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.

OK, I keep cross-posting OP.

HOW does the SE person cover all his household expenses on an income of less than £26K without DLA? Is he/she a single person in a bedsit? Or does he/she have a PARTNER that is earning enough to make up the shortfall?

In a Utopian paradise, then yes, family would help out. Not always the case in reality, and a LOT of families see no need to be financially supporting their ADULT children. If they are over 18yo, then their parents and wider family have NO legal responsibility towards providing for them. How would you solve THAT one?

And ESA will NOT cover those expenses - as it is SOLELY an out-of-work benefit, which is now time-limited to 12 months for all except the 7% of the most severely disabled - and you'd be surprised who DOESN'T fall into that category. And costs of work lost CAN'T be borne by EVERY individual if they don't EARN enough in the first place. It is a lot harder to cover those costs on NMW of just £11,856 before tax than it is on £25k.

What if you are reliant on social housing, and don't GET a choice of where you move? You could be moved to a village that has NO bus service. Or you could ALREADY BE IN a place with terrible public transport links, which didn't matter when you had a partner that was willing to help you, but becomes impossible if they leave. You still don't get to move. And if you need an adapted property and you are reliant on social housing, it's even worse.

Your posts still don't seem to accept that what is a surmountable extra cost for ONE person with a particular disability is an insurmountable one for another person with the SAME disability. We don't become numbers on a page to be shuffled just because we have the 'same' disability as someone else - we are still real; people with differing lives.

lesley, I think you are confusing lower rate DLA with 'low level' disability. DLA is awarded based on additional care needs- some people with less severe disabilities or health problems have fairly high care or mobility needs due to the nature of their disability- ie, the otherwise healthy person who has lost part of a limb for some reason. Other people with life-limiting illness or severe mental health problems may only have a few crucial extra day to day care needs, and so get the lower rate of DLA. So to say that only having a few extra care needs means that a person who might be severely ill should have their DLA stopped is a nonsense. It is exactly these people who should be getting support.

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

Its not compulosry to claim DLA you know and its a fucking nightmare to do so. So I'm guessing those who do claim actually feel they need that little bit extra. Like multi milionaire Cameron needed that extra for his lad. No-one would face that form and the medical without the need

Oh, and if your'e wondering, for myself and my son, our income is under £16k - my rent and utilities alone are is more than half of that a year.

Jesus christ OP give it a rest will you.

Mind you own business.

trustissues - I would see you as in need through a safety net of some type.

huntycat - Seriously do you think someone earning less than 26k who has time off ill not earning can't manage financially? You must be very well off. Friend is single and childless. Doesn't have a well off lifestyle but a pretty ordinary working class level of income and lifestyle. And actually earns less than 26k

I have never said parents should be financially helping children. tbh because I come from a very poor background I have been shocked hwo much financial help some middle class friends do get from family. From my family and those friends I grew up with, financial help might mean feeding you when you literally have no food the day you get paid, but otherwise, there isn't financial help between parents and children.

I said esa would be a safety net if friend with bad back couldn't work for sustained period of time - so would be out of work benefit.

And I said there still needs to be a safety net for those whose individual circumstances means that their income, friends or family can't fill the gaps. I just don't think we should be doing this for everyone.

floating - You are right I might be confusing the two. I have only posted based on the examples posted here of people getting lower rate dla with low levels of disability/chronic illness.

So you feel that the people that have extra expenses due to their disability should just 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'? It's just not always possible, I'm afraid.

Take two people in a NMW job. One is perfectly fit and healthy, doesn't take time off sick etc, earns £11,856pa before tax for working FT. The other is suffering from epilepsy, and takes between 50 and 80 days off sick a year. ONLY 4 of those days are paid. THEIR income, in the SAME job, will be significantly LESS. If we work on one day off sick every week, that works out to an income of just £9,484pa. I think that one of them incurs considerably MORE costs, to the point of being unable to cover their BASIC living costs, due entirely to their disability.

Who picks up the cost then? Especially if they have no family support. No-one does. Instead, they are left £2.5kpa worse off than a person not yet disabled. DLA was trying to address this inequality. People with disabilities SHOULD be able to have an equal standard of living as a person without disabilities, which they may well NOT be able to do, if they are earning the SAME income, due to their ADDITIONAL NEEDS.

Is it fair or right that people with disabilities should have a WORSE quality of life than those without disabilities? Because the mark of a truly civilised country is how it treats the most vulnerable in society.

Safety net - the DLA is the safety net...so, with respect, what was the point of the post? The woman you work with has DLA for something you cannot automatically see - that's the rub with MH problems - and she's gone through the crap to be able to actually get it - she got the safety net. The Drs approve, the govt approves ( and I hope she doesn't lose it if she needs it) so I'm not really sure I get your point?

I think the point I was trying to make - although perhaps not very clearly - is I don't consider these people our most vulnerable. People with low level disabilities/chronic illness are in the majority ime of over 40's.

I don't think we should, or we should try to, compensate for everything that people struggle with when it imo part of a common experience of being human amongst most adults.

Yes we should care for our most vulnerable and I catually think we fail to do that. i would much rather argue for much much more support for +the severely disabled than argue for support for people with low level chronic illnesses/disability.

no dla is not a safety net. Everyone is entitled to whatever their income and whether they have framily or friends to pick up the slack, good local public transport, etc or not.

So someone not able to walk very far may be very close to great public transport and use that a lot. Someone else with exact same condition may live somewherew with very poor public transport and so may rarely get out as they can't afford a car or taxis. Both would currently get the same level of dla. So its not a safety net in that sense.

OP I feel sorry for this woman that you are her manager, on MN, discussing her like this.

Mind your own beeswax.

Ok, you don't consider them the most vuelnerable - and I guess I can see your point if you don't consider all the factors - but people with low levels of chronic illness who try hard to function as best they can often ARE the most vulnerable because they slip through the net so easily - and risk homlesness on a regular basis.

ffs homelessness! So the majority of over 40's are at risk of homeslessness now! You are just clutching at straws

I.haven't.read.whole thread, bit does this woman ever need time off because of her depression? We don't really know how it affects her life, what appointments she needs to travel to, or support she needs at home etc, that she uses dla for.

Lesley33 - then yes, if he is single and childless, and earning more than NMW, his income probably can absorb the costs incurred by taking the extra day off here and there. What happens when someone with disabilities has a family to support? Is maybe in a couple where BOTH only earn NMW, or where there are children to support. Again, that just ILLUSTRATES my point that NOT everyone with the same disability as him WILL be able to absorb those costs without the DLA. He has a wife and two children. Would his income cover all his costs then ?

And ESA would only be a safety net for him for 12 months. What if he went through a 24 month 'bad' period? What should he do for the OTHER 12 months if he is still unable to work? Or if he is unable to continue to work AND cover all his costs incurred by the disability and STILL have an equal quality of life to anyone without a disbility that is earning the same wage.

Why should people with disabilities have to put up with having a LOWER quality of life just because they DO have a disability. That is what the Equality Act 2010 sought to stop. We should NOT be having to put up with a lesser quality of life because we have to absorb extra costs through disability than someone non-disabled.

Case: Both people, same job, same hourly rate. One has a disability that requires them to take roughly 52 days off sick a year. The person that doesn't have a disability can afford to take a UK holiday, the person who does have a disability CAN'T, simply because the money they would have spent on that holiday has been used to pay the rent.

Are you saying that a person with disabilities MUST earn MORE than their able-bodied counterparts in order to have the SAME quality of life?

Are you saying that a person with disabilities that doesn't earn more than their able-bodied counterparts should be happy to have a LOWER quality of life because they have to pay out extra expenses due to their disabilities?

Because THAT would be discriminatory, and would show to me, IMO, that you DON'T believe that someone with disabilities is entitled to have the same quality of life as someone without disabilities.

THAT is the inequality that DLA set out to remedy.

Exactly, HuntyCat.

lesley- I am wondering how on earth you know whether the people in the various anecdotes that have been shared on this thread have a low level of disability? A name for a given condition (depression, let's say) can cover a huge range in terms of the severity of ill health or disability caused by the condition. If someone says they get lower rate DLA for depression, you have no idea how bad their depression is. The fact that someone is working while suffering from depression does NOT mean that they don't suffer massively and in fact might be in danger for their life if chronically suicidal.

You just don't know, and that's what everyone has been trying to tell you throughout this thread. It is not up to you to judge- that's why we have the horrendously complicated and extremely tough DLA application process.

Im really not clutching at straws.

Apart from my original post, the others I posted are my 10 closest friends who I actually do know a lot about. None of them get DLA. A part from friend with bipolar, none have MH problems.

I am not judging whether people are ill, struggling, etc. I know lots of people are and I know lots and lots of people who struggle on and off with depression. I am questioning the benefit system as it stands.

huntycat - friend who has bad back -if he was off with this for 12 months or 24 months he would already have a lower standard of living with dla than someone else without a bad back self employed in his area of work. So that is actually already the case and won't change.

Or are people with disabilities somehow 'lesser', and not as worthy of an equal quality of life?

(Though , given your posts, I don't believe you are saying that OP.)

Thing is, it is almost ingrained in people generally to feel that those with disabilities should just 'absorb' the extra costs incurred through that disability, even if it leaves them in a lesser position than they WOULD have been had they NOT had that disability. Had I not been diagnosed with epilepsy, I would, given my previous career, probably have been earning in the region of £75kpa right now. Instead I am struggling in and out of jobs that would pay less than £12kpa, SIMPLY because I have a disability. Is it right that my standard of living and earning potential has been so dramatically changed JUST because I was diagnosed with a disability? Should I just 'absorb' the loss of £63kpa? That's an amazingly, disgustingly large amount to absorb a loss of JUST because I have been diagnosed with a disability. Should MY quality of life be LOWER than someone earning NMW JUST because I have extra expenses to pay out of that NMW in respect of my disabilities?

Yes, but would he have a lower standard of living than someone earning NMW? Because if one of two people who are STARTING from the point of NMW is diagnosed with a disability that increases their need for time off sick unpaid, then that person with disabilities WILL have a lower standard of living than even the LOWEST paid workers. How are they meant to stay in employment without the DLA help THEN?

You know as I have said before, I am disabled as well. I have chronic pain and a lung disorder.

From your example - so should the state give you £63k a year so that your income is not negatively affected by you having a disability? Because that is what you seem to be saying.

EQUALITY.

Equality is the issue. Should someone have an inequal life due solely to the fact that they have a disability that they didn't cause, they didn't ASK FOR, and was in NO WAY their fault?

Maybe you feel they should? I feel they should be able to cover the ADDITIONAL costs incurred by their disability WITHOUT being left in a worse financial position than their colleagues on the same wage. Or without being left in a worse place than those on JSA if they are unemployed/unemployable.

And IMO, if you have additional needs due to your disability, then the ONLY way to ensure equality for all is to give a benefit that is designed to cover some of those costs. Irrespective of how much money is left in the pot. Because it is the civilised thing to do.

And, of course, no two people are EVER going to agree on what conditions result in a disability. In fact, even people WITH the same condition may view themselves differently. Where one sees themselves as disabled with MS, another may not. Which is why the DWP sets criteria for who should and shouldn't receive financial help with these additional expenses. If the person with MS who chooses not to claim suddenly changed their mind and put in a claim form, and they met the criteria for payment of DLA, then they would get it. And that is how it should be.

EQUALITY. Read the Equality Act 2010. Also look at the descriptors for DLA, and maybe a copy of the claim form. DLA has a fraud AND error rate combined of just 0.5%. What was the fraud rate on MP's expenses...?

Some reading material

www.mind.org.uk/assets/0001/1805/DLA_Consultation_Response_-_CFMH_Hafal_Mind_Rethink_RCPsych_and_SAMH.pdf

Who will pay for all these benefits?

The young.

My two girls are going to end up footing this bill, and if they get good jobs and work hard, even worse. People will be demanding that they "give back" to society by paying higher rates of tax.

Amazes me that this is mumsnet, but most people on this thread are happily plotting out a welfare state where it seems everybody of a certain age gets some kind of allowance, everybody with any kind of hardship gets a hand out. Like I said, people in desperate need of help due to severe disability? Give them help, absolutely.

But to listen to you lot society is basically half of the zombie cast of the Walking Dead, shuffling around barely able to get up in the morning and dragging their poor bodies to the mill to work for tuppence a day and gawd bless ye, guvna. Everyone on this thread seems to have a collection of friends and colleagues whose entire wellbeing hinges on some small government handout.

Sorry folks, but I think you're deluded. There is only one reality that is irrefutable - we can't afford it. Simple as that. Even if we slapped the financial cuffs on every tax evader in the country it wouldn't amount to 10% of the welfare budget. And if you think things will improve by chasing companies for money, I think you're even more wrong.

"Companies" don't pay tax. The money you tax on a companies profits come out of people's pockets, always. Either through higher prices, or lower pay for workers, or closing up production here and moving to india, or less money for shareholders. You can tax and tax and tax and raise money to give away to people who "deserve" it, but you will go broke and then you can kiss it all goodbye. The Greeks refused to reduce their welfare bill and now they're dead in the water financially. You can either shut your ears and eyes and talk about morality, or you can have an economy and a society. Thankfully it's not up to you lot.