To not understand benefits of £7k a month!

[CoastalWave]

Awful story in the paper today (apologies, Daily Mail! But I'm sure it's in others)

Beyond distressing what has happened to the children (and the dogs) and I'm delighted this pair have been jailed.

But what also stood out, was the comment that they received £7000 a month in benefits.

How?

When my DH lost his job during cover and we only had my part time wage to live on, we were told that £1k a month was absolutely fine for a family of 4 to live on and we were entitled to nothing. Zero. Nada. Out of that £1k a month was our £600 mortgage, £200 council tax, £150 gas/electric etc etc. Basically there was no bloody chance we could live on £1k a month. We lost all of our savings and we're still paying back the debt we accrued now.

How do scumbags like this even just get handed that amount of money per month? And moreover, no one is bloody checking up on them clearly. Those poor children.

link

Can someone please enlighten me as to how these even happens/is allowed? What on earth is £7k benefits made up of? Are all families with 7 kids and not working getting £7k a month because if they are I'm sacking off work and popping out a few more children.

This

@CoastalWave you have been asked this repeatedly but you keep ignoring it which seems to support the fact that you only think disabled people abuse children

The thing is checks ARE made and support IS given with dla/pip

Checks at the point of application and renewal with professionals and the support is the money so the system for checking and supporting is already there.

The neglect was missed by other agencies - ss, schools etc

You are still not getting that if you want to spend a lot of money on preventing neglect you are better off spending it on finding it in all types of families. You need to ask the question why was this not visible to services.

Also if the family had a support package from ss (direct payments ) you actually have to be assessed yearly for that and provide all invoices

It is robust my son gets DLA at the highest rates they dont just give out becaise i said he was disabled i have to provide evidence ,so he,s 12 at a special school for children with severe to profound learning disbillities ,he has a paediatrician ,an EHCP , learning disabillity team involved we have just been allocated a learning disabillity social worker ,for an assessment for respite ,all these professionals write reports which back up what i write in my sons forms

I really don’t think people realise the amount of proof that is required and how hard it actually is to get dla

They dont come out ro check but i have to providel loads of evidence ,from professionals .

In one aspect I do agree with the OP, if there is a significant amount of disability benefits going to one family then a "check in" is not a bad idea. Not to catch people out but to offer support.

My son has autism, through the LA we get payments for him to attend a social club. I get a phone call every now and then just to check all is ok. Just a light touch check.

It will never happen on a large scale, as shown on her people will take it as trying to catch them out and to penalise people but identifying households that need more support would not be a bad thing.

I see you ignored my post OP, if they aren’t coping and need help, what help is there for them to have?

Its been explained clearly by multiple posters that there is very little in the way of help and support left. Why should the money that could be spent rebuilding those services be spent on additional checks after benefit claimants have already been through very strict checks in the first place?

Oh I know I live in fantasy land btw.

FWIW my D's got DLA awarded at 5 until he turns 16, he is now 14.

Mine got it at three untill 16 but MRC with LRM added on at five ,i thought it was great at the time ,but it became increasingly obvious his needs were extremely complex ,it was then a fight ,which i took to tribunal to get HRC and HRM under the severe mental impairment rules ,he was eventuslly awarded the higher rates at nine

Thankfully his needs have stayed fairly static. 14 months to go though and it will be a PIP application. 😬

The thing that the OP is missing though is that there is little to no support

Respite care is patchy and underfunded, children's centres are closed, social services are understaffed and underfunded etc etc etc

The OPs idea would cost millions of pounds which would be taken away from the very little funding that is left, and is currently being better spent on things like respite where it exists

Now if we lived in an ideal world where all the support services were available and funded then a six month check in after the first claim to ensure the claimant or their carer/parent is aware of all available services might be a good idea. As might the odd few check ins as a child with disabilities grows up to highlight where different services might be more appropriate.

But let's face it the OP isn't complaining not enough is spent on people with disabilities. She literally is complaining that families with disabilities get too much money and she should 'sack off work and pop out a few more children'

@CoastalWave I'm curious as to whether you have children?

Because you have demonstrated a lack of empathy on this thread. And actually a lack of empathy puts you, if you are a parent, in the high risk category for perpetrating child abuse, according to studies.

Now you would no doubt be highly offended and annoyed if that meant social services came round in 6 months time to check you weren't abusing your children.

It is unusual now to get an award from 5 to 16. Certainly high rate care and mobility don't tend to be given for that length of time unless a a child has complex medical needs that will never change. We have gone from just mrc at 2 to high rate both at 10 and had to be reassessed at 14.

If child welfare is OP's only concern, why didn't they suggest six monthly check ups of everyone in receipt of Child Benefit? Or is it only PIP/DLA/UC recipients who abuse their children?

The benefit claims are less likely to be fraudulent by their very nature.If you have a life long condition like ASD, it’s a lifelong condition. Children get the money regardless of how wealthy their parents are or what they do or don’t give to them.
There was a big thing about Katie Price getting money for Harvey despite being worth millions at the time. She was entitled to claim it, no fraud needed.

Yes the system seems random ,looking back im annoyed my son waa awarded MRC at three for 13 years because clearly a lot can change in 13 years and it did , after doing a change of circumstance when he was nine and going to tribunal he was eventually awarded HRC and HRM under smi ,i had to renew then when he was 12 , but he was re awarded at the same rates unrill the day before his 17 th birthday so takes him up to PIP

Having read the article I am so so shocked and saddened that these people, who SEVERELY neglected 7 children, have got off with a couple of weeks in prison and a community order.

Those poor poor children

If its so difficult to get these benefits why did these fools get it?

They are clearly idiots and probably aggressive to those around them who bring up concerns. They cannot all be disabled to such an extent that they ALL get the benefits. When this excuse for a women had a child surely questions were asked. I suspect no one wanted to be seen to judge these apologies for a human being so just left it.

@Freeeezing

Having read the article I am so so shocked and saddened that these people, who SEVERELY neglected 7 children, have got off with a couple of weeks in prison and a community order.

They have each been jailed for 6 years.

I've returned to the original story. The case was about child neglect and animal cruelty and the text sticks to this. The benefit figure is just mentioned in passing. The Daily Mail has added a headline focussing on the amount of benefits being paid as part of their political agenda and OP has taken the bait (deliberately or not). There appears to be a subtle agenda for the Government and their friends to attack disability benefits (for example, the hints that disability benefits should be means tested) and this is part of that attack. Sadly the OP has fallen for it and tried to start a pile on against families with disabled children.

The real focus should be on the horrific neglect of the children and how the lack of resources available to Social Services to deal with problems such as this has products this outcome.

produced not products (!)

The real focus should be on the horrific neglect of the children and how the lack of resources available to Social Services to deal with problems such as this has products this outcome.

Ah, but there has to be a group at which we direct the daily hate. Immigrants are a regular target, less frequent but still popular is to have a hate against those on benefits.

(I'm not sure why there isn't a daily hate against those who have their meals and drink subsidised by the taxpayer to a far greater amount than those on free school meals. Or a daily hate against those who grossly inflated the cost of inadequate PPE and were given billions by the government because they were mates with those benefit scroungers).

Why is there this constant assumption that because they are abusive and neglectful parents therefore they must be stupid?

Abusive and manipulative people are often very clever. That's how they get away with it as frequently as they do.