To think that this survey is at odds with what the government is telling us ?

[ThreadGuardDog]

The results of a major UK survey into disability benefits has suggested that 49% of the public support these benefits and would support more being spent on them in the future even if it meant higher taxes. This seems to fly in the face of everything the government is telling us about the need to reduce them.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4grdk95vgno

You’re sidestepping my questions very nicely. There is a system in place for collecting taxes, just as there is a system in place to assess for disability benefits. Both are open to fraud. Do we just dismantle those systems and have a free for all on the premise that some people might lie ?

No, we don’t HAVE a free for all on declaring of income. Precisely because the government know people will lie. If we did, everyone would self report their income. They don’t.
Can you explain why you think that should be different for benefit claimants?

PIP fraud is about 1.4%.
That is from DWP figures. What makes you think you know better?

HMRC itself admits that undetected fraud cannot be measured directly, so they don’t know. The current stats are about 2.2% but that is those who are caught. And, like I said, if people were so clearly honest, we’d all self declare our income, be given unlimited credit with no checks other than the promise to pay it back and UC claimants wouldn’t need to provide bank statements. That’s not the case though, is it?

PIP is not means tested. You don't need to declare your income.
UC and PIP are not the same. Why are you conflating the two?

I am not conflating anything. If you want to claim UC, you need to provide bank statements. But you can “self report” to claim PIP. Why the difference? Why do you need to provide “proof” that you need UC but not that you need PIP (and yes, I know PIP is not means tested but people still are supposed to “prove” that they need it and they are affected in specific ways in their everyday life) Why self report for one but not the other?

But five minutes ago you were moaning about self-reporting for PIP claimants. Make your mind up.

Do you claim benefits? Do you have any idea how it works at all?

PIP is not means tested. UC is.
PIP is awarded based on care needs... nothing to do with with how much you spend.
UC is also not awarded based on how much you spend. But it is means tested.

PIP and UC are totally different benefits. And if you knew anything about UC, you would know that it covers multiple benefits... it covers rent, child care, disabled child element, carer's element, unemployment, sickness benefits etc.

And once more l’m asking you what you understand to be ‘self reporting’. PIP isn’t decided on the basis of the actual medical condition, but its effects on daily life, via a series of descriptors designed to give DWP an overview of the impact of the claimants’ condition.

So given that it’s the claimant who experiences the effects who do you think would be more qualified to report ? And as l’ve pointed out several times, it’s self reported at the application stage. At the assessment stage the claimant has to justify what they’ve said and be able to provide evidence to support it. You seem to think that assessors just blithely accept whatever a claimant says, which, as anyone who has been through this assessment will tell you, is not the case.

Doesn’t claim benefit and has no idea how the PIP system works, angry at being accused of swallowing the government rhetoric, but unable or unwilling to say how they have otherwise formed their opinion.

Always the way.

We’re talking about PIP - it’s not means tested so you don’t have to declare income. Or are you talking about ‘self reporting’ ? If the latter, it’s because the whole PIP system is built around the claimant reporting the effects of their condition on the aspects of daily life that the DWP use to assess the impact of the disability and translate it into the likely extra cost involved. What they report is then tested for it’s veracity by the assessor - PIP isn’t just given out like sweeties just because you’ve applied for it.

FFS, yes I know the difference. But I also know that if you want to claim UC you have to prove your eligibility, financially. And as an employee your employer reports your earnings, you can’t do it yourself. Why not, if everyone is so honest?
If you want to claim PIP you can just….self report. It is still an eligibility criteria, albeit not financial and so much of it is based on what people self report, when that isn’t permitted pretty much anywhere else. Like I said, I could very easily self report that my documented and diagnosed condition prevents me working, even though it doesn’t. It could. I know exactly what it could do to me and I could detail in depth the ways it could affect my day to day life. Who is going to check if I’m telling the truth?
You know exactly what I’m saying, it just doesn’t fit your narrative.
Personally, I’d like to see an investment in fraud prevention. And I’m sure that genuine claimants would welcome that since they would have nothing fo fear and reduction in fraudulent claims can only be a good thing for everyone.

Well, it seems you know the difference but for some reason think they should be similar.
Why?
Also, why do you think people on PIP are all self reporting? Some people have no idea how to claim. The people involved in their care do it all for them.

I could very easily self report that my documented and diagnosed condition prevents me working, even though it doesn’t. It could. I know exactly what it could do to me and I could detail in depth the ways it could affect my day to day life.

And that's exactly what PIP claimants - whose documented and diagnosed conditions impact them more severely than is the case for you - are doing. By the sounds of it you're fortunate that your condition doesn't affect you to the extent that you can't cover the extra costs associated with the condition when it is deeply affecting someone's day to day life. Except you can't allow that there are people in a more disadvantaged boat than you. You have to unreasonably assume that many of them must be lying.

I don't envy you the workings of your spiteful mind.

Oh do stop with the hyperbole. Of course I understand that people have severe, life limiting and life affecting disabilities. If you actually read what I wrote, I said that those people aren’t getting enough support. It is nothing to do with being spiteful, at all. Why is anyone who questions the ever increasing benefit bill labelled by some as spiteful or a terrible person? It’s just nonsense.
And, like I said, I think many people would welcome an increase in fraudulent claims investigation. Why would anyone not want that??

The increased welfare bill is also connected to longer life expectancy, ageing population, raised retirement age, longer NHS waiting times, changes in types of jobs available.

You've never tried to claim pip have you? Bizarrely even though we're quite rare (1 in 200 women v 1 in 12 men) the person assessing me took my word that I'm colorblind. But decided the letters from my GP and consultant weren't true. (one stated I'm partially sighted and the other stated that I've got various hearing difficulties)

Totally agree, which I why I said upthread that I have accepted I will not receive a state pension, despite having paid far more than the required levels. We are all going to have to make sacrifices because we cannot continue to spend as we are.

Fraud isn’t the problem. The problem is that in 2013 when PIP replaced DLA, the coalition government of the day decided it should be open to those with mental health problems.

DLA was predominantly for those with physical conditions and only a few, severe MH conditions were eligible and required robust medical evidence. I’m not saying that MH conditions shouldn’t qualify for PIP, but that government should have realised that by opening up the benefit in this way it was obvious that the cost would increase, and it probably wan’t the best choice give that PIP was supposed to save money.

Investing in more fraud prevention would only increase costs. If the government was serious about reducing costs and providing genuine support then the starting point is better assessments with better qualified medics. This would improve the decision making so that more claimants would get the right decision first time and the need for hugely expensive appeals tribunals would be vastly reduced.

Are you under the impression that it’s possible to claim PIP with no supporting medical evidence whatsoever, because that’s certainly the impression you’re giving ?

And, like I said, I think many people would welcome an increase in fraudulent claims investigation. Why would anyone not want that??

Because fraud isn’t the problem. The financial returns from successful fraud investigations wouldn’t support the cost. The problem is the sheer numbers eligible and claiming. Which creates another problem because the only way to effectively reduce these numbers is to tighten eligibility. Which means that many disabled people will be denied support because they aren’t disabled enough.

Why is anyone who questions the ever increasing benefit bill labelled by some as spiteful or a terrible person? It’s just nonsense.

it depends on how it’s being questioned doesn’t it ? I personally don’t think it’s particularly helpful to assume that the bill is increasing because people are committing fraud. The statistics don’t support that, so investing wholesale in fraud investigation isn’t going to save a brass penny.

How do you know successful fraud investigations would not return more than they cost? Where are you getting this from?

There are also support agencies and disability outreach workers like myself, who assist with applications, reconsiderations and appeals. Presumably we’re all complicit in the wholesale fraud that’s apparently taking place under our noses.

Because the DWP's own official figures for fraud are almost microscopically small. But you appear to assume there's widespread fraud that hasn't been detected and isn't proven by the official statistics, so you'd expect there to be a higher saving from further measures to detect fraud.

You don't have any proof of that.