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.

Someone in a comparable situation to themselves without a disability, obviously. PIP is designed to take away some of the disadvantage of being disabled and the extra costs involved (although it nowhere near covers them, as has been thoroughly demonstrated by research many times).

That's how it currently works. The question is should it work like that? Lots of people think it shouldn't.

OP the press in this country are accountable and held to a high standard - complain to the Press Complaints Commission if you see lies being published

Being jealous of people with disabilities being able to access something to make their life a bit easier really is a new low!

I'm not jealous. I just don't think it's a good use of tax payer money.

So come on then what’s your alternative then?

remembering that the recipient of PIP/DLA uses their own mobility element to fund it and then tops up the extra themselves via an advance payment.

I think its hard to believe because when you go through the pip process yourself you know how much medical evidence is needed and how much you have to prove every little thing with backing of consultants and drs and even then that's still not usually good enough. If for e.g. you say you can't walk then 50m it would be why can't you, what scan images do you have, what drs letters do you have to back this, what physiotherapy letters do you have, what aids do you use and where are the receipts for them. I don't know whether i had a really harsh assesor or if their all like this but the level of evidence you needed and they would still initially say your lying.

I highly doubt any billionaires are putting themselves through the humiliation of claiming PIP.

The amount that would be saved by means-testing it would likely be very small given that the majority of people who claim it are on very low incomes. The cost of means-testing it would almost certainly vastly outweigh the saving, so this would be purely out of spite and for no economic benefit to anybody unless they are desperate for a job at the DWP.

The entire principle underlying the purpose of PIP would be undermined by means-testing. It is very deliberately designed to ensure independence for disabled people so that they can participate in society. On what basis would you means test it?:

1. If family income then you make many disabled people completely reliant on their families to support them financially which is dehumanising and likely to increase abuse of some of the most vulnerable people.

2. If you means-test on individual income from earnings then all you will be doing is taking away the PIP from disabled people who do manage to work, which research shows for many is only possible because they receive PIP. If you take away PIP from this group many will have to give up their jobs as it will no longer be financially viable to work and then instead of paying their own living costs and being taxpayers they will have to claim universal credit for their living costs instead, rather than just receiving PIP to contribute towards the costs if their disability and paying everything else themselves. And their income will then drop significantly and they’ll be entitled to universal credit and PIP. You will therefore increase the benefits bill and reduce tax revenues by doing this.

The recent changes to universal credit that the Government proposed were designed to remove cliff edges that create a disincentive to working. It is quite obvious to anybody with any grasp of economics that means-testing PIP would be counterproductive because it would do the precise opposite of the aims of the recent universal credit reforms i.e. create a new cliff-edge making it unaffordable for disabled people to work, increase the benefits bill, reduce workforce participation, and lower tax revenue.

What a clever plan!

Lots of people aren’t very intelligent.

I honestly get what you mean. But at certain points in my life i would have been able to claim pip. All I would have to do is not declare it had changed for me and to keep it up.

I know of people (multiple) who don't use medical equipment that they previously needed anymore but will wear it to PIP assessments.

I totally get this is likely tiny minority but sadly it happens. I see it a lot in my work.

If the Motability scheme was cancelled tomorrow the cost of PIP would not change at all. The money that some claimants currently use to pay for Motability cars would be paid to them in cash instead. It’s a complete non-argument.

the Motability scheme is a lifeline for many. we have a WAV, my adult dc has no income so would not be able to get a WAV without that scheme. how would they go any where (severely disabled and full time wheelchair user) they can't get a bus(see wheelchairs on buses threads)
its awful to think that able boded people think they should have it.

@FalseSpring

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.

But having a disability often means you can't work full time, so will need a top up to help pay bills. (I appreciate that's not what PIP is intended for, but it is still caused by disability and there's not really anything else to plug the gap). As for paying for a cleaner - either someone else is doing your housework for you, or it's not getting done. I don't think it's right that disabled people should have to live in squalor rather than have the funds to pay for a cleaner. Using PIP for a cleaner is literally covering extra costs caused by disability - without they disability they could do it themselves. If you can't afford one but need one, I think you should be helped.

I do understand the frustration of having a disability that doesn't attract funding, but does cause hardship. I actually think there needs to be some recognition of this, and it would help disabled people to work where they can. Something that recognises if it's not possible to work full time and tops up income. Obvs that's different from PIP but still affecting people who are disabled but not "disabled enough".

"We aren't talking about PIP funding any of this though. We are talking about people being able to use PIP to fund expensive luxury cars."

Expensive doesn't mean luxury. We have always needed a more expensive car than we would otherwise have done if ds was not disabled, in order to accommodate his disability. He didn't have a motability vehicle until he moved into supported living and we pay several thousand in top up for him to have the vehicle he needs.
Imagine begrudging someone who is profoundly disabled and uses a wheelchair and needs multiple carers to go out with him.

I am not suggesting that PIP isn't used for cleaners where they are clearly needed, but I am complaining that the criteria for claiming is very narrowly defined and many people like myself who have to employ carers/cleaners to help with everyday tasks don't qualify.

I do work (necessarily self-employed as I lost my job and nobody else would employ me due to my sickness record). I now need significant adaptations to use my computer and need to work from home as I would have too much absence to due mobility issues to work elsewhere on a regular basis. I think there should be much more support for people like me to work from home; support that helps us achieve our goals like anyone else who wants a career.

A top-up like you suggest, for those who are limited in their working hours etc., would be wonderful. The Thatcher government provided a scheme to help new self-employed workers get started. It included lots of free advice from professionals (I was one of those professionals at the time) and a small income each week. I think even something like this, not necessarily targeted at the disabled, would help so many people that are struggling to keep their full-time jobs due to disability as being self-employed does provide much more flexibility in when and where you can work.

I do find it very hard to believe after actually going through the process myself. Getting high rate care and/or high rate mobility is incredibly difficult.

@FalseSpring
Ah, I understand now.
I'm quite shocked that you can't get support to pay for household help that you clearly need.
And yes, there absolutely should be more help for disabled people who need adaptations to work, as well as income top ups if they can't work full time. Under the previous tax credit system there was recognition of this for disabled adults on a low income (although criteria left out quite a few).

The changes made by the Cameron government made things very all-or-nothing wrt disability benefits. It's no surprise that long-term claims increased. Previously people would have been in and out of work as their health/disability fluctuated, but the system changed and made that too risky.
Tying Universal Credit entitlement to PIP receipt will make the all-or-nothing aspect worse. Especially unfair as there are people who get PIP who can work, and people who aren't entitled to PIP who nonetheless cannot work.

Here is a breakdown of success rate by condition for PIP claimants

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/success-rates

It seems to vary by condition. Perhaps yours is held to more scrutiny? In a perverse way, MH issues seems to have a very good success rate compared to many of the concrete physical conditions on the link I posted. Perhaps where there’s harder evidence, such as scans, it’s easier to hold them up to a specific benchmark. Whereas anyone can say they feel suicidal, or too anxious to go to the shops, or too tired to get up every day - nobody is going to actually check that.

DH were talking the other day, how in our teens and twenties, neither of our mothers could drive, and if we needed to get somewhere we either walked or took public transport. That is what most people do, if they can’t afford a car?

We both worked in Central London for years - we had to use a combination of public transport to commute there, and get to clients. Driving into London in rush hour is a nightmare, and cheap all day parking is about as common as unicorns!

Some disabled people can’t reliably walk very far, and/or can’t use public transport. Motability is intended to put them on a level playing field, with the able bodied, who can walk or use public transport, because they also have lives, and need to go shopping, to hospital appointments and in some cases work.

How do you suggest disabled people do all those things, everyone else takes for granted, without a car - because a taxi to our nearest hospital is £50 return in a taxi, and I dread to think how much it would be to our district hospital 20 miles away? £77 per week wouldn’t cover it?

The truth is, this stuff about “luxury cars” is pure jealousy by some, as if the word “disabled” is a meaningless empty word applied to some people at random - who actually don’t suffer any stigma, discrimination, pain, difficulties in functioning and probably have to work twice as hard to achieve the same tasks, as able bodied people.

DD has a Seat Ateca Motability car, hardly a high end make. I can assure you, she would give her back teeth to be able to live a normal life, walk about and use public transport, without fear, pain and embarrassment! I couldn’t cope with her life. She functions at about the level of a 2 year old, albeit with challenging behaviour at the size of an adult. She can push me over. She doesn’t even know new cars are regarded as a prestige thing.

I'm talking about DLA, not PIP. PP said that she knows two people who claimed DLA for their children who apparently get high care with major lies on their forms.

I don't have any personal experience with PIP but my son gets both high rate care and high rate mobility and going through that process, writing the forms and providing evidence is a gruelling, difficult process because significant evidence is required.

3.7 million people claim PIP. I just struggle to reconcile this with posters on here saying it’s ’notoriously difficult’ to get.

This is so correct. The i in PIP stands for independence - vitally important to disabled people.

That's incorrect. If someone is claiming for a MH condition & has put that they have felt suicidal or suicide attempts they will ask for details & who attended eg emergency services, Section 136 etc which will all be documented.
If someone cannot visit shops they will ask at assessment how someone gets food etc - evidence of person providing that or online deliveries.

I was talking about DLA. Responding to a pp talking about DLA.