To dob in family member - benefits

[Dragonsfoot]

I have a relative that does have health problems. They went to tribunal and were awarded higher rate PIP and have a motorbility car apparently supported by a Rottweiler of an advocate. I have no gripe that they deserve something - occasional falls, mild mental health problems, physical health problems that require monitoring and support and mild difficulties dressing themselves due to joint problems but don’t actually need to be helped. They do have a disability.

However, they are able to walk miles most of the time, decorate their home, complete domestic tasks and attend social activities on a very regular basis on foot. Morally torn. They probably will struggle without the money. Would DWP even do anything kind of thing. Either way I feel a bad person.

"There is nothing immoral about questioning whether a significant chunk of state resources should go to supporting someone who is well enough to socialise regularly and is able to participate in society. If you can participate, you can contribute."

My DH has been left with severe walking and balance difficulties following cancer treatment. He is entitled to PIP. He also works full time from home and pays tax.

There can be many reasons. Part of my health issues are underlying, made worse by foul ups by the NHS over the years. 🙄

No, many people can’t access decent housing, and don’t eat healthily. For various reasons.

But, what bugs me about these threads is that so many of those that criticise, and have most to say, would fall apart if they had to “live the dream” of either having severe health problems, or having to care for someone with severe health problems.

I’ve done both. I’ve paid taxes since I was 16. So, as far as I’m concerned the self righteous lot can sod right off. Walk a mile in my shoes. 🙄

Either way, disabled or carer, it’s 24/7 - and I’d gladly take being healthy again over my amount of DLA.

Or have to pay towards the cost of the pointless investigation.

Exactly just like if you make any other type of legal challenge and lose. A judge has already made a decision in these cases. So many people think they know better than the judges.

Indeed and its crap they come out with like they think the advisors and judges are gullible fools who believe anyone that tells them they are disabled just on their say so.

And this is the crux of the matter right here. The DWP and tribunals service not only have a duty to deliver accurate decisions based on proper assessment of the claimants’ condition, but they need to ensure that that decision is correct in law, and that’s where the basis of tribunal decisions lie.

There are safeguards applied to each element of the assessment. For example, as has been pointed out here, the decision on whether someone qualifies for higher rate mobility is based on the 20 metre rule, but alongside that rule there are mitigations which legally have to be applied. It’s not just a matter of whether a claimant can walk 20 metres, it involves other factors relating to safety, reliability/repeatability and timescales among other things. If these are not sufficiently considered, then the decision doesn’t stand in law, which is why so many decisions are overturned at tribunal.

In many cases DWP have been criticised at tribunal because they don’t seem to have much regard for their own rules and regulations and ensuring they are legally sound. That posters think they have the ability to challenge decisions made by tribunals and report claimants for simply not looking disabled enough is breathtakingly entitled.

If you can participate you can contribute.

There are two ways to view that sentence. The first is that you actually believe it, you think that if you want to participate in society you should make some sort of, presumably financial, contribution. In which case you're suggesting that disabled people who can't do that should be isolated, prevented from taking part in society.

The second is that you've not thought about what you're saying for a single second. Ever worked with profoundly disabled people? I have, and with support they could go out to restaurants, to social activities, to classes, on holiday. Could they have "contributed" by going to work or volunteering? Not at all. Their lives were still meaningful and valid, however much people like you would argue to the contrary.

Very well said. Instead of turning on each other, how about we, as a society, look at whete the real 'grifting' is, as its not a tiny % of people who you think are using 'dole poles' (as I've charmingly heard recently) to expensively rent mobility cars.

This. Absolutely. Many posters missing the point here that this is exactly why PIP is paid. As I said upthread, the clue is in the name - personal independence payment.

The application of benefit is not decided on a black and white assessment of whether a claimant can participate or not, it’s the degree to which they can participate and whether they can do so better if supported by PIP.

As an example, someone upthread mentioned a claimant saving their benefit for holidays. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the benefit because someone with a significant mobility problem or even mental health issues would probably face increase costs in accessing holiday facilities because of access and accommodation suitability. Likewise many claimants save their benefit to be able to afford better personal care, better aids and appliances and access to better mobility products.

There is a fundamental lack of understanding or appreciation of what disability actually means here, and a complete lack of why PIP is paid. It’s nothing at all to do with the ability to work - it doesn’t assess for that at all and some of the replies are knee jerk, over simplistic and ableist.

Bloody hell! My husband is disabled and struggles to walk, but he still does it as if he doesn't it makes his condition 10x worse. Do you want to grass on him as well because he does the school drop offs while I am at work?

Some of these replies are beyond medieval and almost dickensian. Next they’ll be saying that people should be institutionalised in Bedlams. A dear friend was a conjoined twin. Only part of her twin had withered and the midwife, recognising there would be years of surgeries ahead, and survival being iffy, suggested that her mother might want to pop her baby by an open Window and enjoy the cool December air…

60 years later, and yes most of her teens in and out of Great Ormand Street, she is in her 60s’ with 2 children. Missing some of her spine/coccyx has meant there are issues but she is still here, living a meaningful life. But I wonder how many PPs here would have happily popped her naked by the window to save the tax payer some money?

ETA just to add, she has never claimed benefits - even ran her own business for a long time, but I suspect the NHS funded operations (half a dozen with leading international specialists) that she received cost the tax payer a hell of a lot more than the average PIP claimant does in 10 years.

People confuse participation in society with economic contribution. People who work in the tobacco industry might make an economic contribution but they have a negative impact on society. Just like people who run online porn businesses - lots of money, no social good.

DWP are actually moving towards this. They are phasing out anonymous reporting to eliminate malicious reports which waste time and andversely affect claimants. In the near future you will have to give personal details when you report, and will be held responsible if it turns out to be malicious.

There have been recent threads discussing Euthanasia of disabled children
And on any thread where a poster is struggling with caring for their disabled child, the knee jerk reaction from many poster ,s is to just send the child away to live in a mythical residential setting.

If they are getting benefits that they shouldn’t be entitled to then I do hope that gets found out and stopped. Money should be given to those in need and if those needs change then they go elsewhere.
Welfare system is fucked and we need to do something to reduce the bill. That does not mean to stop giving money to disabled people before anyone thinks that’s what I am saying.

The ‘chunk of resources’ PIP represents is paid with the express intention of enabling people to participate in society, that’s why it’s called personal independence payment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to work - it doesn’t assess for that at all. It assesses how much of a social and personal barrier disabled people face to inclusion. You don’t seem to have grasped that concept and the line ‘if you can participate you can contribute’ tells me that you know little or nothing about disability. Oh, and many people on PIP, do contribute because they work. It’s really concerning the number of posters who think benefits should only be paid to disabled people who can’t get out of bed !!

That's good. It takes a certain type of cowardice to accuse a disabled person of fraud and not being willing to put your name to it.

What's to stop someone giving false details?

This is a good point and also raises some interesting concerns. If we (as a society) genuinely believe that large swathes of our educated healthcare professionals can be duped by Joe Bloggs using some fancy language on one form, despite having access to his full medical history, to the point where Brenda down the road is able to make a more accurate assessment of Joe's health by simply observing him for a few minutes a day, then we have some serious issues that I feel need to be addressed urgently.

It's little wonder so many of us are chronically ill when our doctors and nurses have less medical knowledge than a random woman in a pub.

The point is, that this person has been to tribunal and has a legal decision regarding their benefit entitlement. The tribunal will have had access to their medical records and other evidence and will have made their decision based on that. What qualifies OP, and others who agree with them, to determine that that decision is wrong, based on just looking at the person ? It’s utter nonsense.

I’m sure safeguards will be built into the system, but it’ll be challenging for sure.

Pip is Extremely hard to get!. I'm on dialysis and they said no!. Just leave them alone!

You mean fraudulently reporting people for fraud?

My point is if things change then benefits should be stopped if they wouldn’t be awarded if they were a new claimant. Things change and so should the benefits paid as a result.

Did you get strong advice? I used our local PIP helper who helped with the forms and did a mock interview with me to help with the questioning etc. I had to pay her a bit but the pay back was quite quick. I think of it like those people who who tax advisors to prepare their returns and reduce their tax bill.