To be delighted PIP assessments are to be face to face?

[PAYE]

The only good thing about the budget is that Rachel Reeves announced that face to face assessments for PIP and disability benefits are being brought back. AIBU to think that this is a great thing?

It will make sure that the money goes to those who need it. It is madness that such face to face assessments were ever stopped.

It might not be the case for pp's cousin but many people pay an advanced payment for a car and in a lot of cases, it can be thousands of pounds and come from their own money.

Also, this allegedly blatant benefits cheat isn't the poster's cousin, she's apparently one of her oldest friends who she seemingly also can't stand. Friendship is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

People are always going on about it not being an out of work benefit ( I know btw) but fail to read the examples posters are siting

This one is @PaisleyGilmourStreets cousin that doesnt work

As Paisley has agreed to my post they do indeed mean

free = unearned

and I think some posters would rather argue the toss and pretend they just can’t possibly comprehend the obvious.

No contortions necessary. Thanks for clarifying Paisley

I’m aware of this yes
but it’s not relevant to my post

Nice people don’t cheat so 🤷

Wrong.

Can you clarify
Friend
Relative
Random person
Aparently it’s really significant 😆

I’m so pleased that you are delighted. I just hope you never have to go through the process. As someone with a degenerative neurological condition exacerbated by stress it will be just wonderful to be in a position where I lose control of my limbs, speech and my memory fails me in front of someone who doesn’t know me and to be able to be face to face with someone that I haven’t met before when I have to explain the humiliating details related to my difficulties with personal care. It’s was bad enough for two hours on the phone but now all dignity will go out of the window. But you’re happy about it, maybe you would like to come along as a special treat.

I think accusing me of not reading the post when you keep referring to this poster's definitely not imaginary benefits cheat chum as her cousin is highly amusing!
I really have read her posts and, in the unlikely event that this person exists and is actually knoown to the poster, it doesn't change the fact that that is not what free means. I think you know this too. Unless, of course, you go round meticulously inspecting all purchases to ascertain which exact ones have been bought with money derived from any form of benefits, including state pension and child benefit, and then insist on describing those items as 'free'. If this is the case then you are at least being consistent but I am unsure how exactly you could pinpoint which exact pound in a PIP claimant's bank account came from PIP and from their wages.

T'was actually my uber driver's step granny's sister 😈😂

Do nice people remain best friends with someone who cheats? Surely that is the more pertinent question here since apparently overt benefits fraud doesn't seem to have been a deal-breaker for this poster!

Who is also your cousin as I spotted your post upthread
dna is crucial 🤣 or not ?!?!

was that uber free btw

It’s a cousin !!!
Relatives tend to stay relatives no matter what they get up to.

It’s a dna connection thing

It is a cousin. No idea if Paisley is male or female. I wouldn’t presume to guess

paisleys post attached if you forgot it or can’t find it

The issue of free
A lot of people consider money given for nothing as free. ( technically it is tax money so earned by others and not growing on trees so technically it’s not free )
It’s not an unknown or in any way unusual concept to regard this money as free because it is money given for nothing in return ie not earned.

I’m surprised you’ve never heard of this term before

I can clarify m'lady the word 'friend' has not featured in any of my comments 🙈

The uber was, technically, free 😂

Well, it isn't free. That will be corrected, especially from people who have paid thousands of pounds for their own motability car.

😉

[Notwithstanding the fact you've confused my experience with the entirely different experience of an entirely different poster] You have (also entirely) missed my point.

To be clear: I am dissing malingerers. I am not dissing genuine claimants.

APOLOGIES, I mixed up your compelling account with that of Themagicfarawaytreeismyfav
She was the one with a dear old pal (who she coincidentally loathes) who is also apparently fraudulently claiming benefits for herself and her whole family. You are the one with the cousin who has allegedly been committing successful benefits fraud for decades and is driving Schrodinger's car, which is simultaneously both free and not free. Apologies for the mix-up, it was my mistake. In my defence, it can be hard to get these terribly convincing and not at all fictitious stories of outrageously flagrant benefits cheats straight sometimes, especially as so many pop up on threads like this and are often eerily similar.

PIP is supposed to be a Personal Independence Payment- that is, a payment to help the recipient to be independent.

It is not intended as SO many MN users refer to benefits, as if they all had the same intended purpose, to be a “safety net” I.e. an emergency supply of funds. (Where did that phrase originate?)

Any assessor should be trying to see honestly what a person struggles with doing, according to the specific criteria they are to measure against, not determining whether they need money to help with that problem. Or, in other words, PIP doesn’t exist to neutralise the effect of a disabling condition by giving an amount of money, it exists to assist the person dealing with that disabling condition towards independence.

The “friend” of the pp above as described (with two children getting DLA because the mother decided they have ASD/ADHD), while she also gets PIP, is beyond hilarious.

My daughter receives DLA and the criteria for DLA are DIFFERENT from PIP for a reason. Partly it’s unlikely that this (imaginary ?)woman would be eligible for PIP and have 2 (no less!) children who qualify for DLA, such that at least one of the 3 qualified for higher rate mobility benefits (to get the “free car”) and yet still goes on multiple holidays. Unlikely is the kindest word I can think of.

My daughter receives higher rate DLA - to do so she had to demonstrate both very high care needs constantly or as near to as constantly (she does as she can’t do anything for herself) and very high mobility needs.

The criteria for DLA are that a child needs care and supervision far above a regular child including, for instance overnight care - turning them in bed, being awake while they are, or supervision to keep them safe (from running into roads or self-harm like banging against a wall) and not just ONE of those descriptors either. Mobility criteria are that the child cannot walk at all, or is in pain from doing so, is severely visually impaired, severely mentally impaired, etc.

If anything DLA is more difficult to evidence by lying than PIP.

Anyone saying “she just told the DWP her children have x, y or z” are talking out of their arses. I’m assuming to deliberately wind posters up.

Won’t make a difference the assessors will still lie.

You've been very sore on me @Everlore.

Very sore.

It has in fact somewhat ruined my enjoyment of my evening snack (bourbon creams). I will however accept your gracious apology.

This is the poster who posted about one of her oldest friends ^^ in a less than a complimentary way.

The ‘cousin poster’ was a bonus extra post from another poster.

These examples do tend to tumble onto the pages of the thread thick and fast, and can be difficult to follow given the scale of misinformation contained within and the strange arguments involved.

And yes, gratis also means free.

Please
Have some of my quality street

😂🤩

I actually fucking love quality street! Though you appear to have eaten all my favourites, the green triangles.