling me an ignorant tory) cxxt I WILL listen and be open to thinking differently, really x

There will be anecdote after anecdote here perfectfather because like it or not there are human beings behind these figures, human beings who may well go under as a result of this fucking unlistening and uncaring Govt. If that makes me a wooly liberal then so be it - at least I have some compassion which is lacking in others on this thread.

Recession or not, those who are vulnerable need caring for end of! If seeing some go under sits easily with you and anyone else DEFENDING the cuts then fine - you are obviously not nice people - plenty like you in the world though and plenty others who are decent human beings and who CARE about what happens to others.

The idea that if the 'fakers' didn't get it, the 'genuine' would get more is bs. The cuts are about clawing back the Welfare State and privatisation. If claimants don't get it, Southern Cross and Stephen Hester will. Not 'hard working taxpayers'.

Porca, I earn a lot I pay a significant amount of tax, I will lose child benefit as I am a higher rate taxpayer. As it happens I believe in universal benefits and so disagree with that but I disagree with that far less than I do with changes to DLA.

I have thought about giving up work as I have a disabled child and in addition to the normal requirements of a child he has about 3-4 hours a day of additional care needs. He receives DLA which I use to employ particularly a physio for his care. Despite the fact he has 2 lifelong conditions (cerebral palsy and hypermobility) as well as Chronic lung disease which should improve.

The physio costs twice as much as his dla, but because of my salary that's fine. All his dla is used on that first however. I also have a lot of time off work for medical appointments. Which I can manage as I work evenings and weekends to make up for it Overall I pay more tax on a week by week basis, than my DS receives in benefits. I also spend between £3 and 15 on parking at the hospital many weeks, (cheaper than public transport) plus petrol.

And I help employ other people (the physio, but also his normal childcarer) who also pay tax.

I am perfectly happy to pay more tax into the general social security pot. I would happily pay more than the 50% I already do to help the most vulnerable in society. And to pay for the DWP to assess people for DLA rather than leave it to random strnagers on the internet.

If the country is broke, and there is not enough money to go around the solution is in part higher taxation of the rich, not removal of benefits from the poor, or the vulnerable. Giving DLA which enables people to work makes simple economic sense.

Did I say I was surprised at his need for a taxi? No I didn't. I suggested though that it may have been more complex as to why he needed a taxi.

I admit - and it is obvious - do struggle with some of the examples given as to why peopel need lower rate DLA. No issue at all with examples for middle or higher rate.

This isn't because I think these people are not affected by their disability or illness. Of course they are. But honestly there are loads of people who struggle with these types of things everday and don't get DLA - I realise now they may have been entitled to it. But I don't see it as a priority for welfare.

I sometimes think people don't realise how probably the majority of people who work full time - and certainly the majority over 40 years of age, struggle with chronic health/disability issues that all incur some extra small cost at times.

So amongst friends/family - and I know they don't get DLA - if I think of the 10 people who I am closest to, so do know about their health and financial situations - all are over 40:

4 are healthy and fine
1 has diabetes - gets tired and has a genetic illness that causes tiredness with walking. So usually drives, but when struggling DP gives her a lift to work
1 has heart problems with pace maker. Gets tired walking and again gets lifts to work - DP goes out of her way to do this
1 has bipolar with inevitable ups and downs including sick leave
1 has genetic bone disorder that causes chronic pain so struggles intermittently to walk long distances so drives and pays more for car parking sometimes rather than cheaper car parking further away
1 has an intermittent bad back. Is self employed soi affects income as on bad day has to lie flat on floor and can't walk
1 has a totally numb leg and foot - no feeling ata ll - doesn't necessitate any extra costs, but has to be very careful not to injure it.

All of these illnesses/disabilities are real. Apart from the friend with heart problems you would have no idea there is anything wrong with them. And all work full time. And none get DLA.

My point is that I think certainly above a certain age, this type of low level chronic ill health or disability almost becomes the norm. I could do exactly the same with my colleagues above 40 and it would still be similar outcome. And I don't think we should be funding the majority of people above 40 for the extra costs associated with something taht is effectively normal.

Fully expect though to get posters saying that I want all disabled to go into institutions when of course I have said nothing of the kind

And just to say I do understand depression kills people - sadly have experience of this. And the person I knew who killed themselves and other who made a very serious attempt would not have been entitled to DLA. Both were of the kind to struggle on and pretend everything was okay until it obviously got too much. They would not have been honest enough to get dla

Definately bowing out now, seeing as the OP has deemed that someone else's son with MS should have caught a bus, rather than paid for a taxi,. despite his MS.

Just because you know ONE person with MS who copes with it fairly well, and is physical every day, it DOES NOT EXTRAPOLATE THAT EVERY PERSON WITH MS CAN DO THAT.

You may know someone with epilepsy who is able to work, too. Doesn't mean that EVERYONE with epilepsy can. Do you get the picture that two people could have exactly the same symptoms of a disability, yet it will affect one of them MORE than another, by virtue of the fact that we are all genetically different. And also the fact that all people have a different amount of inbuilt resilience to START with. If you have got a family that is supportive, and middle-class enough to HAVE the money to help you out when you need it AND the inclination to do so? Then you MIGHT be OK. If you DON'T have that - then you most certainly WON'T be OK.

What if, like me, you have MC family that refuse to help you financially when you need it because they still believe that anyone with epilepsy should be institutionalised, and because I am NOT, they refuse to help at all. Yet they would be willing to pay fees for me to be institutionalised. .

I probably do not have the same amount of resilience when it comes to my epilepsy as, say, my friend that has parents who, every time she takes a day off sick from work, GIVE her the exact amount of money that she would have taken home after tax for that day. SHE finds it a lot easier to continue working (albeit PT) than I do. The DLA helped that. Oh - and my friend doesn't claim DLA, as she doesn't NEED to, as her needs are met by her family. Not everyone's will be.

If her consultants, and psychiatrist(s), and psychologist(s), and GP have all supported your colleague's claim for DLA on the basis of depression, I am sure that there is no WAY that 3/4 doctors have colluded to support her claim for DLA. If you think that there IS a chance of that, then I think that there must be serious issues with the NHS, not the benefits system. OH - and she may well have also had to pass a medical check administered by the DWP.

IMO, your colleague is a genuine claimant. Do you know if her stomach is criss-crossed with scars from self-harming? Do you know if she is suicidal, and getting up for work is the ONLY thing that stops her from killing herself? Do you know if she has Bipolar, and is coping OK at the moment, but next week might be a totally different story? Do you know if your bosses have made adjustments for her in as much as letting her take her holiday as time to recover if she is feeling too depressed to work.

And you can't POSSIBLY know whether there have been adjustments made for her or not - or it would be in breach of both the Equality Act 2010 and the Data Protection Act. And if you DO know, then someone in your company ISN'T following both these pieces of legislation in the way they should, because the Equality Act 2010 covers the fact that 'An employer must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people', and the Data Protection Act covers the fact that 'If you ?process personal data?, then you must comply with the Act and, in particular, you must handle the personal data in accordance with the data protection principles. Broadly, however, if you collect or hold information about an identifiable living individual, or if you use, disclose, retain or destroy that information, you are likely to be processing personal data. The scope of the Data Protection Act is therefore very wide as it applies to just about everything you might do with individuals? personal details.'

I would suggest that if you know SO much about your colleague's depression, AND the fact that you 'know' that no adjustments have been made for her - that your colleague's direct manager is in breach of both the Equality Act 2010 AND the Data Protection Act.

I'm off now.

lesley- you are right in that DLA is massively underclaimed. There are millions of people eligible for it who don't claim for whatever reason (not aware they qualify, don't want to go through the hassle of claiming, don't want the money, don't think of themselves as 'disabled'.) Honestly, I think anything that helps redress the social/financial disadvantage that disability or chronic health issues can bring can only be good for society as whole.

I know some people think there can't possibly be that many disabled people in this country, but there are. Degree and severity of disability fluctuates between people and even at different times for the same person, but disability as a whole is actually fairly common.

You know I wish you would actually make your criticisms based on what I wrote.

I did not say why can someone with ms not catch a bus. I suggested that numbness alone may not be a reason and that perhaps it was also tiredness.

My friend with numbness does not have ms. Therea re other reasons for numbness. The whole point is the symptom not the diagnosis - as you keep telling me.

I come from a very very poor background and have never had any financial help from family since leaving school. Not because they don't care, but because they all struggle financially. This is the same as a lot of people. Not easy, but a fact of life.

And it still doesn't take away from the point of my whole post. Which is that the type of examples that people post that lead to low level DLA are very common and probably the majority of people aged over 40 who work struggle with similar things. Should welfare be paid for extra costs for something that the majority of people over 40 have?

Oh, and one more thing (before I bow out for a bit longer as I'm supposed to be studying!) The point about disability increasing with age is absolutely fair! Older people are more likely to have multiple medical conditions and qualify as disabled. That's the flip side of the human race living longer these days. Does that mean that those older people who do struggle with their health shouldn't get any support, just because their disabilities might stem from or be compounded by the process of ageing?

Perhaps for lower level disability/chronic illness we should expect family, friends and earned income to meet the need. With some safety net there for some.

So the examples I gave of friends:
The 1 with bad back who is self employed and so loses income sometimes. I don't think there is a need for welfare. He earns enough to manage - not a high wage earner and below average of 26k. But if bad back was really bad esa would kick in - other costs such as work lost can be borne by individual.

Person with heart problems who gets lifts to work from DP. DP is able to meet her need and although not a high earner can pay for petrol. She could get bus if DP didn't give lifts and did look at public transport and where bus stop was before moving to present house

Cross posted, OP.

IMO, the two that get help from their DP's, and are therefore NOT claiming DLA, would probably HAVE to if their DP's were no longer there to drive them, as they would have to find additional funds to cover the cost of taxi's on those days. Family Sopport is a wonderful thing - WHEN YOU HAVE IT.

The person with the genetic bone disorder SHOULD be receiving DLA, in order to qualify for a blue badge, as they have extra expenses incurred through their disability. If they choose not to claim it, maybe they or their partner earns ENOUGH to cover those costs, that is up to them. It doesn't mean that someone else, with exactly the same condition, may not be either more severely affected in the first place, or might not have the money to cover those costs if they are in lower paid employment, or no partner earning enough to cover those costs if they are single. And so THEY may well HAVE to claim DLA in order to get a blue badge, as they CAN'T absorb the extra costs of parking. Or maybe they can't even AFFORD a car in the first place.

The person with bipolar with inevitable ups and downs including sick leave must either have a well paid job with a supportive employer - something that not all people with bipolar have - OR have family or a partner that picks up the 'slack', so to speak. If they were single, or didn't get much paid sick leave, or didn't have an understanding employer, or earnt very little even when they WERE working, would probably have to either claim DLA to cover the costs of the time off sick, or would have to give up work.

The person that has an intermittent bad back and is self employed so it affects their income as on bad day has to lie flat on floor and can't walk SHOULD claim DLA, as he has extra expenses caused by his condition. The extra expenses of not being able to work. He obviously earns more than NMW when he IS at work - or he wouldn't be ABLE to absorb that cost and still pay his usual rent and utility bills.

The person that has a totally numb leg and foot - no feeling at all - doesn't necessitate any extra costs, but has to be very careful not to injure it. Surely in that case, that person may well have MS, which is a progressive condition that is classed as a disability from the DAY OF DIAGNOSIS, and in the future he or she may WELL need to claim DLA in the future as they WILL have additional costs in the future.

I believe that while it is great that your friends with these illnesses and disabilities are continuing to work, and cover the additional costs of those disabilities - not EVERYONE with the same disabilities will be able to. And THOSE people SHOULD be entitled to DLA to cover those costs. If you were on NMW, and had to take a day off sick unpaid due to a disability, and you were single with little family support, you would NOT be able to cover your basic living costs without DLA.

I think the real disagreement here is: should the state meet extra costs people may face because of chronic illnesses/disabilities or not? And although there needs to be a safety net, I think in general the state shouldn't.

And please note I am talking about the types of examples people have posted that refer to low rate dla - so not more severe disabilities.

floating - Of course disability increases with age and of course older people who are disabled should get support. But I think at the level of disability being discussed it is almost part of the human condition and so no I don't think at that level the state should.

hunty - friend with numbness does NOT have ms - believe me. There are other reasosn for numbness - it has been diagnosed.

'Perhaps for lower level disability/chronic illness we should expect family, friends and earned income to meet the need. With some safety net there for some.'

And if they have no family or friends?
The support they get may help to keep them in work or their disability at a low level.

And genetic bone disorder - they did enquire about blue badge but told it is only if you can not walk further than x yards - can't remember how far. Friend can and doesn't really need disabled parking spaces. But can not walk far enough easily to park in further away car parks, so has to pay more by parking in most expensive car parks close to shops.

kal - Or their income? For some lowser level examples given, including some of my friends, their income covers the small extra cost.

And a safety net remember?

SO what your'e saying, lesley, that although I probably would qualify for the lower rate (if I could actually emotionally stand up to the crap I would have to go through to get it) with my depresion, anxiety and subsequent frequent bouts of insomnia which cause me to frequently have sporadic periods of unpaid sick leave which I cannot afford because I'm a single mother...I shouldn't have the right to extra monetary support? When my regular absence from work sets off a cascade of events (eg bounced poll tax direct debit £20 to the bank and I still have to find the money for the bounced poll tax) and I can barely put enough money on one side to pay for my transport costs to get to work when I'm well, that I shouldn't be entitled to DLA and my parents, who barely meet their bills every month, should pick up the slack?