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.

It’s frighteningly common for those who handle these cases to not have the skill set or knowledge to be able to identify what they are, and this leads to increased lack of support which can leave families far more likely to need state help. Autism training is embarrassingly bad.

My son was one of these. Teachers apparently couldn’t see it (and simultaneously asked for behaviour support), the behavioural “experts” couldn’t see it, but did see a rather disordered home life due entirely to constantly dealing with him and his post school meltdowns. If we could get him to settle in front of a screen it was a huge relief, but in reality for years we were dealing with violent meltdowns every evening due to lack of support in school.

You could meet my son and you wouldn’t recognise any of his difficulties, because he wouldn’t know you and wouldn’t want you to see what only those closest (and those who are also autistic and easily recognise it) to him have seen. Yet you would meet him, assume we were lying, gaslight us and write us off as crap parents.

This kind of judgement is so harmful to so many children, but you are so sure of what you’re saying so you are oblivious to the hurt you’re creating.

I hope to god you’re not currently working with these families. With your attitude you could be causing a whole lot of unnecessary heartache for them.

I don't even understand half of this hateful waffle tbh.

I am aware of many families who have members whom claim the mentioned benefits and then their relatives receive a carers allowance for mental health / asd who could easily work and their relatives who claim
the allowance don’t even live with them (but state they do on the forms) and drive the mobility cars for their own use. It does happen.

however, I also am aware that there are also many many genuine claimants who receive the benefits and struggle with the application process and struggle with the accessibility of the system.

The existence of one does not remove the other- just because there are many genuine people who struggle to rightly qualify for the benefits does not mean that others can not manipulate and abuse the system.

I think this so where the problem lies.

If you have a job where you employer is demanding that you repeatedly, deliberately break the law then if you are a proper professional you resign. This is what people do in properly regulated professions: medicine, law, finance.

”My employer told me to” or “everyone was doing it” is not a legally valid defence. A proper regulator would come down on this like a ton of bricks, ensure all such staff were removed from post and barred from further work in the sector, and levy sufficiently significant fines on Local Authorities and schools to remove the financial incentives driving this illegal behaviour (alongside their belief that they can continually break the law with impunity. You can be your house that if they knew they’d be hauled up in court to explain themselve and face personal fines, prison sentences for repeated breaches, removal of professional qualifications as well as appropriate penalities actually being levelled against the organisations in question like in all other sectors, that this law breaking and all of these spurious excuses would mysteriously disappear).

Anybody who wishes to call themselves a professional would not comply with demands from management to breach the statutory or legal requirements governing their profession. It’s even more shocking in this case that you’d be trying to defend it when the work involves a duty of care to vulnerable minors as set out in law. The very fact that anybody is shrugging their shoulders like you are and attempting to defend it is evidence in itself of just how rotten to the core the culture has become.

I have been in this situation before in my own profession when far more junior, i.e. demands from someone far more senior to do something that breached regulations. I refused. That is what integrity looks like in practice. If necessary I’d have resigned. That is how a proper professional behaves, and there is no excuse to do otherwise. There are bad apples in every sector and the defensive attitude where staff refuse to ackbnowledge this and pretend that everyone in their profession is angelic is another sign of a rotten culture that has become more about the interests of the staff than the job that they are being paid to perform.

Competent professional bodies enforce their codes of practice and ethical codes stringently. The immediately suspend staff when breaches of law or statute are reported and investigate these cases. They take legal action and issue personal fines against the individuals involved and strip them of their professional qualifications. Professionals with any integrity welcome this system and would whistleblow on any colleague behaving in such a manner because it brings the entire profession into disrepute. It is never, ever acceptable, and the excuses that you’ve provided would be laughed at by any competent professional body doing their job.

The same is true for regulation. Without effective enforcement a law may as well not exist. OFSTED is a joke as is Social Work England, as is the Teacher Regulation Authority. It may seem like an outrageous suggestion to the people who have been operating in such a system who have come to think that this is the norm, but it really isn’t. This wouldn’t be tolerated in any other sector and when, eventually, proper enforcement of the law is put in place all of the so-called professionals lacking in integrity who attempt to excuse their appalling behaviour will be given quite a dose of reality and get their comeuppance, and rightly so. This, in turn, will make the working environment far better for the remaining staff and future staff who aren’t prepared to participate in or turn a blind eye to illegal behaviour.

The fact that you have posted what you have about this shows precisely the need to take a zero-tolerance approach to clear out the bad apples that have been allowed to remain for so long that their mould has spread and they’ve made almost the entire barrel rotten now. A complete reset is required for anything to improve, alongside additional funding as I said earlier. As it stands, no amount of additional funding without these reforms could fix it because the people who would be given oversight of using that funding have demonstrated that they aren’t fit for any role where they have a duty of care to vulnerable people or minors and have no respect for law of regulations, so presumably have just as little regard for the regulations around managing public money as they do for safeguarding.

I think we’ll have to see this from different angles.

They have mortgages to pay. I don’t blame them for not resigning on account of their conscience. That’s a luxury few can afford. Your expectations are pie in the sky. Given many hospitals are very stretched also, do you think all nurses and doctors should resign?

Because it is utter nonsense and contradicts all credible medical and economic data on the subjects on which you have regaled us with your irrational, factually wrong and frankly deeply unpleasant “views”.

Well we soon discover these people and every 80 + pounds a week has to payed back and as it's fraud 90 per cent go to prison

Like so many do until they’re the ones who are struggling and they are gaslit and then miraculously understand where we were coming from in the first place.

You’ve got this wrong, very wrong. I hope for your sake that you’re never in the position to find out first hand. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

In that case they cannot refer to themselves as professionals. They are deliberately and repeatedly breaching their professional codes of conduct and ethical codes. They are also deliberately repeatedly breaching statutory regulations and laws. Being an apologist for criminal behaviour doesn’t reflect well on you.

People who work in properly regulated professions such as medicine, finance and law all have mortgages to pay as well, you know. Deliberately harming families and children when the job which you are being paid for is to help and protect them is utterly disgraceful and inexcusable. Trying to gaslight and blame them for your failure to do your job even to the minimum standard required to comply with the laws governing your profession is beyond the pale and the fact you’d openly admit it and then try to defend it says everything people need to know and proves precisely what I said above to be the case.

their relatives who claim
the allowance don’t even live with them (but state they do on the forms)

Why do they state on the forms that they live with the person they care for? What advantage is that to them?

I think the majority of claims will be genuine etc but there are and will always be people who try to abuse the system- just as there are many people who pay tax correctly and many who try to avoid it

Yes, 99% of cases that come before a judge - i.e. someone who respects the law and actually understands it - find in favour of the parents.

This statistic has been relatively static for a number of years, between 98% and 99%.

It’s quite clear that anybody arguing that the parents are the problem and the Local Authorities are behaving appropriately is either delusional or deliberately attempting to deflect blame because they have a vested interest and are personally involved in and participating in this illegal behaviour that the court statistics demonstrate beyond any doubt is widespread. They’ve got away with it for so long that they can’t comprehend the fact that it’s unacceptable to break the law and that there might be consequences for this at some point when proper historical reviews are conducted.

That’s also why they are so resistant to the idea of proper regulation. They’re most likely terrified by the idea because even discussing it may have made them realise what the personal consequences would be when it is finally implemented: stripping of professional qualifications, publication of their name and wrongdoing so public disgrace, personal fines and - in cases of repeated and deliberate breaches - prison sentences. This is not at all outlandish, it’s standard regulation of professions in every other sector.

It can’t come soon enough.

But can you answer my question, please?

Why do the carers you are talking about state on the forms for carer's allowance that they live with the person they care for if they don't live with them? What advantage is that to them?

You’ve been told where the data comes from. Several times.

@PandoraSoxno idea, he lived with my friends cousin and early visited his parents whom he was meant to care for, whom he received carers allowence for and used to boast that they didn’t need him and she could also get benefits as she is autistic but fully capable of working. He tried to convince her to get dla and apply for him to also be his carer saying his patently have done it for years.

luckily because of this and other abuse from both him and his parents the girlfriend has since ended the relationship.

i say this to show it is possible but do not way to give the impression this is the majority as it won’t be but these cases do happen

however there are many genuine people who then struggle to qualify so I think the system was in need of a redesign (is it fixed? - that’s another story entirely)

he lived with my friends cousin and early visited his parents whom he was meant to care for, whom he received carers allowence for and used to boast that they didn’t need him and she could also get benefits as she is autistic but fully capable of working. He tried to convince her to get dla and apply for him to also be his carer saying his patently have done it for years

So much of what you say here and in your other post indicates that your story may not be totally reliable.

he lived with my friends cousin and early visited his parents whom he was meant to care for,

Carers don't need to live with their carer to get carer's allowance.

He tried to convince her to get dla

You don't just 'get ' DLA, (which doesn't actually exist any longer for new claims for working age people)

she could also get benefits as she is autistic but fully capable of working

You can work and recieve PIP

apply for him to also be his carer

You can only get carer's allowance once, even if you care for more than one person.

Is it deliberate if the resources aren’t there? If the law stated tomorrow you had to pay 50% of your house’s value in tax, could you do it? Do you deserve to be in jail if you don’t for ‘deliberately’ not paying? This is an utter nonsense.

I have provided calculations and data and the sources of my data.

You have as yet still provided us with no explanation of your assertion that means testing is “cheap and simple” which contradicts all of the data I have provided. You demanded sources from me, but have provided no data or sources whatsoever to back up your assertion. Why is that?

You have said you think the figures I provided are wrong, but haven’t said which ones are wrong, or provided your evidence and sources for this. Where are they? Where is the data to support your assertions that contradicts the data from the NAO, the OBR, the ONS. I’m not going to post links to the specific pages from which each figure is available because Google exists and you’re not paying me for my time.

Then there is the independent economic research I referenced which are all publicly available for you to look at? There is also research on this from Loughborough University, King’s College London, and many others, on the economic effects of cliff-edges created by means-testing taxes and benefits. Just a few examples below. Since you delared you know nothing about economics, for a very simplistic visual demonstration of the absurd effects the final link may be particularly useful:

King’s: kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-impact-of-income-tax-changes-on-government-revenue-moving-bey

A simple article on some other studies e.g. Loughborough: https://theconversation.com/how-cuts-to-marginal-income-tax-could-boost-the-uks-stagnant-economic-growth-226758

Several graphs showing the effects of means testing various services/ benefits, precisely what recent universal credit reforms are aiming to remove in one specific case but many more remain, distorting economic activity and reducing economic activity and growth, lowering tax revenues and creating skills shortages: taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/17/reform-income-tax-end-the-scandal-of-high-marginal-rates/

I’ve tried to keep it simple for you with accessible articles summarising some of the simpler studies that aren’t too mathematical and complex in technical detail since you stated you’re not knowledgeable about this area, but high quality and evidenced articles referring to their sources. There are many, many more technical papers studying similar phenomena in multiple different countries which is why most comparable developed countries do not adopt such an approach because - lucky for them - they largely have competent politicians who tend to make evidence-based policy decisions.

Now, I’ve wasted a great deal of my time on this and tolerated you insulting my professional competence. Are you going to explain before the thread gets full and provide any calculations, evidence or data sources supporting your assertion that cheap and simple means-testing of PIP can be implemented and explain how this will be achieved, how the IT issues can be resolved without this costing tens of billions of pounds? Presumabliy you have got some data on what the cost would be if you think that I am wrong, and the DWP and HMRC are wrong and the ONS is wrong, as are all of these economists who have made clear that on top of the costs to Government there would be economic costs several of orders of magnitude higher, vastly outweighing any savings, as is the case for the current cliff edges that exist per the data?

You keep demanding more data from me when I’ve given you calculations, data, sources and detailed explanations but you have made assertions here for which you have provided not one of the above at all.

I won’t hold my breath.

@Bumpitybumper I have provided calculations and data and the sources of my data.

You have as yet still provided us with no explanation of your assertion that means testing is “cheap and simple” which contradicts all of the data I have provided. You demanded sources from me, but have provided no data or sources whatsoever to back up your assertion. Why is that?

You have said you think the figures I provided are wrong, but haven’t said which ones are wrong, or provided your evidence and sources for this. Where are they? Where is the data to support your assertions that contradicts the data from the NAO, the OBR, the ONS. I’m not going to post links to the specific pages from which each figure is available because Google exists and you’re not paying me for my time.

Then there is the independent economic research I referenced which are all publicly available for you to look at? There is also research on this from Loughborough University, King’s College London, and many others, on the economic effects of cliff-edges created by means-testing taxes and benefits. Just a few examples below. Since you delared you know nothing about economics, for a very simplistic visual demonstration of the absurd effects the final link may be particularly useful:

King’s: kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-impact-of-income-tax-changes-on-government-revenue-moving-bey

A simple article on some other studies e.g. Loughborough: https://theconversation.com/how-cuts-to-marginal-income-tax-could-boost-the-uks-stagnant-economic-growth-226758

Several graphs showing the effects of means testing various services/ benefits, precisely what recent universal credit reforms are aiming to remove in one specific case but many more remain, distorting economic activity and reducing economic activity and growth, lowering tax revenues and creating skills shortages: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/17/reform-income-tax-end-the-scandal-of-high-marginal-rates/

I’ve tried to keep it simple for you with accessible articles summarising some of the simpler studies that aren’t too mathematical and complex in technical detail since you stated you’re not knowledgeable about this area, but high quality and evidenced articles referring to their sources. There are many, many more technical papers studying similar phenomena in multiple different countries which is why most comparable developed countries do not adopt such an approach because - lucky for them - they largely have competent politicians who tend to make evidence-based policy decisions.

Now, I’ve wasted a great deal of my time on this and tolerated you insulting my professional competence. Are you going to explain before the thread gets full and provide any calculations, evidence or data sources supporting your assertion that cheap and simple means-testing of PIP can be implemented and explain how this will be achieved, how the IT issues can be resolved without this costing tens of billions of pounds? Presumabliy you have got some data on what the cost would be if you think that I am wrong, and the DWP and HMRC are wrong and the ONS is wrong, as are all of these economists who have made clear that on top of the costs to Government there would be economic costs several of orders of magnitude higher, vastly outweighing any savings, as is the case for the current cliff edges that exist per the data?

You keep demanding more data from me when I’ve given you calculations, data, sources and detailed explanations but you have made assertions here for which you have provided not one of the above at all.

I won’t hold my breath.

Yes. Of course it is.

A professional would whistleblow and resign. If they had integrity and did this en masse then the Government would be forced to address the issue and provide the funding required to comply with the law.

If you train in a profession and seek professional accreditation then responsibilities come with that. It’s even more unacceptable to break the law than it is for someone to do so in a personal context. The excuses aren’t acceptable. Participating in illegal behaviour and tying yourself in knots to try to justify it to yourself is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye to it is not acceptable.

Laws and regulations exist to set a minimum baseline of acceptable behaviour. If you cannot perform you role without falling below that and behaving in an unethical manner then you resign. It really is that simple if you have any integrity and, if you do not, then you are wholly unsuitable to be working in any profession let alone one that involves a duty of care to vulnerable people or minors.

I have provided calculations and data and the sources of my data.

You have as yet still provided us with no explanation of your assertion that means testing is “cheap and simple” which contradicts all of the data I have provided. You demanded sources from me, but have provided no data or sources whatsoever to back up your assertion. Why is that?

You have said you think the figures I provided are wrong, but haven’t said which ones are wrong, or provided your evidence and sources for this. Where are they? Where is the data to support your assertions that contradicts the data from the NAO, the OBR, the ONS. I’m not going to post links to the specific pages from which each figure is available because Google exists and you’re not paying me for my time.

Then there is the independent economic research I referenced which are all publicly available for you to look at? There is also research on this from Loughborough University, King’s College London, and many others, on the economic effects of cliff-edges created by means-testing taxes and benefits. Just a few examples below. Since you delared you know nothing about economics, for a very simplistic visual demonstration of the absurd effects the final link may be particularly useful:

King’s: kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-impact-of-income-tax-changes-on-government-revenue-moving-bey

A simple article on some other studies e.g. Loughborough: https://theconversation.com/how-cuts-to-marginal-income-tax-could-boost-the-uks-stagnant-economic-growth-226758

Several graphs showing the effects of means testing various services/ benefits, precisely what recent universal credit reforms are aiming to remove in one specific case but many more remain, distorting economic activity and reducing economic activity and growth, lowering tax revenues and creating skills shortages: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/17/reform-income-tax-end-the-scandal-of-high-marginal-rates/

I’ve tried to keep it simple for you with accessible articles summarising some of the simpler studies that aren’t too mathematical and complex in technical detail since you stated you’re not knowledgeable about this area, but high quality and evidenced articles referring to their sources. There are many, many more technical papers studying similar phenomena in multiple different countries which is why most comparable developed countries do not adopt such an approach because - lucky for them - they largely have competent politicians who tend to make evidence-based policy decisions.

Now, I’ve wasted a great deal of my time on this and tolerated you insulting my professional competence. Are you going to explain before the thread gets full and provide any calculations, evidence or data sources supporting your assertion that cheap and simple means-testing of PIP can be implemented and explain how this will be achieved, how the IT issues can be resolved without this costing tens of billions of pounds? Presumabliy you have got some data on what the cost would be if you think that I am wrong, and the DWP and HMRC are wrong and the ONS is wrong, as are all of these economists who have made clear that on top of the costs to Government there would be economic costs several of orders of magnitude higher, vastly outweighing any savings, as is the case for the current cliff edges that exist per the data?

You keep demanding more data from me when I’ve given you calculations, data, sources and detailed explanations but you have made assertions here for which you have provided not one of the above at all.

I won’t hold my breath.

I have no idea why Mumsnet keeps hiding my perfectly reasonable responses to @Bumpitybumper which were providing her with some links exactly as she requested since apparently Google doesn’t work wherever she is.

@Bumpitybumper I have provided calculations and data and the sources of my data.

You have as yet still provided us with no explanation of your assertion that means testing is “cheap and simple” which contradicts all of the data I have provided. You demanded sources from me, but have provided no data or sources whatsoever to back up your assertion. Why is that?

You have said you think the figures I provided are wrong, but haven’t said which ones are wrong, or provided your evidence and sources for this. Where are they? Where is the data to support your assertions that contradicts the data from the NAO, the OBR, the ONS. I’m not going to post links to the specific pages from which each figure is available because Google exists and you’re not paying me for my time.

Then there is the independent economic research I referenced which are all publicly available for you to look at? There is also research on this from Loughborough University, King’s College London, and many others, on the economic effects of cliff-edges created by means-testing taxes and benefits. Just a few examples below. Since you delared you know nothing about economics, for a very simplistic visual demonstration of the absurd effects the final link may be particularly useful:

King’s: kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-impact-of-income-tax-changes-on-government-revenue-moving-bey

(Now only one link here to see if Mumsnet will stop blocking the posts and will post some more below with one link in each post if so. Unbelievable they’d be blocking links to economic studies but quite happy for some of the vile and disgusting posts on this thread to stand).

I’ve tried to keep it simple for you with accessible articles summarising some of the simpler studies that aren’t too mathematical and complex in technical detail since you stated you’re not knowledgeable about this area, but high quality and evidenced articles referring to their sources. There are many, many more technical papers studying similar phenomena in multiple different countries which is why most comparable developed countries do not adopt such an approach because - lucky for them - they largely have competent politicians who tend to make evidence-based policy decisions.

Now, I’ve wasted a great deal of my time on this and tolerated you insulting my professional competence. Are you going to explain before the thread gets full and provide any calculations, evidence or data sources supporting your assertion that cheap and simple means-testing of PIP can be implemented and explain how this will be achieved, how the IT issues can be resolved without this costing tens of billions of pounds? Presumabliy you have got some data on what the cost would be if you think that I am wrong, and the DWP and HMRC are wrong and the ONS is wrong, as are all of these economists who have made clear that on top of the costs to Government there would be economic costs several of orders of magnitude higher, vastly outweighing any savings, as is the case for the current cliff edges that exist per the data?

You keep demanding more data from me when I’ve given you calculations, data, sources and detailed explanations but you have made assertions here for which you have provided not one of the above at all.

I won’t hold my breath.

A simple article on some other studies e.g. Loughborough: https://theconversation.com/how-cuts-to-marginal-income-tax-could-boost-the-uks-stagnant-economic-growth-226758