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.

"PIP awards are generally based on someone describing their worst day."

No they are not.

No they’re not. That would be fraudulent. (Based on the worst day I mean)

A worst day could be once a year ! to score points on the PIP descriptors you need to be affected on the majority of days. PIP assessors usually explore this quite thoroughly. On a PIP form it is fine to describe a worst day but you need to explain how many days are worst days. Just to answer every question based on a worst day would could be giving a completely skewed picture of what life is like. the times I see advice trotted out on these posts "write the form based on your worst day " is crazy and really poor advice.

Complete bollox, I have arthritis. It was diagnosed by a rhumatology consultant.

To make that diagnosis he physically examined me, looked at my X-rays, blood tests and medical history.

My arthritis is in every joint in my body, sometimes it is also in my eyes.

You cannot fake damage to bone on X-ray, or a blood test.

This!

And again the interpretation of the 20m rule is wrong. That’s a guide. There is more to the assessment of walking ability than just the fact that you can or can’t walk that distance.

I’ve had many claimants be awarded higher rate mobility despite being able to walk much further than that. It’s the degree of difficulty they would have and whether their walking ability is useful or not. For that the assessor would consider things like pain, exhaustion, the manner in which they walk and whether it’s likely to adversely impact themselves or others, to name but a few.

The notion that someone just looking at a claimant would instantly be able to tell the decision was wrong (especially one as a result of a tribunal, which considers the legality of the decision, as well as whether it’s appropriate for the claimant) and ‘DOB them in’ for fraud is utterly abhorrent.

Have you any idea of the impact of a fraud report on a claimant ? Are you aware that a successful PIP claim is based on the impairment and impact being present for 50% or more of the time ? So if you see a claimant on a good day, you would automatically think they were claiming fraudulently ? Do you not think disabled people have enough to put up with, without sanctimonious busybodies like the OP sticking their noses in to things they know absolutely nothing about ?

Absolutely spot on. As a former disability outreach worker I went out of my way to ensure claimants were not completing the form from that point of view, because it would actually be benefit fraud. You report your condition as the norm on a daily basis, highlighting the worst effects as well as how often they occur and last. The criteria for benefit is that if the condition impacts the claimant to the point where they satisfy the descriptors for 50% or more of the time, then benefit is awarded at the appropriate rate for the impact. I despair of social media - especially FB - which basically advises claimants that it’s fine to exaggerate to obtain benefit.

And the medical professional, judge and person with experience of disability who made the tribunal decision.

Exactly this. There are so many factors considered for a PIP claim and the average Joe in the street isn’t generally familiar with them and is certainly not qualified to decide that the claimant is cheating. Rather than thinking of it as turning a blind eye people would be better thinking of it as minding their own bloody business in matters that they are not qualified to judge and don’t concern them.

For many there is abelist confirmation bias, if someone on their worst days can't leave the house no-ones sees them, if they can go to the shops on their best days people see them. The people who see the seem to assume that is how they always are.

I've recently retired after 25 years working in welfare rights. In all that time, the only indefinite awards I've seen have been for clients who have a terminal illness.

Reviews take place during the course of an award; they send out a short form (AR1) that asks if there have been any changes since the award was made.

What takes place shortly before the end date of a PIP award is a renewal, where they generally complete a much longer form (PIP2).

No, MN likes to pretend that it’s fine for members of the public who have absolutely no medical expertise or knowledge of the claimants full circumstances, to go around reporting them for fraud just because they don’t look disabled enough. Posters also like to tell people that they know so and so is claiming fraudulently because they told them. It’s utter crap.

Of course benefit fraud happens, but MN likes to think that DWP officials are stupid. Twenty years experience as a disability outreach worker tells me that they are absolutely not and where there is high level fraud it’s only a matter of time before the claimant drops themselves in it without any help from anyone else.

I’m interested to know, did you ever go on a walk with your claimants to see the difficulties they and how useful their walking was to them or did you just ask them for this information whilst all sitting comfortably at a desk?

I’m not anti PIP, for those truly deserving, but we do all know there are scroungers working people are paying for.

From working in the system, and the advocacy, and then being disabled now, I’d like to point out that the “20 metre rule” which, from memory I’m sure used to be 50 metres, it’s NOT about whether you CAN do it, it’s about whether you can actually do it regularly without pain/breathing stress or any other significant problems.

That may be your experience but it’s not fact. Where a claimant has a congenital disability which is static they are more likely to have an open, or indefinite award. My particular area was Spina Bifida and Neural Tube disabilities which tend to be on the more severe end of the scale. My experience is that in those cases higher awards tend to be made, and they are mostly open ended because there is little to no chance of change for the better.

With lower awards and end date may be built in to check that the condition hasn’t worsened to the point where a higher award would be appropriate, but that’s a safeguard with these kinds of disabilities.

Outreach workers like myself aren’t medically qualified to assess whether someone is being truthful about their disability on the application form, or to try to ascertain their abilities. That’s not our remit. We have no impact on the decision - we are purely there to make the best possible claim on behalf of the claimant using the information they give, which can be self reporting and/or backed up with their own medical evidence. It would be pointless me going for a walk with a claimant because I’m not equipped to assess their ability.

And this is the point I’m trying to make here. Just because someone doesn’t look disabled doesn’t mean they are not. Just because they don’t appear to be having difficulty at a particular moment in time doesn’t mean they don’t at others. PIP can be awarded on the basis of the impact of a disability or health condition being present for at least 50% of the time. Assessors are the ones in possession of all of the facts, and the knowledge to apply the descriptors and inbuilt safeguards to arrive at a conclusion. Generally Joe Public doesn’t have all those facts at their fingertips and can potentially be putting a genuine claimant through the stress of a fraud investigation just because they seemingly don’t look disabled enough.

Disability is complex. Distance descriptors for PIP are guides, not set in stone, and higher rate awards can be made to claimants who can walk significantly more than 20 metres. What matters is the degree of difficulty they have and the impact on their overall health while doing it.

Yes. The distance for the higher rate on DLA used to be 50 metres. It was reduced to 20 metres for PIP by the coalition government when they consulted with disability organisations. Their excuse was that the respondents to the consultation had suggested that 20 metres was a fairer gauge of difficulty - Esther McVey, the then minister for the disabled, actually reported that as fact in the Commons. She was forced to apologise when it was made public that no such opinion had ever been expressed by anyone taking part in the consultation, and that it had been the plan all along to reduce the distance to 20 metres.

You are correct about the distance rules too. They are not set in stone - they are guides. It’s perfectly possible for a claimant to be able to walk significantly more than 20 metres and still be awarded the higher rate, because what matters is not whether they can walk the distance, but the degree of difficulty they have in doing it, for which several factors are taken into account. It’s not, and never has been a case of ‘boom, you can walk 20 metres so you don’t qualify’ as many posters here seem to think.

Agree. And that’s the root of the problem here. If you’re not 100% in possession of all of the facts concerning someone’s condition/benefit claim, and you don’t have a working knowledge of the requirements for PIP, then you really have no business interfering based on what you think might be going on. The consequences to the claimant can be devastating.

Thank you for your reply and explanation.

Just a brief response re:

Just because someone doesn’t look disabled doesn’t mean they are not.

And in some cases,

Just because someone tells you they are disabled, doesn’t mean they are.

I agree that just because someone tells you they are disabled doesn't means they are disabled. However, I do believe that if: someone tells a specialist that they are disabled backed up with years of doctors / phycologists reports, then persuades a judge that they are disabled, we can safety conclude that they are over some fools opinion who thinks they don't look disabled enough.

My DLA is an indefinite award. Neurological problems and lung issues don’t end - they progress. 🤷‍♀️

But it appears that OP does know a lot about the claimants and their activities, and if they are able to do the things described, then it’s not unreasonable to query why they get benefits.

Why? The assessors have assessed this person, and have seen fit to uphold his claim. What exactly is there to query?

The OP thinks they know a lot about the claimant. Chances are they don't

Why do you think you have the right to designate people as "truly deserving" or "scroungers"?