To be sick of all the newspaper articles saying lies about DLA and PIP

[elliejjtiny]

To get any DLA or PIP you have to be significantly disabled. To get the higher rate of either part you have to be severely disabled.

A motability car is not free, it's rented. To get one you need to either be unable to walk 50 metres or have a severe learning disability, which is very difficult to get.

It's always happened but since the stuff in the news about changes to PIP it's got worse.

Articles in the newspapers claiming you can get a free car for bed wetting, which just doesn't happen. There will be children like my ds who get DLA because they have a number of problems including bedwetting but nobody gets high rate mobility for bed wetting on its own.

There are other articles about people claiming PIP and DLA for various minor sounding conditions and I am so fed up with it. I know from experience that the newspapers will have talked to people claiming PIP/DLA and twist everything they say to make them sound like a scrounger.

All these articles are giving off the message that anyone with any minor disability can claim loads of benefits.

You really dont undestsnd how varied mentsl health conditiions are do you,?
We have both been on similar threads and it seems to me you think mental health condtions consist of people self reporting feeling a bit anxious or low and gettng PIP
No acknowledgemrnt whatsoever of severe and enduring mental illness and how thst csn affect a person.

Well I have OCD diagnosed by an NHS psychiatrist. I felt bloody awful when I was diagnosed and honestly it was so severe I would’ve had zero issues claiming PIP - at that time I had write ups from consultants saying I needed 24 hour a day supervision, confiscation of dressing gown cords etc.

I wasn’t aware of benefits for MH, I’d never really moved in those circles and was never one of those people who thoroughly look into what I’m ’entitled to’. So I duly went back to work a matter of weeks later and honestly while the first few weeks were awful, things got easier, and I truly believe it was far better for me than being paid to sit at home and dwell on my anxieties.

So yes I do understand

Well clearly from your answer you dont
No way could the patients who were acutely psychotic ,or had depression so bad they were catatonic some were so treatment resistive the only thing that worked for them wss ECT ,or had rapid cycling mood disorder,s i worked with when i was a mental health nurse be back at work in a few short weeks
I really dont think you understsnd that some people are so mentally ill that they are quite literally outside of reality.

It's not a non argument. People want PIP reformed. The fact that it's currently being used to part fund luxury cars just proves that some disabled people are relatively wealthy and still claim PIP.

We live in a democracy.

They can only part fund cars that are in the Motability scheme to start with.

@BlueandWhitePorcelain not everyone lives in London. It absolutely isn't the case that it's easy to function everywhere without a car.

That's exactly what I wrote.

I didn’t live in London then either. I had to catch a bus to the station, get the train to London and the tube to the office.

I have lived the last 30 years, on the edge of a small town.

Others have already pointed out to you that it does not fund “luxury” cars. If somebody chooses more than a basic car (i.e. presumably spending what they would have had to spend on a car if they were not disabled in addition to their PIP, so that they can get a car that is suitable for them which they presumably couldn’t fund without the PIP element also otherwise they’d just buy the cheaper car themselves and choose to receive their PIP as cash instead) then what business is it of yours? Disabled people can spend their own earnings as they choose without your permission.

As has also been noted, the trading company of Motability makes a significant profit and repays some of this to the charity. It is therefore not costing the taxpayer more than the PIP that people would otherwise receive in cash; if anything disabled people are overpaying for the cars on less preferential rates than could normally be accessed by anyone via a standard leasing agreement (even when you account for Motability including insurance).

The reasons many disabled people choose to do this are numerous but include: simplicity (necessary for people with cognitive issues), high insurance costs for disabled people (that pesky levelling the playing field issue again), lack of access to finance on an individual basis (due to low incomes etc), or requiring specific adaptions that wouldn’t be possible in many second hand cars or allowed via a standard lease agreement.

If your concern is that the cost of PIP is too high then from a financial point of view Motability is irrelevant because, as I stated, if the Motability scheme was cancelled tomorrow the cost of PIP to the taxpayer would not change at all. It is simply a way to use economies of scale to ensure disabled people can participate in society including, in many cases, get to work, when otherwise they could not do so.

It also means that there is a larger supply of second hand cars in good condition with usually few miles on the clock that others can purchase, so has this side benefit for non-disabled people.

Given the scheme has zero impact on you as a taxpayer, perhaps you could explain precisely what your problem with it is?

If your issue is with the cost of PIP itself then Motability is irrelevant so it’s odd that you keep mentioning it. You keep claiming PIP should be means-tested yet I have explained to you earlier this morning that this would also have a negative economic effect (increasing processing costs, increasing the benefits bill, reducing tax revenue) which I note that you have - conveniently - ignored.

The two separate points you seem to have tried to make (your wish to scrap Motability and your desire to have PIP means-tested) would have no economic benefit and in fact increase taxpayer costs, so I am interested to hear what your motivation for this is if it is not simply just spite at the idea that these disabled people might have access to support schemes that you do not, because you are not disabled.

So you think others should have to accept factually wrong and economically illiterate assertions without challenge and pretend they have any validity simply because this is a democratic country? A crucial part of democracy is that people are free to challenge silly opinions which have no basis in reality.

Are you perfectly informed about every aspect of political and economic life? Most people aren't. They vote based on their life experiences, their own values and beliefs and what they hear in the media and other sources of information.

There isn't one right opinion. That just isn't how it works. I sometimes believe on threads like this that people don't need to be better informed or educated. They simply don't hold your belief system around disability benefits and what is fair or right. They don't want the tax payer to part fund luxury cars or other luxuries for disabled people. Rich people can by definition do that for themselves.

@GivenUpOnSleep it is so boring to keep pointing out that my posts always reference the fact that these cars are part funded by the state. It isn't the gotcha you think it is. I don't think tax payers should be paying anything towards luxury cars. That's my gripe with Motability.

It is simple really, I think PIP should be reformed. I believe it should be means tested and the premise of it should change away from levelling the playing field irrespective of earnings and wealth. It should target those that need it and those that are most disabled. PIP could be means tested like Child Benefit. It doesn't have to be a massive extra expense and it would indeed save money like Child Benefit reforms have done.

Right so in the scenario you describe how is a disabled person recieving a car 'levelling the playing field'? Financially, certainly not as that commute would have cost a lot. Time and effort wise, definitely not. It is clearly preferential to own a car.

You don’t have to be “perfectly informed about every aspect of political and economic life” in order not to make assertions which are economically illiterate. You could, if you know nothing about economics, choose to:

1. Learn about it;
2. Ask someone to explain the basics to you;
3. Realise that if you don’t know anything about it then you’re not in a position to offer any worthwhile opinion on it.

Instead you choose to make factually wrong assertions, and continue to do so even when others have explained to you why they are incorrect and that what you’ve said is self-contradictory, for example simultaneously complaining about the cost of PIP to the taxpayer and proposing changes that would increase the cost to the taxpayer.

You can’t expect people not to point this out, particularly if you refuse to engage with the posts explaining to you why your proposals make no sense.

I haven’t said anything about “beliefs” or “opinions”. I am talking about a matter of fact: that your suggestion to means-test PIP which you state should happen because of the current cost of PIP to the taxpayer would increase the cost to the taxpayer.

Since your suggestion - as you have now had explained to you - would not achieve your stated aim, it’s very interesting that you have continued to say that you think PIP should be means-tested anyway.

This appears to indicate that the reason you wish it to be means-tested is not because you think it costs the taxpayer too much money - because you still want it to be means-tested even now you are aware that this would in fact cost taxpayers more - but for some other reason. I am interested in what the reason is.

Posts like this always bring out the ignorant fuckers who have no interest at all
that very few PIP claimants are scamming the system!

I know several people in receipt of PIP, all had a hard time getting it with the PIP assessors, who are known for lying and twisting the truth.

My son gets it, he is autistic and it takes so much effort to facilitate his needs that I can’t work. I get carers allowance too, so double the scrounging! People hate it when I point out that the option of having him in a residential facility would cost the tax payer approximately 4 times as much as me being his carer, receiving benefits and him receiving PIP. They’d rather be hateful fuckers who like to moan about those inconvenient disabled people.

I also know two people who are so physically disabled that they basically need 24 hr care. 1 was born with the disability and was permanently in a wheelchair from 3, needs turning every hour through the night, has a house full of necessary equipment - had her first DLA claim overturned! She was then awarded full rate care and full rate mobility on appeal.
Another had a catastrophic accident (as any one of us could have at any time - remember that when you’re moaning about this!), it took two years for her to successfully claim, despite being wheelchair bound and unable to do anything independently.

I know one person who claims for her mental health, but she cannot leave the house, cannot work, needs carers etc. It’s not a case of feeling a little depressed, ooh let’s claim pip, as people seem to think. It’s difficult to get and rightly requires lots of evidence.

"They don't want the tax payer to part fund luxury cars or other luxuries for disabled people. Rich people can by definition do that for themselves."

Define luxury car.

You’re right, it is incredibly boring. Nonsensical posts always are, especially when the person posting them continues to do so even when the fact they are factually wrong has been explained.

Re. Motability as several people have already pointed out many disabled people cannot use public transport, if they are too disabled to work then they probably can’t access commercial leasing schemes like somebody working can, and if they are working then a car that might be perfectly adequate and affordable if they were not disabled might not be suitable for them or possible (or allowable if leased privately) to adapt to make it suitable therefore they use the money that they would use to buy a car if they were not disabled plus their PIP to lease a car that they can use. Others may not have the cognitive ability to be able to organise a lease themselves. Others (like in some cases mentioned on the thread) have family members who are willing to pay some of the costs of them leasing a useable vehicle through Motability but wouldn’t be able to afford to pay for one in full for them.

The cars are funded (partially - as you note) by money that would be paid as PIP regardless of whether the Motability scheme exists. If it wasn’t paid to Motability then it would be paid directly to the PIP claimant. The existence of the Motability scheme therefore does not affect the total benefits bill at all. It has no effect on your life whatsoever.

So again, as with the means-testing you advocate, I’m interested in your reasons for having an issue with the Motability scheme, particularly given that it not existing would actually necessitate higher taxes because without Motability cars many disabled people could not work (leading to rising universal credit costs), or get to hospital appointments without taxis which would be far more expensive (per several PPs posts on the thread) and therefore necessitate PIP payments being increased. So far, you haven’t been able to provide any rational explanation.

It should target those that need it and those that are most disabled.

What exactly do you mean by this? That is what the current points scoring system aims to do. It’s not well-designed and it isn’t well-assessed, but clearly that is the aim of its design: to assess the impact of someone’s disability on their life and provide support proportionately to need.

If your issue is with implementation i.e. how the assessments are done, then a lot of people would agree with you. But you didn’t say that, you said the system itself needs reform. How exactly? And how does the above comment correspond to your claim that it should be means-tested. Do you think the most disabled people live only in the poorest households, and that people who have savings or families that can help them financially to some extent can’t become severely disabled?

My daughter who is 6 gets DLA.
The money I receive I pay towards private speech and language therapy and private OT sessions every month.
she also requires a higher level of support from childcare so it also goes towards paying for childcare so I can work. I work within the NHS and I’m quite a senior member of the team and would like to think I bring a lot of knowledge and experience to my role.
Her DLA literally pays for the therapy she should get but can’t because of the lack of support and so I can work.
ultimately all the money she gets goes back into the NHS and support services.

Indeed. Perhaps the poster could also define “rich people”!

Presumably “luxury” means something the poster cannot afford, and “rich” means someone with more money than the poster has.

I'm like a triple scrounger 😂. My son gets DLA and because I'm his carer and had to quit my job to look after him, I also now get UC.

He gets high rate care and high rate mobility so I get one of those 'fancy' cars too, you know, so it can fit his wheelchair and other equipment he needs.

I also now live in a council house which is adapted to his needs because our old house wasn't suitable. We were incredibly lucky and only had to wait a month.

I'd gladly give all of that up if it meant my son wasn't disabled.

I’d consider that motability could be reformed to allow people to buy second hand cars, as far as I know you can only buy new.

The people I know with a disabled daughter ended up buying a second hand van type car that suited their daughter’s needs (needed to be able to fit her whole power chair in with ramps and other equipment. In the motability scheme the same type of car available was going to cost them much more. Tbh they still get criticism for having a nice big car, because apparently disabled people shouldn’t have nice things!

😂 triple scrounger!
It’s a miracle we slap at night. Oh no, I forgot, we don’t!

Some of ours goes towards private physio, OT and private hydrotherapy because one NHS physio session a week just isn't enough and no NHS hydro is offered in my area.