‘Game the system’ disability benefits

[Tomatochocolate]

WTF
just read a bbc article about welfare reforms

Apparently ministers think that it’s an incentive to claim disability benefits as the incentive is no work commitments on UC. That claimants ‘game the system’

It’s a long process and really hard to get awarded dla or pip. It’s not just ticking a box that says ‘I’m too sick to work’.

AIBU to think this is just horrific

@iwentjasonwaterfalls I'm a woman. No "balls" involved. I don't know what you think I'm implying; why don't you tell me?

@TheWorminLabyrinth I don't know what you're referring to.

I asked first 😊

It seems quite arbitrary and random how it's decided though. Sometimes those in extreme need have had their benefits cut or stopped. I don't trust the system. I do get that the current system is unsustainable, perhaps they will make the criteria stricter ? More regular assessments I guess?

@iwentjasonwaterfalls I genuinely don't know what you think I'm implying. My meaning is: that you are not secure that you would retain PIP if a more rigorous grading was introduced. So you are likely not in one of the highest need categories, or you would surely feel more confident that you would be assessed as needing the benefit. Obviously it's possible that you are actually referring to the same type of wider anxiety that I am alluding to (a concern that the whole system will collapse, and no more benefits for anyone at all, no matter how unwell), but the wording you used suggested more specifically that you, individually and specifically, were concerned that you would lose disability benefits.

@DaveyTheCavy Oh yes, I totally agree that the system as is, has many flaws and failings. Everyone with an interest is aware of some horrible judgments and cases where clearly a terrible oversight has happened. I'm not defending the assessors at all.

@iwentjasonwaterfalls I don't know if perhaps you thought I was implying you were faking or fraudulent? I genuinely wasn't suggesting that. While I don't know if anyone on MN is engaging in fraud (I would imagine some minuscule number may be), it is hardly likely to be a common practice, and I never make that assumption of any individual claimant with whom I'm speaking.

No one can be certain that they'd retain PIP if a more rigorous criteria was introduced because the criteria is not applied consistently or honestly by the people carrying out assessments.

My assessment gave the correct amount of points but they'd been thrown into completely random categories; like the assessor hadn't even tried. My assessment was recorded, too, so there's no excuse of "mishearing" or "forgetting". I know other people with the same or very similar conditions to me who've been rejected and had to go through over a year of appeals - their answers would have been near enough identical to mine, and yet they've been awarded 0 points and their reports are full of lies.

There's a category in between those who wouldn't qualify under stricter rules and those who are naively assuming they'll get it no matter what; it's the realists who are aware of the huge tribunal rate and the vast number of errors being made by inappropriately qualified assessors, and worry about the months of fighting and stress and financial worry they'll have to go through at their next assessment if they catch the assessor on a bad day.

If I was turned down, I'd go to tribunal and be awarded - I know that, because I'd have multiple consultants etc backing me up. I'm not sure I'd survive the months of appeals and rejection and stress leading up to the tribunal, though, and that's what we're going to be seeing if the restrictions tighten (it's what we're already seeing, actually)

@iwentjasonwaterfalls So you think there is absolutely no one, no level of disability, ever, that would qualify for disability benefits under this system we currently have (not abolished completely, basically the same as it is now), just with the lowest group of needs removed? You don't think anyone can fairly think they will be classed as disabled by tightened criteria?

You have the right to hold that view, sure. I don't agree with you.

Love to know who gets that much😂

Even those with the highest needs worry every time a review comes around.

No, you're misunderstanding me. Plenty of people, myself included, will be classified as disabled under any new strengthened criteria.

Plenty of people - possibly myself and yourself included - will be left in the shit by assessors using any new strengthened criteria as an excuse to lie in their reports and find people not needing benefits when they patently do.

I will have no issue with the criteria being tightened once we have a system that applies it fairly and consistently, with a robust appeals system that doesn't take months into years to complete - because the current system absolutely does not, and I have no faith that things will change with stricter criteria.

@iwentjasonwaterfalls If you want to fearmonger and try to cause anxiety, have at it. I agree there are flawed assessors and that the system can fail at an individual level, but that's not actually what we are talking about here. There is already an appeals system in place to counteract that. I would love to see them fix the flaws in the system, but again, not the topic of this thread.

I am not anxious about whether I would be classified as in need of benefits following any tightening because I know I still would be. Now you are saying you would be too. That's not what you originally said.

@HollyBerryz Not necessarily.

I said:

it'll mean even more people (maybe even you and I) having PIP taken away from us

Because it will. Not that I wouldn't be eligible any more, but that PIP could be taken away from me (or you) because that's what's already happening to so many genuinely severely disabled individuals, and tightening the criteria will only empower the shitty assessors to be even worse.

You and I both know we would still meet the criteria for benefits under any tightened system. What I'm telling you is that neither of us can be certain, regardless of the length or level of our award, that we'd still be found eligible following an assessment under a tightened system. You can't discuss tightening the system without discussing the flaws in the existing one, when those flaws will be exacerbated by these changes rather than fixed.

The appeals criteria takes months and leaves people without money they need in the meantime. It's not fit for purpose. It's killing people.

If it makes you feel better to think I'm scaremongering and causing anxiety, that's fine. I'm in support groups with people with inoperable brain tumours and debilitating epilepsy who are having to go through lengthy, stressful appeals procedures and getting into thousands of pounds of debt in the process, so I'm seeing the reality every day. I'd love to think it's just scaremongering, I really would.

This. A lot of people will be pushed into emotional break down or worse. I worry my recovery will be impeded massively.

Sadly as @iwentjasonwaterfalls says it doesn't work that way . People with legitimately high levels of need (I'm talking about assessed by consultants, and other HCPs as being in high need, not people self diagnosing) are being turned down or not getting all they are needing or entitled to. It does depend on your assessor, what they write in their report, do they twist things (some do!) Etc.

It's not as black and white as "the severe needs will be ok". Some of us may be, or.Will be, others of us may not.

Fair enough.
I was responding to the blanket statement that "disability benefits have no bearing on UC".

Fair enough, I think we just disagree. I have no problem with people holding different POVs to my own on this; the only thing I object to is when, instead of discussing it, people who disagree with me jump straight to hyperbolic insults. I think all of us can agree that there are people who should get an award under the current system who don't (maybe their assessor lies, or they didn't know how to fill out the form properly). We may then disagree as to whether people who do get an award are conducting themselves honourably, whether they are exaggerating, whether they "really should" receive an award (even though in most cases, not doing anything illegal). Again, it's totally fine to have different views on this. I just don't appreciate how some people leap to the accusation of "turning on" other disabled people. I don't agree that wanting to discuss it is so very wrong. I have been disabled for a very long time, I am incredibly restricted and limited in what I can do, and so I spend a lot of time online. I know what I'm talking about in terms of what I've seen other people doing. It's perfectly fair to say you differ from me and want to set benefits at a gentler threshold... that's not wrong either. It's just a different view.

I don’t think this will happen, but I think there will have to be a cap of some kind as to what % overall we spend on it. It can’t just be allowed to go up and up while everything else is cut. We’ll find out on 26th what Labour intends to do, from what I gather they’re targeting PIP for MH/ND reasons as that’s the main driver.

Out of interest, @Wildflowers99 - if you could decide, how and what would you cut? I don't think we could face much more disapprobation on this thread than we have already!

Honestly? I would make ADHD ineligible for PIP, and all autism cases unless accompanied by a learning difficulty. MH would also be ineligible. I believe benefits are a trap for MH and people just languish on them for years, and with free NHS care and good employment laws around being signed off and long term sickness, they shouldn’t be necessary. We simply can’t have people on benefits for 5, 10, 15 years due to depression or anxiety or whatever. I have OCD myself so I am sympathetic. But I can’t see what practical good benefits for MH are doing bar enabling people to stay at home all day. I don’t know anyone who has recovered from being on benefits for mental health, they just seem to stay on them for years like this man. He’s been on benefits for anxiety for 8 years and wants more. God knows how much we’ve given him for counselling and it’s made not a jot of difference.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo.amp

I would ringfence certain conditions who would automatically be eligible - Downs Syndrome along with all similar syndromes, people with paraplegia or quadriplegia, terminal cancer, and they wouldn’t need reassessing and would be automatically entitled.

Other conditions would be assessed based on need and extent of disability, for example multiple sclerosis where the presentation varies.

I would use the money saved partly to go back into the public purse, and partly to improve MH support.

And those of us with Autism but no learning disability who have needs and costs arising from said needs?

Wouldn't it be classed as discrimination to remove people with a particular diagnosis too? We are being treated less favourably on the basis of our diagnosis

Honestly? I would make ADHD ineligible for PIP, and all autism cases unless accompanied by a learning difficulty.

I have a late teen who is autistic. No learning difficulties. He hasn't spoken to a single person outwith the immediate family for 4 years. He isn't in school, he rarely leaves the house and when he does he needs an adult with him. He is completely and utterly disabled by his autism.

You think he should not qualify for PIP, why?