Family member awarded enhanced pip - AIBU?

[Orangecrocs]

My family member has just been awarded enhanced pip in both living and mobility components.
Shes told me that she’s twisted the truth during the assessment and told the assessor that she has lots of pain and can’t really walk at all, but she walks all the time as I see her out and about - we live in a hilly area. I know people who are in a wheelchair and struggle to get enhanced rate - so I really don’t understand how she’s managed this.
I know people will say mind your own business but she’s told me she’s actually lied to them.

It’s a while since I retired as an outreach worker, but, although I can understand ADP rules in Scotland being different, PIP legislation is supposed to apply on the same terms in England and Wales. Really surprising.

PIP is the same. Blue badge rules are separate and are not. Blue badge rules are devolved.

@Rosscameasdoody

The PIP is the same, the BB criteria differ.

It is worrying they will rely on AI.
I remember a reading about a mum getting her child tax credits stopped because she kept getting payments from a 'Martin McColl', which is a shop chain where she cashed it in. She had to prove that a shop chain was not a live in boyfriend.

And what would "unusual activity" mean in reality? Who decides?

I think the original intention was the monitoring of those on income related benefits, so that things like funds coming into accounts in addition to any benefits paid would be flagged up. The problem is that the Tory government were also planning to monitor state pensioners and those claiming universal disability benefits, so it’s difficult to see those as linked to benefit fraud.

The monitoring of pensioners’ accounts could be linked to HMRC l suppose, as DWP and HMRC do work together, but it’s difficult to see the intention behind the monitoring of disability benefit claimants because bank account activity won’t be an indicator of fraud as such. The DWP have gone on record as saying that AI will only look for anomalies and they have to abide by data protection and privacy legislation, so bank accounts won’t be routinely examined in detail unless there is a legitimate reason to suspect fraud.

l think it’s naive to think that the way we spend money can’t be monitored in this way. Linked in with other data that can be collected from things like loyalty cards and online purchasing, it could give a pretty accurate overall picture of spending patterns, which feeds in to how disabled people spend their benefit money.

"It is worrying they will rely on AI.
I remember a reading about a mum getting her child tax credits stopped because she kept getting payments from a 'Martin McColl', which is a shop chain where she cashed it in. She had to prove that a shop chain was not a live in boyfriend.

And what would "unusual activity" mean in reality? Who decides?"

This sort of monitoring could prove difficult for people with regular but totally above-board transfers/payments.

I sometimes transfer money to a friend so they can grab shopping for me on their way over to visit, or if they're doing something like posting a parcel for me.
Sometimes that same friend will transfer money to me because they'll be visiting on a day that I'm having groceries delivered (I add what they need to my order and they transfer the cost of their items, saves them a trip to the supermarket), or they'll send money for me to order something off Amazon on their behalf (I have prime, saves on delivery costs).
Things like splitting costs for taxis/food can also lead to people sending money to each other.

If someone had to prove that a well-known convenience store chain wasn't a boyfriend, I'd imagine trying to prove that these sort of payments are innocent could be quite difficult!

And this is the problem. Online banking makes all of these things much more convenient, as well as things like transferring money for birthdays, Christmas etc. I think common sense has to prevail here, but past experience tells me that it won’t and if this system is taken forward, at least initially, there will be a raft of claimants being hauled in to DWP offices to explain why they haven’t declared Aunty Jeans’ birthday money to little nephew Johnny !!

I had a compliance interview last year because apparently I had £13k in savings. They explained they do random checks and had claimed I had £13k that I hadn't declared. (I have a unique name (anyone who spells their surname the same way is a relative) so they couldn't have mixed me up with someone else.

Was it resolved ? I’ve seen a couple of cases where people have been called in for compliance interviews and the bank account details DWP have used were incorrect, or had been closed long before the claim was started. It’s things like that which make me nervous about wholesale AI monitoring.

I find that highly unlikely.

There is no requirement to send medical or any other information with the claim form. Claimants list the health care professionals they are involved with on the application form. If they don’t submit their own medical evidence, assessors/DWP case managers won’t usually ask the claimant directly for it. They may in some cases, contact the people named on the form, or even the claimant themselves if they need further information to make the decision, but without supporting medical or other evidence, claimants are leaving themselves open to having the claim decided solely on a DWP assessors’ report.

In the event that the assessor or case manager contacts the healthcare professionals named on the application form, the claimant won’t necessarily be informed and won’t know unless they ask.

Let me rephrase that. I find the OP's whole presentation of this situation to be highly unlikely.

I don’t disagree with that at all. Judging by some of the comments here, people seem to think they are much more qualified than medical assessors to decide whether someone is genuine or not - and just based on what they see on the surface. Must be fantastic to be able to make that determination when you know next to nothing about someone’s condition and have absolutely no medical training. Why these people haven’t applied for, and been taken on as DWP assessors is beyond me !!

Forgive me. 12-13 years. Yes, I was previously on DLA. I wasn't stating that my experience was the norm, or that some people weren't failed by it. I was explaining that, despite other posters saying that it wasn't possible to not be assessed more often/without face to face/evidence, well that isn't the case for all.

As I'd said in my post, I wasn't explaining myself perfectly but I stand by the view. Someone unable to do a single thing, with two to one care needs, with 24/7 paid support in their own home, with different bits of electrical medical equipment to keep them alive, all costing money (with only some or not assistance from their NHS trust for the electrical costs) should not get the same amount of money as someone who manages all their needs independently.

I'm not saying the other group don't deserve support, but atm the two flat rates don't really reflect the variation of needs.

For example, my friend has received both DLA & PIP for a long time. When she started she could manage tasks, but it took her longer & she had some symptoms. She had four care calls a day. Walking was okay inside but needed a chair for distance. She received higher rate for both.

Fast forward 20 years & she can do nothing for herself, her capacity varies & has several electrical items to support her coughing, turning, mobilising etc. 24/7 waking support, two to one with partial health funding. She still gets higher rate PIP for both but the experiences are miles apart in the difference life stages.

It doesn't seem right to me.

The term severe disability is thrown around a lot these days but some people have no idea what it's like. Fundings the additional equipment needed & extra funding for things the system doesn't cover is very different to someone who needs funds for a mobility scooter & someone to do a bit of gardening twice a month. That's not to say both groups aren't disabled or indeed, entitled to PIP.

My friend can't even get a WAV to get out of their own home because they need their PIP is required for other basic needs for survival. Transport is a luxury at this end of the scale.

You are welcome to "take issue", but my life experience & that of those around me has shown the true cost of disability. It's not equal, but as always, those with the highest needs suffer the most. The system should reflect that.

Disabled people do face enough judgement, thankfully I'm not judging disabled people but the system that doesn't truly reflect the needs.

A family member has pip. Last assessment it was raised. Her DP mentioned that she could not stand on a chair to change a lightbulb, and a few other very simple things she cannot do. These all counted towards a higher pip, but she walks okay with a stick - better than DP, in fact. The point is that she cannot reliably do everday things which we tend to do without thinking.

completely agree.

Fundings the additional equipment needed & extra funding for things the system doesn't cover is very different to someone who needs funds for a mobility scooter & someone to do a bit of gardening twice a month.

Much of the equipment needed for disabled people is already funded via NHS or local authority. Not, all, and very basic, and in my experience disabled people tend to use PIP if they need something more tailored to their needs which is not widely available.

And again, I take issue with the statement highlighted. PIP and other disability benefits are meant to cover the extra costs of living with substantial disability - whatever those may be. I gave an example upthread. Someone with severe mobility problems for example would need help with housework, gardening, cooking, routine home maintenance. If they need help with personal care, social services charge, and many local authorities include PIP in the financial assessment. If someone is incontinent they are going to have higher bills due to extra washing/bathing/laundry - many people I dealt with as an outreach worker had to buy in laundry services too. And many councils charge for personal/medical waste collections for those with stomas or other needs.

Some people may not drive, so may need taxies, or they may be housebound and much of what they need in the way of consumables has to be delivered or brought in. It all costs, and the system does reflect that - hence the different rates of PIP payable according to the level of disability assessed.

Scope - a very well respected disability charity carried out a survey and the conclusion was that substantial disability carries with it an extra cost of over £900 a month. PIP falls a couple of hundred pounds short of that even when paid at the higher rates. So to dismiss a benefit so important to disabled people as ‘funding for a mobility scooter and someone to do a bit of gardening’ is over simplifying which, from this post, gives me the impression clearly suits your narrative. Which, if you are disabled yourself, is hard to understand.

The NHS, LA &/or PIP/DLA doesn’t cover anywhere near all the equipment some disabled people need. Some spend thousands upon thousands &/or rely on charity grants for lots of equipment.

Scope’s disability price tag research is the average amount on top of disability benefits such as PIP and DLA.

And how much would it cost to have a system that reflects people's needs? Some of us don't have the same costs every week.

I'd rather be given money and spend it on what I feel appropriate than being given a catalogue / items bought for me.

Bigger crooks out there

I get adult disability payment and I spend it on living costs because I can’t work so it doesn’t really cover the “extra” cost of my disability

Arguably one of the extra costs of your disability @ZanyPombear is being unable to work, but like everyone else still having essential living costs.

I remember that one. I think the confusion came because the woman lived about a Martin McColls didn't she? so the flat was registered as something like 1a Martin McColls etc and they put 2&2 together and came up with 5 assuming the shop name must have been her partner.

It's a difficult one. I don't think peoples bank accounts should be checked purely because they're on benefits and a lot of politicians dont seem to be aware of the additional costs of having a disability. However our old church were helping someone who claimed severe poverty and disability. I'm talking people visiting on their days off to get shopping etc the man with the bad back doing the gardening and decorating for them. All the free help stopped when we became aware they'd just been reprimanded for having over 30k in savings they hadn't declared. When the gardener went up to start the decorating work he found they had been moving all the heavy furniture around by themselves and months of the painkillers they desperately needed were stacked on the side unopened too. They had told the DWP their disabilities were that severe they could not even bend down and are agoraphobic. Neither of the latter were true. So there does need to be some sort of surveillance for want of a better word. The difficulty of course would be monitoring it. People often move a couple of hundred into their savings if they have a bill to pay then move it back. I think as long as the DWP sees it being used they don't mind.

months of the painkillers they desperately needed were stacked on the side unopened too.

Sounds like that person is mentally unwell and possibly needs support from adult social care. Not taking needed painkillers, and moving heavy furniture with a injured back (risking damaging it further), suggests there's mental health issues or other social care needs.

Re the savings. If true that's wrong to take advantage of your church and is unfair on the majority of very genuine people in need. But then there's always been people who will do the wrong thing. Including crime. If not benefits crime, they'll do another crime.

It's simply unconscionable to harm the majority of genuine claimants - degrade them and take away their dignity, because of the actions of the few.

By that argument, like I've said upthread, everyone's bank accounts, on benefits or not, would have to be monitored because some people commit fraud, steal from their employers, etc.