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

I rang up to apply for my PiP first week of august. Today they no showed for my medical, which is now rearranged for another two weeks time.
Just to give people an idea of timescales...

I know kotinka,I also knew that you knew it was a tongue in cheek remark because lots of people who turn up on these threads spouting bile don't know

It's a prickly subject :)

Lots of us are when it comes to this topic. Its a sign of a decent human being

YY Sock

fwiw ParsingFright you wont lose your railcard on PIP if you meet the 50m criteria for high rate mobility DLA

the 50m is used to get "standard rate" mobility (equivalent to low mobility on DLA) under PIP and the 20m is a criterion for the "enhanced rate" and is the high mobility equivalent

unlike DLA you can also "mix and match" criteria for points eg if you meet the 50m criteria for physical reasons AND need someone with you or can't always follow/ask for directions for MH/LD reasons you can get high rate mobility, it is stricter than DLA physical-wise, ridiculously so, but opens up the high rate for people with severe agoraphobia/anxiety/non-disruptive & non-aggressive LDs who don't have 24hr care needs, also for people with a combination of physical and non-physical disabilities.

it is important to mention though that if it hurts you to walk, there is your 20m and your enhanced mobility under PIP. if you can't safely, reliably, repeatedly walk 20m in a reasonable time frame, you can start arguing your case from there. but why should you have to. The claimants own doctors reports should come first imo and Atos should only get involved where claimants REQUEST an external assessment due to unsupportive GPs etc. (raging lefty/semi activist here, sorry)

also if you need someone with you in case of falls/fits you can get high rate mobility under PIP whereas under DLA that need for accompaniment would only get you low rate mobility. this is not solely a MH criterion as some people think it is, but about whether it is safe for you to go out alone - eg if you might have an absence seizure while crossing the road, or your hip might dislocate while walking, or you have poor vision but are not fully blind and could miss seeing a car coming where someone with normal vision might see it.

you can get a disabled person's railcard with any rate of DLA mobility

the same goes for PIP: from the railcard website -

People now receiving Personal Independence Payments at any level for either the Mobility or Daily Living components, are eligible for a Disabled Persons Railcard.

Same as DLA - people on middle/high care or any rate mobility could all get the railcard and PIP is supposedly an equivalent

cold comfort really when you take into account the sop of 2k that Motability are throwing at people who are losing cars/scooters/wheelchairs and much of the money to pay for them within a couple of years all because of 30m.

This stinks of benefit scrouger bashing. It is also a waste of taxpayers money as it eill be overturned as breaking equality and human rights laws.

anyway with regards to the actual op there is a stodgy bureaucratic reason behind the fraud accusations triggering reassessment for PIP.

Under the DLA system a fraud report would trigger a benefit review and the claimant would be sent a change of circs form which had to be filled in or DLA would stop. (for cases where major fraud was not suspected - for the daily mail type "golfer"/"disco dancer"/"labourer" type cases they would not touch the claim in case the investigation was noticed and instead do the whole hidden camera malarkey then prosecute for fraud).

this review was treated EXACTLY the same as if the claimant had asked for a review themselves - like a new claim and based on the evidence they could provide.

the DLA stoppage is the same. the review triggered is now for PIP as from Monday all DLA review requests, whether they are triggered by a fraud report or by the claimants own request, are treated as PIP new claims. Grey faced dead eyed bureaucracy. The DLA payment itself however ought not to stop until the PIP reassessment is completed. OUGHT not to.

God it's hideous isn't it... I'm not well enough to be able to be in a car let alone drive, so although I get higher tags mobility I am waiting and hoping that I manage to get a bit better to get a mobability car ... Except I'll get reassessed for pip before I stand any chance of getting better... And I can see my chances of becoming even slightly mobile just slipping away :(

I would hope I'd get assessed as higher rate pip mobility, but hope doesn't mean much now does it!

Its so hard to even get specific medical evidence anyway, as consultants don't want to get involved with any of the social impact of medical conditions. They also seem to firmly believe that they should be optimistic and not limit expectations so they would never write 'she can't walk more than 20 m... Cos they'd say that they don't know, or with physio & pacing there's no medical limit on the number of meters. I was lucky and got a good gp letter that did say stuff like this before for dla, but my gp wouldn't do that again now as I've pissed her off with my constant needs for referrals & tests & medications...

Very frustrating that the two disciplines don't overlap or have any way of communicating with each other.

Toolittle There are very very few people able to "play the system" in regards to DLA. And think about what that shop employee told you.... and put a little logic into it. If there was nothing wrong with them, what the hell would they be doing in a mobility shop??? I think if that employee said something to you along those lines, they were probably just bullshitting.

I've already apologised for my comment that was inappropriate and nothing to do with this thread.
I wrote before I thought about what I was saying.
My actual conversation with someone was about disabled people working, not about if they are claiming benefits or not.
I am a wheelchair user but I would still like to have a job that I could do sitting down!
I appreciate this has nothing to do with dla and the subject of this thread which is about the bloody government stopping genuine claims.

Are the PiP forms as exhaustive or is it purely on the face to face interview?

It took me 4 months to complete the dla forms partly as there are 69 pages, partly the physical strain of doing it, & partly the mental process of admitting to myself how bad things actually were.

It was arduous but also useful as although it knocked me for six, the process of admitting to myself how badly disabled I actually am made my answers more accurate. I had a friend (& medic) rip up the page on walking and forced me to stand up and show her how far I could walk (7m! Lots of tears after) I find it far too upsetting to think like that unless I really have to.

I worry that if it's all on the medically unqualified/ non specialist tick box interview I would have scores zero as they would t read through my replies filled with British reserve and understatement, I wouldn't have known how to answer properly either.

I also worry about the marking criteria with that exposé of the Scottish nurse a year back, who said they were trained to observe and score very untruly e.g. Watch them as they sign, if they can pick up a pen for a signature, that means they can write, if they let you in their door, they are mobile etc.

My DM has just gone through the ordeal of her life after s simple operation went horrifically wrong. Has left her with a trachy unable to talk and will spend an indefinite time on ICU before they even think about moving her down to HDU and then the basic wards. I rang her work group up for her to tell them she won't be in for her next appointment and got told tell her we will ring her in a few weeks. It took me more than once to explain to them she can't physically talk before someone with two brain cells suggested helpfully they would ring me instead to see how she was. Heaven help DLA/PIP if they even try doing this to her as she is most definately going to need carers now. :( coming from this Government however I am far from surprised. No level they won't stoop to.

The PIP forms arent as long as the DLA ones, no, though the questions are pretty much the same. They do most of it on the interview though, well they must do as I never sent my form back
The whole idea of them doing their best to prove I dont need anything really sets off my anxiety. Hence why I didnt send the form back, nor apply when i was first ill.

Breaking news folks:

www.cityam.com/blog/1382706673/iain-duncan-smiths-disability-reforms-delayed-system-buckles

This just shows how inept this government is!

Thanks for that wonky. If I can still any passporting benefit even though I can walk 20m, that will make a difference to me.

(Yes, have to have the "reliably, repeatedly, safely" argument every time. Exceptionally difficult to prove, as some days I can do 50m in a one-off without being visibly affected. But not repeatedly, and not without delayed impact.)

When I had my DLA medical the other day we worked out I can manage about 15 metres on crutches. I can't stand unaided and use a wheelchair. Hopefully that will qualify me for the mobility part, because I've been turned down and had to appeal!

It's nuts isn't it? Best of luck tolittle, although it's frustrating that I should even have to say that - it should be a given that you'd qualify.

Yeah you'd think so!

"reliably, repeatedly, safely" is a mantra for these things isn't it!

I could maybe do more than 20m in an emergency (like, burning building type stuff!)... But I'd injure myself doing so, and deteriorate my condition, and send me into a spiral of cancelling all health appointments/ work/ needing more care, increased risk of further injury. After I've had to do a mamouth over exert before I've seen my whole life collapse before my eyes as a result, there is only so much life you can cut back on to recuperate when you're bedbound 18-24hrs a day and regular stuff like washing hair is laughably out of reach (15 weeks without hair washing is my current record, it's foul and dehumanising).

So I am not looking forwards to some unqualified pen pusher trying to claim that because I can raise my arm without dislocating it once... I can do it all the time.

Arggh! Makes me angry/ despondent/ dreading it even thinking about it

Btw, how successful have you / anyone been in getting a gp/ consultant to explain their condition in words that dla/ atos/ social services actually use to measure disability?

Eg. She is deconditioned and has trouble mobilising and finds it more comfortable to remain prone ... Is not enough but ime they never want deal in specifics such as ... Her intercostal muscles are so weak that they do not support her upper back and lead to a reliance on blah muscles, meaning that she finds it very difficult to remain upright for more than a few minutes at a time.

Surely when a false accusation is proved malicious the person making malicious and false accusations should be prosecuted - quite apart from the devastation they are maliciously visiting on innocent people it must cost a fortune to do all the investigations (as that is a driver of policy it seems).

Maddening.

That's only if you fail to notice that the main policy driver is appearing to save money as opposed to actually doing it.

Shaving costs by not providing support when needed is not cost saving if it costs three times as much to do,it just looks like it is to those who won't bother to look into the figures.

maddening they'll never prosecute unless it's an extreme situation - because they'll say that would prevent people from reporting suspected fraud.