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.

I have filled in DLA and PIP forms for my children, I have supported many others to fill in these forms, and Attendance Allowance.

All need evidence to back up every claim. No evidence no award.

I do not believe that someone with mild anxiety would either go through the hellscape that is filling in these forms or be awarded PIP, particularly if already on a huge wage, so I’m going to file this under T for “Things that didn’t happen”.

You start a thread like this and posters crawl out of the woodwork to share that people they know are claiming for a sore finger or other such shite. And I do not believe them. PIP is not an abused benefit, research shows this.

I’ve already addressed every single one of those points in my responses to you, which you have ignored. Your only response was that economics don’t matter and your “beliefs” and “opinions” are more important than facts. In light of this I don’t understand why you are still responding to my posts and repeating the same self-contradictory assertions that have already been refuted with detailed explanations about why they are economically illiterate.

I am reminded of the following:

I did state the tax payer pays the £300 PIP award. It’s been calculated that it costs circa £1000 extra per month if you are disabled.
Ref the luxury car argument, by the same token I’ve worked full time for 40 years, never had children but don’t leap onto mumsnet forums bitching about my taxes paying for family allowance, free school meals, family credit etc. Or my council tax paying for the upkeep of local schools, basically because I have a heart and consider myself to be mindfully socially aware.

I have no issue with people having assistance to get a vehicle if they have severe mobility issues.

I merely challenge the idea you can lease luxury cars on the scheme, the optics of this are not good, and it does suggest people could be funding their own transport…

The word I was using was deformation....
but there was a gap

There seems to absolutely no room for nuance on this thread. People seem to see this issue as black and white and seem to be falling over themselves to prove that they’re the most compassionate and righteous person on the thread.

I am disabled(Though I don’t currently claim PIP) have helped many people to fill in the forms(Via volunteering with the CAB). I know how incredibly complex a process it can be. I also know that there are more people defrauding the government than the official figures show from personal and professional experience. I think it’s naive and/or blinkered to deny that the government doesn’t have the surveillance necessary to know the true figures and that yes some people will jump through more hoops than a troop of poodles to get money. And that’s what it would take to have more accurate figures among other measures but surveillance like that would cost a fortune. Likewise I’ve helped many people to fill in forms who didn’t receive it and (imo) should have.

It really does seem to be arbitrary as to who receives what and yes knowing how to word the form can make a big difference.

I have had personal experience of a distant relative who abused the system and got it because she took it to someone who was a friend knew what to say. There were no intensive interrogations for her yet others have to keep appealing. And as I became her carer later and had POA I had full access to her finances and paperwork and I know from that and her that, she got it fraudulently. She(who is dead now) is not the only one I knew of. Yet others who are in genuine need have been rejected without. I’m not convinced that there’s always much logic in the decisions regardless of which way they go and I do think it needs an overhaul but that’s a mammoth task and personally speaking I’m not sure where to start without harming genuine claimants.

Someone mentioned that Scandinavian countries aren’t so hateful about it but Sweden and Denmark for example, employ far more intensive surveillance to try to stop benefit fraud than we do here.

The gap was also intentional

I know someone who gets the higher rate of Pip and a motability car. They work part time and are able to travel around the country on holidays and to concerts etc.

Statistically, the rates of disabled people being both unable to work or actually able to get a job are far higher than those of the able bodied population. It's highly unlikely that many in that demographic are going to be earning over the average salary in the uk. Also bear in mind the severity of disability needed to get the upper rate needed for mobility.

I really wonder what you perceive to be luxurious and what luxuries you think people are funding exactly.

Do you have real evidence and experience - not anecdotal - that people who don't deserve are gaming the system or are you just a DM reader/journalist who's bought into the whole concept of the disabled budget bankrupting the country.

Funny how the government always find money for the things it wants including it's own expense claims.

So do I. They work and go to Disneyland and other places. They are also severely disabled and entitled to PIP and their car.

PIP is not an out of work benefit.

And????? Are they supposed to stay at home wrapped in a blanket and wait to die! The ignorance and vitriol on this thread is off the scale!

Careful, somebody will tell you that disabled people shouldn’t be going to Disneyland in their nice cars.

I bet someone will soon enough. And that disabled people able to go to theme parks must be fraudulent. Or that working people can't even afford to go to Disneyland.

I can assure you that this thread is true. In terms of getting medical evidence it's not hard as doctors have said that they tend to back up peoples claims as it's hard to prove for certain that claims for mental illnesses are false. They tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

There are no luxury vehicles available through Motability. Unsurprisingly, Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche and Bugatti and other luxury car manufacturers are entirely absent from the cars available through the scheme.

Various manufacturers of common, standard cars are part of the scheme to cater to different needs because - although it may seem shocking to you - disabilities are very varied and the type of car that is most suitable for someone will vary immensely. Many (most) of the cars available through Motability these days require an additional payment from the disabled person on top of the benefits that are paid directly to Motability for the car instead of the disabled person receiving them as cash.

It literally makes no difference whatsoever to the benefits bill because if someone doesn’t use the scheme they receive the same money in cash instead. Any upgrade to the vehicle is paid for up front as a lump sum by the disabled person leasing it, not through benefits. So why are you so bothered about it?

The scheme reduces NHS costs, increases tax revenue and reduces the benefits bill as it enables many disabled people to work, and enables disabled people who would otherwise be housebound to participate in society. It also means that a large number of second-hand cars are available for non-disabled people to buy which are only three years old and often hardly used, reducing the costs of those so making driving affordable for more non-disabled people than otherwise. Meanwhile, Motability makes a significant profit therefore disabled people are not getting some kind of sweet deal that someone who isn’t disabled couldn’t get themselves by leasing a vehicle privately, but the scheme is necessary for disabled people because often they won’t have access to finance, or won’t be capable of all of the paperwork involved, or won’t be able to get insurance privately because of their disabilities, or won’t be allowed to make adaptions to a privately leased car.

It doesn’t disadvantage you at all, it affects your life not one bit, it doesn’t increase the benefits bill at all, and it makes the difference between many disabled people being able to participate in society or not. So what exactly is your problem with it? Other than that it might mean a disabled person has a car you couldn’t personally afford and you think that they should all be forced to live in poverty.

and?

My son gets high rate mobility which means we have a motability car. Just because he's disabled, it doesn't mean he isn't allowed to have a life.

We have a concert and a holiday coming up.

PIP isn't means tested so you can be on a huge salary - it makes no difference.

The entire point of it is that it makes it possible for people to participate in normal activities of daily life. The shock, the horror! Imagine! A disabled person went on holiday!!!!

A disgrace.

Surely the police should do something about this?

Your post is all over the place. Government expenses have nothing to do with disability benefits. Such a red herring! You ask for 'real evidence and experience' not anecdotes. Recounting real experiences can absolutely be considered to be anecdotal in nature. It doesn't even make sense what will meet your burden of proof. Anything you don't like will be dismissed as anecdotal.

The stats around Motability and the people buying subsidised luxury branded cars is evidence in itself. Pretending that I have some weird abstract view of luxury is also bizarre. We all know the luxury brands of cars. Audi, BMW etc all available on Motability.

The cost of disability benefits is enormous spiralling ever higher. For someone that loves evidence then you should absolutely know that this hasn't been fabricated by the Daily Mail. It is a real and pressing issue that we need to get a grip of.

Oh right. So severely disabled people should live in misery and not be seen or heard.

Did it ever occur to you that their earnings might be compromised by their inability to work full time and PIP is levelling the playing field.

I don’t think it’s means tested is it? They could be a billionaire and still get it. Could drive to their country mansion and everything.

My point is that governments are always pleading poverty but when it comes to what they want they can always find the funding.

You've got a right bee in your bonnet about premier brands haven't you. Take a closer look and there are only some models on offer. Regardless of the name those models will fill a need for some reason.

If more people are becoming disabled perhaps the government should look at why and do something about that as opposed to penalising people who don't deserve it - which is what you're indirectly suggesting.

To be honest I haven't bothered addressing half of your points because they are irrelevant. Trying to claim that someone needs the state to fund part of their Audi or BMW otherwise they wouldn't be able to attend work or hospital appointments is just ridiculous. Everyone knows this is ridiculous! We know because the vast majority of the population (disabled and non disabled) are able to function and do what they need to do without a branded car.

Nobody is denying that poverty is rife amongst the disabled. Means testing can be done at household level relatively easily. You have never been able to disprove this. There isn't an economic argument about why this wouldn't be possible or why this wouldn't save the government money.

The amount of money paid through PIP towards a motability car is the same no matter which car people have though. If someone qualifies for the enhanced rate, why do you think it makes a difference if they have a Dacia or a BMW?

The government isn't pleading poverty. We are in a huge amount of debt as a country and can't continue as we are. This isn't something the government is feigning or pretending. Reform is needed in lots of areas including disability benefits. It will become ever more apparent as claims continue to spiral that we simply don't have the money for PIP in its current form. There is very little appetite amongst the general public to part fund luxury cars and trips to Disneyland or whatever else people on this thread seem to argue is totally appropriate use of state money. So whilst it may technically now be within the rules, pushing good will and empathy too far will just accelerate change.