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.

Thanks for your support in this, I do think he should try again but the time has passed for appeal so I will get him to apply again later this year.

@ruethewhirl Do you not see that your "so what...meets the..." is part of the problem? If you're "so sick of..." then have an honest response. It is an issue and it is leading to demonisation! Pretending otherwise is proving the point of those who seek to question - kindly, but surely, you see that?

Please apply again which is your right All the best

I am merely pointing out that the car can indeed be a luxury and it isn't all about just meeting the disabled person's needs. It was in direct response to another poster suggesting this.

thank you for pointing that out to me.

I've only just read that on another post here, I suppose I had just assumed that once you have it for three years on lease, you wouldn't have to hand it back until the end of that three years.

At this stage, my award is only for one year, with the note that it is unexpected to change at the review time.

As I say, I only had the strokes earlier this year and the car mobility thing hasn't been at the top of my list to deal with as I have been too unwell to have contemplated driving, even if I was physically able to.

The articles in the paper are designed to generate hate anf make it look like this so ppl who don’t claim don’t get upset when the benefit is cut as they feel their tax payers money is going towards it

its also done to distract from other government things such as an above Inflation pay rise or millions of non work expenses on credit cards,l

the general public then get made as the wrong people the people at the bottom needing help

To all the people saying they know someone who is taking the piss - report them. If they have nothing to hide then then the assessment will find they are justified.

some people are scamming the system but it takes a lot of effort.

my DB is 24/7 in a wheelchair and has a special adapted vehicle. It’s a ball ache at renewal. No he can’t magically walk. No the cerebral palsy isn’t cured. He can only drink through a straw. So can’t make a cup of tea. WTAF!

also all the people leasing Motability cars need to ensure the car is returned pristine to avoid charges. I lease and the inspectors charge for everything

It just highlights the realities of PIP. That it's not all about assisting relatively poor disabled people with the costs of their disability. Some people claiming PIP are well off and can afford to use their PIP and a good chunk of their own money to fund a luxury car. All within current rules, but if it makes people feel uncomfortable and question whether some disabled people are in a position to live well without PIP then reform may be needed. The welfare state exists due to public consent. If a benefit loses public support then we need to look to change it.

I have a couple of issues with the current system:

1. I think PIP should be means-tested so nobody earning more than an average wage can claim.
2. I think the qualifying criteria should be changed to cover a wider range of physical disabilities that have significant impacts on the ability to work and function normally. For example, I can't sit at a desk so need to work flexibly from home with specific adaptations for working in a prone position. I can walk 50m with aids, but I can't handle even the smallest steps such as curbs. The criteria are too narrow to be helpful to so many disabled people.
3. I am really concerned about people with serious mental health issues, particularly any that are suicidal, being able to drive so not sure why they should be given a car at all!

I do feel aggreived when others on here have blatently stated they are using PIP to pay their bills, or pay for cleaners or gardeners rather than pay for the specialist care or adaptations that people like myself really need. I can't remember the last time I managed to do anything in the garden, or push a vacuum around the flat, but that doesn't mean that I can get PIP to cover it. I have an old car that I haven't driven for months because the worn-out seat is now too uncomfortable for me to make even the shortest journey - maybe a nice new car would have a better seat! So no, I don't think the current system is fair at all.

Also, if the mobility charity is making money out of these leased cars, why can't they offer them to everyone at similar prices? Why just those disabled that have qualified? Why not everyone on low incomes?

Best of luck with it xx

You shouldn't need luck, but hey.

Another thing which is probably fairly obvious, but I only just found out when I received my claim is that it's only backdated to the day you ring up to ask for the claim form, I had been told it would be backdated to the date of the Stroke, but it wasn't. I guess that makes even more sense when you consider people like your son as well as a start date might be quite hard to determine. But I just believed what I was told at the time 🥴.

Are you angry your taxes are paying for the above inflation pay rise or the millions found on credit cards which are luxuries not expenses being claimed by our government

people ok benefits are already struggling, cutting and freezing because a few ppl abide the system usually hurts the vulnerable

Well I am sick of posts like this attempting to shut down conversation. Examples like this are relevant. This is the reality of how PIP and Motability are being used in some cases. It isn't all about people on the breadline or in poverty. Some disabled people are well off and can afford more expensive cars than the vast majority of the population. Part of the reason they can afford such cars is because they are being subsidised by the state.

Of course it's within current rules but the whole point of discussions like this are that many people think the rules need to change. You of course are at liberty to say that you think this is a good use of taxpayer money and to offer other examples and anecdotes to make your point.

But thats the same for anyone as disabillity benefits are non means tested
Disabillity benefits are supposed to
Be used to benefit the recepitant so for example a disabled child from a family with a comfortable income might benefit from specific activitues and their DLA pays for this but if a disabled child has parents that are less well often the DLA goes into the family pot its still benefiing the child as it helps keep a roof over their head etc

Ah yes, benefits for me but not for thee.

If PIP should be means tested, then it should be means tested for the person claiming it. RIght now, means testing in the benefit sense means a household. So a disabled wife could not claim PIP because her husband earns too much. That is a very dangerous position to be in. I know a few disabled women who can't work but claim PIP. They can't claim ESA or UC because of what their spouse earns, or has in savings.
Also, dating as a disabled person is tough anyway without the dating pool becoming even smaller because a potential partner will have their finances scrutinised and have to pay for your disability.

Being suicidal is not in any PIP descriptors so irrelevant to whether someone has a car or not. The person on PIP does not have to be the driver of the car anyway. Disabled kids on DLA can and do have cars on the Motability scheme. They are obviously not driving them.

Many disabled people struggle to maintain a clean and hygienic home. PIP is absolutely for things like cleaners.

Again, I understand that currently disability benefits aren't means tested. This isn't being debated. It's about whether they should be means tested and whether it is ok for the state to part fund luxury cards for wealthy disabled people.

I'm so sorry you've been through so much Differentstarts. But thank you for explaining how it works on the mental health front. I know we can't just be giving out money to anyone who shows up and says they feel this that or the next thing on their say so alone but it still seems like a cruel system where there's no extra help for people who are clearly suffering immensely.

I don't think disability benefits should be means tested, no.

Ok if you want a cut off point, lets say anyone earning a million quid or has more than a million quid in assets, they don't get it (but they, the claimant. Not the claimants partner/husband etc).

How much will that save - fuck all. But how much will that cost to implement - more than fuck all.

Meaningful means testing costs. You have to look at the costs of what the claimant needs and the income/savings/assets they have. To do that to every claimant, repeatedly (given many disabilities are permanent/deteriorating) would slow things up even more and add to the bill.

A money saving exercise it is not.

The fact it is not a means tested benefit is one of the ways the playing field IS levelled - being disabled costs more than not being. That doesn't change, regardless of who you are. So means testing disability benefits is just a punishment to those disabled people who are lucky enough to earn well or have earned well prior to disability.

@WiddlinDiddlin I fundamentally disagree. You could means test PIP in the same way we means test for Child Benefit. It doesn't have to be expensive.

The playing field is never truly level for so many reasons that extend way beyond disability. Fundamentally when you spend an extortionate amount of money addressing one area of inequality, you will have less to address others (e.g. child poverty). We need to be careful and wise about where we are directing money and resources. Giving more money to already rich disabled people is adding to inequality in other ways.

How many rich and disabled people that claim PIP are there? Not many I bet.
David Cameron had a disabled son on DLA. But his son was a small child and totally entitled to what he got.
If PIP should be means tested, it should be the individual only that gets tested and not their household.

I work in welfare rights and do over 50 PIP applications a year.

I've never had a client whose award was determined by a paper-based assessment. Telephone assessments are pretty common, but not paper-based.

Don't be put off by the points he scored, @Gamjs, I swear they pluck those numbers out of their arses sometimes.

I've had clients get awarded the enhanced rate at appeal when they've been awarded no points at all first time round.

It’s a bit like saying your childcare is “free” because you get a fraction of it paid for by a government scheme,

The reality is that you get an amount a week to pay for transport because it’s really expensive if you can’t use public transport or walk or in some cases drive. Some people who need them use it to rent a wheelchair. It allows many to work or feed themselves or care for their children who otherwise wouldn’t.

Most of the cars need a down payment at the beginning of the three year lease. For some a bigger car is needed to transport safely.

Nobody is using motability cars as taxis because the insurance would not cover it nor for deliveries etc etc but obviously most households can’t afford ££££s downpayment and parking for multiple cars so the car can be used for the benefit of the disabled person (eg you could drop off at two schools not have to drive siblings separately and you can go shopping etc).

We have the money to address child poverty though - Scotland reinstated their additional child welfare payments and from what I understand the evidence shows that these payments pay for themselves incredibly quickly while lifting many children out of poverty. The rest of the UK didn't reinstate them because so many people thought it wasn't fair that poorer people could "afford" to have more kids than they could personally. It was a political decision for those kids not to be lifted out of poverty - not a financial one.

But yes, as a broader point other areas are creaking (eg the NHS and residential care for the elderly etc) but most of those would be negatively impacted by making the disabled thousands of pounds poorer every year.

Pip is such an exhausting and damaging process that that in itself acts as a barrier to those who don't need it claiming it. I had to do the equivalent of many months of full time work (although only a couple of hours a day as that's all I can manage) to get my claim fully prepared and the appeal hearing caused lasting trauma that I will have for the rest of my life. If we didn't need the money I wouldn't have put myself through that and there are plenty of people who are eligible who don't claim for that reason. I really can't imagine that there are vast numbers of the very wealthy putting themselves through the mill for what to them must seem like a few extra pennies.

But I'm not pretending otherwise - I'm not trying to say nobody is gaming the system or claiming falsely. Sadly that will always be the case. What I am sick of is the amount of exaggeration that's been going on in terms of how many people are supposedly doing this, and the way the genuinely needy are being tarred with the same brush and stigmatised.