PIP

[Ostagazuzulum]

I know this is going to be controversial. That's not my intention.

I want to stress that I'm not having a go at anyone who gets benefits. I'm just curious about pip and how it's justified.

One of my friends today has told me that they were recently approved for pip in higher scale. Going to be getting around £700 a month apparently. She doesn't claim any other benefits. She has fibromyalgia. Her and her husband both have middle management full time jobs earning around £80k per year between the pair of them. They own their own home and she's very open about having around £12k in savings. Three children all of school age.

They're intending on using the money for holidays mostly.

I'm just baffled how it's justified.

She definitely suffers with the condition, can sometimes struggle with mobility. and you can see she's in pain. But what's the purpose of pip? Her condition isn't incurring any extra costs and isn't being spent on day to day help. Why do we have it for those circumstances?

@keye
Sorry I don't respond to being sworn at and spoken to aggressively. Though I don't see where my post replied to you, if you have some corrections to make and want an actual conversation, I can accept it and we can agree and disagree as adults, not petulant kids. Won't be reading that. Thanks.

I think the rules for claiming need to be tightened up. But on the other hand I can also see an argument for means testing.

You've clearly never claimed have you? It's hard enough already

Don’t ’faux curious’ if you don’t want to hear the truth.

Of course it costs you money. You pay for all the additional insurance etc as part of your monthly payment, you quite often pay a lump sum at the beginning too.

I understand. My comparison isn't based on what you would do anyway if you were getting a car without Motability. You have to pay deposit, etc for a car without it anyway, so it's not as if you're spending what you wouldn't without Motability.

The benefits are still majorly on Motability side and that's okay. That's why it's needed for genuine claimants because it helps so much with costs otherwise. It doesn't mean that some chancers don't take advantage of it.

As someone on PIP, I actually think criteria should be broadened slightly. The daily living criteria miss out two key activities: cleaning and laundry. You can't live in a dignified manner without laundry being done anymore than you can live in a dignified manner without bathing. Paying for a cleaner and a laundry service is a significant expense, but I don't score high enough on daily living to qualify for that.

Why do you think that and what do you think tightening up would look like? What is your argument for means testing?

It isn't at all.

PIP is a gateway benefit, no PIP, no access to other things for example, in some areas, no PIP, no blue badge. No PIP, no carers allowance, no way of getting a carer into various places. No PIP, no motability vehicle.

Truly millionaires on the whole, don't bother jumping through the PIP hoops if they don't need the above, because it is so hard. There are few of them, realistically speaking.

Generally 'well off' people do, because of the above, those who need to prove some sort of point (ie, 'the system works') do (politicians!)..

Means testing adds an extra layer of paperwork and expense - it is why heating allowances for pensioners are not means tested, it would cost more to do it than just giving them all the money.

Government do like a way of generally counting the disabled people and now we do not hold a register of all the cripples in the country, this is the next best thing, means testing would alter that significantly.

The few outliers who truly are so astronomically wealthy that the costs of being disabled are irrelevant, are so few, and the numbers of people who would wobble between 'entitled' and 'not entitled' as savings/income waivered around the cut off point would be so huge, it would be a total fucking nightmare to manage.

How would you, would you hold a database of people who are disabled but not entitled, and just grant them the benefit when savings dip, how long would savings have to dip, would you be giving them a motability car for six months then taking it away when Uncle Fred kicks the bucket and leaves them 10K?

Or would you re-test from scratch, in case their disability got better in the time their funds ran out? It is already taking months to YEARS longer to sort out claims than it should...

To prevent a tiny tiny number of people from getting a benefit they financially don't need, you would be denying a vast number of people who ARE in need.

We're already doing that for other reasons and it is causing shocking suffering, I don't really think we need to do it more (reducing successful claimants by 20%, when the fraud figures are less than 1%...)

I still think it should be capped for millionaires etc. there's a lot of people in this country doing without and a couple of hundred quid extra could mean alot to some when really do the likes of millionaires need that cash when they likely get more than that a month interest?

This is mentioned every time someone makes another one of these tedious threads. The cost of means testing would outstrip any savings and risk making it even harder to ensure the right people get support. Despite clever accountants I'm pretty sure most millionaires pay enough in to cover it.

He had a son he waa profoundly disabled and sadly died, who he claimed it for its not just about the money ,i t can open doors to several services
And no there is no cut off you can be living in a mansion wit millions in the bank oe scraping by in a coyncil.flat
As long as you meet the criteria.

Im finding it difficult to understand PIP
We are both 68, arthritic and diabetic and dh also has coronary artery disease,
Yet because he can peel a potato he doesnt qualify

The amount of millionaires eligible for PIP must be minuscule. So who are you going to go for next? The squeezed middle?

As DH is 68 it's attendance allowance he can put in a claim for

I'm conflicted on this one to be honest. I finally received PiP a few months ago but have been eligible on paper for years. Made more than one application but was stymied by a system which does everything possible to put you off when I was already in a total mess.

I only received my award after starting another claim, this time online. Although I didn't finish the form somebody picked up on it, tied it in with the earlier application and awarded me based on a phone call with no additional supporting evidence. There are obviously some decent people within the system.

The flipside is that there is a whole industry dedicated to 'helping' people make successful claims - looking at you Benefits and Work - charging real money for guides which tell you just what to do and say under the auspices of public service.

I know a good few addicts and trust me, they know the system inside out and exactly which conditions are most unprovable and lucrative.

I wonder this too, OP.

I know someone with fibromyalgia. But hers only flares up on the rare occasion she would have to do something she doesn't want to do. She hasn't worked for 20+ years. Goes to concerts, festivals all the time.

She also uses PIP for holidays.

I got the full rate for cfs.

I couldn’t attend an interview as l was too weak/tiredso it was done over the phone. I’d suggest this to your friend.

I’m not sure how the “free car” idea has really come about. Disabled people who have significant mobility difficulties are given a higher rate of pip. The government also run a scheme where you can lease a car or an electric wheelchair/mobility scooter as this group often cannot get around (you know because of the mobility problems). The scheme is very comprehensive because it is for vulnerable people who are disabled but is just like any other lease agreement, except it can be terminated and you can lose your deposit if you “recover”

*MumblesParty · Today 00:44

It’s insane that PIP isn’t means tested. All state benefits should be means tested. We shouldn’t be giving public money to people who don’t need it. And it’s all very well saying it levels things up, so the person claiming PIP isn’t disadvantaged by their disability, but if they’re a multi millionaire shouldn’t they be doing a bit of levelling up themselves to help poor people?!*

Bet you’ve never had to claim it.

Mine is used in paying cleaners and gardeners and some therapies. Things I’d never afford without pip. Things l need. I’m too ill to clean or do washing.

It would cost me £700 quid a month for this. Why should l have to pay for essential service out of my own pocket due to my disability? I wouldn’t have these costs if l was well.

You are talking bollocks

For PIP.its about how the disability impacts you so if you can prepare a meal ,self care ,are able to make a journey from A to B you would find it difficult to claim
My son was recently diagnosed with Diabetes he injects insulin 4/5 times a day and because his pancreas doesn't work at all has to take a medication with every meal to help digest is food
But he manages it himself and c doesn't need help.preparing his food and can undertake a journey from A to B so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be awarded
On the other side of it my yonges t son has severe autism and learning Disabillities and gets DLA st the highest rates due to this and I don't think that will.change when he transfers to a pip because he will need 1:1 care for the rest of his life and never be independent.

@ExcellentFabulous

The down payment on my little one's 'free' car is in excess of £17000 because he needs a specialist, wheelchair adapted vehicle, without that he cannot get to clinic appointments, therapy appointments or out and about. Some down payments are lower, some are much lower and some are even higher.

For the record, I didn't write "free car" anywhere.

It would cost more to own the car without Motability is my point, and as I said, that's a good thing that this scheme is there for those who need it as it helps bring down some of the costs.

The disadvantage is that with Motability, you don't own the car and could lose it with reduced award whereas, without it, you could own it after paying it off.

This. I’ve never met anyone who has begrudged any form of benefit to people who very clearly need it. But the sort of condition disability benefits are used for have massively expanded, and it does seem to be more a ‘taking people at their word’ approach because so many of those conditions have no pathology. There’s a lot of info exchange on what criteria needs to be met and how to tick the boxes, which risks people who are not capable of navigating the system missing out, while people who have less severe conditions qualify as they’ve done their homework.

Here is an equivalent car to mine for sale brand new on a dealer site

Deposit, very similar to my motability advance payment.

The monthly payment for this lease is £269 over 4 years - I pay motability £307 per month over 3 years (with the option to extend)

£269 x 48 = £12,912
£307 x 48 = £14,736

Difference = £1824 more for a motability car. This 1824 would go towards insurance, servicing and the excess mileage charge in the dealer lease I get 20,000, this deal gets 8000 with a 4.8p charge per mile after that

If I took a 3 year motability lease it would cost me less than the dealer option but then I would be stumping up another £3.9k for the next advanced payment

All in all, this example is much of a muchness

Of course there are many variables, but it doesn't automatically stand that an equivalent lease is cheaper through motability