Claimants to lose DLA even if FALSELY accused of fraud (to think this is HIGHLY unreasonable.)

[Darkesteyes]

How can this even be legal. To stop a claimants income just because some bastard has falsely accused them.
In every other instance in this country someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty
Except when it comes to benefits when you are guilty until proven innocent.
But NOW it seems that the innocent are STILL going to be treated like they are guilty.

benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2416-claimants-to-lose-dla-permanently-if-falsely-accused-of-fraud-dwp-decides

Yanbu - no claim should be cancelled until proven guilty.

So a malicious family member or neighbour could fuck your entire life!

Vile.

Bastards, another way to fuck over the poor. Now, where's the number that will put tax evaders on higher rates?

Its fucking disgusting. I nearly spat coffee everywhere when i saw this on my Twitter feed. Im absolutely disgusted.

Fantastic So if someone decides the money I get annoys them and calls in a false claim I'll lose DS' DLA.

That's why I don't tell anyone I get it

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the article suggests that anyone accused of fraud will be just be moved from DLA to the new PIP system as a part of being assessed to ascertain whether they are claiming fraudulently. It looks like the upper and lower limits of DLA and PIP are the same, so I'm not sure why PIP would be worse than DLA - are the criteria more stringent?

They're not stopping people's benefits, they're moving them onto PIP. From the end of this month, if you notify DLA of a change you'll be reassessed for PIP not DLA. What they're doing is including anyone who's been accused of fraud in this reassesment. Everyone will eventually be moved over.

However, there is no lower rate for PIP so if you are claiming lower rate DLA and someone accuses you of fraud then yes, you'll probably lose your benefit months before you would have done.

YANBU, it stinks, but it's worth reading past the headline.

I don't get what the problem is?

If they are found to have been falsely accused of DLA fraud, then they can make a new claim for PIP- which appears to be the same thing (and the same amount of money) but given a silly new name.

I think the problem lies in that you will have the DLA stopped and then have to claim for PIP. Therefore its another 8-16 weeks whilst waiting for a claim to be assessed. Waiting again for all the consultants to write their reports about how the child's disability affects them.

OTOH because DLA is only awarded and awarded dependent on reports from professionals I can't see there being many people who get away with falsely claiming.

My award rate is given on the basis DS needs night care - however I know this won't always be the case and that when my circumstances change we'll have to apply for PIP despite our DLA claim being awarded until 2018.

What si PIP worth? Won't this just encourage assholes to report and discourage people who are unsure about reporting a potential real liar?

The thresholds of PIP and DLA are not the same.

One of the purposes of PIP is to reduce the DLA bill by 20%. Maria Miller admitted this in parliament.

So an expected 20% of people currently getting DLA will get nothing.

Eg the changes include "unable to walk 50m" goes down to "unable to walk 20m".

EXACTLY youarewinning Why the fuck should disabled people be put through all that just because they happen to be ill or not able bodied.
#everydayableism.

saucy jack k and how in gods name are people meant to servive till next claim comes through can tell you don't get dla . When we who are disabled need that money to pay for taxis help with care someone to clean and do things for us who can't .

I just love people like you who have no bloody realistic idea on the needs of disabled.feel you can give.stupid comments as your judgement

And yes, the problem is "just" that some people will be utterly screwed a few years before, oh, they were going to be utterly screwed.

It sounds as if the new benefit doesn't quite match up with the old so your new claim can be refused. If so that is much worse than I thought.

At the very least it means you go without money for a time because of the accusation. Even if you get the money in the end you don't get the money you have to pay back in bank charges or loans because you had to manage without it.

That's why anyone who starts a thread saying "I suspect my neighbour might be cheating - I think I will report them" should get the (metaphorical) kicking they deserve.

I think the article title is a bit disingenuous as it seems to imply that people who are falsely accused of fraud will have their benefits stopped indefinitely (which I appreciate they may as well be for many if there will be a long delay in reinstating them) but doesn't actually mention the relevant information which has been supplied by posters here. It seems like it does a disservice to the people affected to make sweeping statements which aren't necessarily true and not mention the details which will actually have the biggest impact on people's lives e.g the gap between payments if switching from DLA to PIP and the increased stringency of the criteria for claiming which seem to be the real problem. I appreciate that if you are affected by the changes you are probably already aware of these matters, but to garner support from those who do not claim DLA it would help to spell out the difficulties more clearly.

What about a shop a fraudulent MP hotline.

I agree it could be more detailed, but BenefitsandWork is a specialist site and expects a specialist readership, who would therefore know the background.

Now if you're suggesting that a general news outlet, like the BBC or Daily Telegraph should be writing articles with the full background, to inform the general public of the further disaster about to be inflicted on disabled people, I agree wholeheartedly!

I was just making a perfectly reasonable response to the OP cariad- which last time I checked was the point of AIBU.

Go and find somebody else to dump your personal shit on.

Blardy hell.

This isn't some theoretical pub discussion, SaucyJack. This whole thread is about the personal shit that will personally be dumped on people who, personally, are disabled.

If you can't cope with that, go play AIBU games about jam first or cream.

Telling someone that it is reasonable for them to lose money which they rely in until someone somewhere decides the accusation is malicious is NOT a "reasonable response".

Unsurprisingly a claimant came in and forcefully told SaucyJack that she was wrong.....and pointed out the impact. SaucyJack took offence at hearing how this REALLY impacts on REAL people with REAL disabilities.

And sadly this will affect REAL people.

I think SaucyJack just didn't think her first comment through. I mean, the problem's obvious as soon as you think about it, but hey, people do post without thinking.

But telling someone to "go dump their personal shit" on "somebody else" when the impact of this policy is what the whole sodding thread is about...

My malicious next door neighbours will be on the phone accusing my son of having a fraudulent claim as soon as they hear about this...

Saucy The problem is wading through pages of repetative personal details. The problem is being without money for a long period of time. The problem is there is no innocent until proven guilty. The problem is the new rules are different and designed to ensure that 20%fewer people will be able to claim. They will still have the same disability but where they got mobility allowance before, the likelihood is, if they can manage in their own homes, to get to the bathroom, they will no longer be able to claim the mobility component. The problem is this government is penalising the poor and the disabled for being poor and disabled. The problem is this government.