PIP isn't fit for purpose

[Ljcrow]

I made this comment on another thread and thought I'd start a separate thread purely on this topic. This is all from my own personal experience rather than from reading/hearing anything, I'm only going off what I see day to day.
The people I know who claim PIP do not need it financially. One works full time and earns more than me (and I'm not at imminent risk of homelessness or starvation) and the young people I know literally tell me things like their PIP's come in so they're off to get a new tattoo, which they then do. They appear to have much more disposable income than me.
These are all people who can function in society by the way and as far as I can see, all PIP does is give them extra spending money, which I'm sure we'd all like.

I'm aware this won't be the case for everyone who recieves PIP but it is for the people I come into regular contact with. Which is why it needs reloooking at so it only goes to those who actually need the money for a specific purpose related to their disability.

We're not in a position as a society where we can afford to give people money who do not actually need it.
Things like this should be means tested, both in terms of whether people have enough income to live a decent life without additional benefits and in terms of what the money is actually going to be used for.
PIP is not fit for purpose and needs scrapping or totally changing.

You cant just claim to be a little bit anxious and get PIP.

But this is exactly why it's wrong, its mot means tested at all.

I know of two people who are financially independent and comfortable and receive this, yet I know people who are severely disabled and unable to work, who receive very little by way of benefits or practical help from their LA and are cared for by a parent who gets very little support and what is the equivalent to less than minimum wage in carers allowances. These people are not comfortable in the least. It's wrong.

Exactly. I didn’t have any help with mine, and spent days filling in the 26 page DLA form for my son, collecting evidence, and quite frankly sobbing over it as it’s actually really really distressing having to write pages and pages about all of the things my child can’t do and all the reasons he can’t live a normal life. I am not sure how anyone is managing to just whizz off the forms with no evidence attached and still be awarded help.

Means testing PIP is totally wrong.

I work with a woman whose PIP enables her to work, and earn a great wage. But without the PIP she wouldn't be able to work, wouldn't have succeeded in her career and would be claiming more benefits, as well as the mental health impact of not having meaningful employment.

It's like motability cars - you now can't get a car adapted without going through motability because it's cornered the market and companies now won't/ can't work independently. So if you weren't eligible for pip (because it's changed to be means tested) you lose your independence and ability to get to work.

yes and they are probably spending all that extra money on avocados on toast and skiing trips in Bermuda

here's a challenge for your medical expertise, how are these undercover investigators going to confirm or deny people do or don't have anxiety?

x-ray goggles?

telepathy?

I heard they also have undercover investigators to test for intelligence, but I could just be talking out of my arse 😆

My first DLA claim for ds all I had to send evidence wise was his diagnosis letter, he was still awarded it. This time I had his EHCP, plus letter from his Sen school.

At what rate?

They genuinely believe that those of us who are genuine won't be affected. They wanted to slash the budget by 20% when it changed from DLA to PIP. I find it hard to believe that 20% of DLA claims weren't genuine

The OP is not talking about people who are fudging their claim, she is talking about people like us, who just because we work, shouldn't get the benefit.

The fact is that being disable is expensive and the couple of hundred a month does allow us to offset some of these costs whilst being able to work and have some semblance of life outside of work. For us, it is a tax rebate not a benefit and enables us to go out, work and, you know, put money back into the economy. I estimate that the additional costs of being a wheelchair user is just over £2K a month, which is still £1600 I am sinking into my disability every month and I expect my costs are on the lower side

I understand the argument that very wealthy people may not need the financial support. The difficulty is deciding where the cut-off should be. Is it based on income, savings, investments, property value, pension wealth, household income, or a combination of all of them? Someone may live in a £1 million house but have very little disposable income, whilst someone else may have substantial investments but a modest home. Any means test creates cliff edges where people just above the threshold receive nothing and people just below receive everything.

PIP was created as a contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability, not as an income replacement benefit. The principle is that two people with the same functional limitations face similar additional costs, regardless of their earnings or savings.

Is a millionaire with severe disabilities less disabled than someone on a low income? If not, why should one qualify for support with disability-related costs and not the other?

That doesn't mean means-testing is wrong, but it shows the debate is really about whether disability benefits should compensate for disability itself or only provide financial support to those with lower means. And PIP was originally conceived to try cover some of the costs of a disability.

Personally, I think the strongest challenge to the means-testing argument is asking where the threshold would be:
£50,000 savings?
£100,000?
£250,000?
£1 million?
Household income of £60,000? £100,000?

There is no obvious answer, and wherever the line is drawn, somebody will argue it is unfair.

We can say this about most benefits and that the purpose needs to be reviewed i.e. I have a lovely made who was widowed young and she gets an admittedly outdated widows benefit now, to help offset the loss of her late husbands income and it will cease when she hits retirement or she marries. She has lived with her partner for 20yrs without marrying because she does not want to lose the benefit. Is that right?

I don't disagree that there are issues with our benefit system but where the line is drawn is very contentious.

the OP is just regurgitating Tice and Farage's mumbo jumbo, while under the mistaken impression they are original

"oh so and so's daughter, who I barely know, admitted to me they are claiming PIP because of a runny nose"

tomorrow it will be "net zero is bankrupting us", "drill for oil - lets get fracking", "NHS is not fit for purpose" and insert "friend of friend work is VERY senior <in any of the above sectors> and admitted it is ALL true"

In essence I agree, PIP and the assessment system are not fit for purpose. However, it’s not means tested, so how much a PIP claimant earns is irrelevant, and being in receipt of PIP gives other help, not just financial, like a Blue Badge for parking, and accessibility for airports, concerts etc. That said, it costs around £1000 a month more to live if you are disabled, so having a high (ish) income doesn’t mean the PIP isn’t needed.

But, the PIP assessment is absolute bullshit. It focuses on very specific things, and ignores other, very relevant, things. I have two chronic, very debilitating conditions, one of them degenerative, and a few years ago was awarded standard rate personal care and mobility. Last year my award was reviewed and it was stopped. I’m now having to appeal via a tribunal. I can only work 2 days a week and need at least one recovery day to rest after a days work, due to chronic pain and fatigue. On days when I’ve been at work I can’t cook when I get home, so have to make sure I have leftovers or batch cooked food I can reheat. On my rest/recovery days I also rely on batch cooked/leftovers to eat. I only shower 2-3 days a week and wash my hair every 7-10 days, because I can’t do these things on a work or rest day, and if I do laundry or housework, I then need to rest for at least an hour after each task. Out of these things, only preparing food and feeding myself, and washing/bathing/dressing is covered in the assessment, so they don’t check to see if I can clean my house properly or do laundry, or grocery shopping. My days are scheduled around rest breaks, and as a result I can’t get all my household stuff done, like a non-disabled person could.

So no, it’s not fit for purpose, but not in the way you think. (I have tattoos, is that ok? Am I allowed nice things that make me happy, or do I not deserve stuff like this because I’m a benefit scrounging cripple?)

Talking about means testing is just yet again thinking it's about money.

David Cameron claimed DLA for his son before he died. Why? He didn't need money. Why would he claim it?

People need to get their heads out of the crap being spouting on SM.

I did have ds at home for a year before he got the place, he had ebsa, it wasn’t easy to get the place and never said it was.

you can and there's also a little box at the bottom, where you tick if you want to get 50% extra - if you google the discount code first

Exactly. I've had periods of severe and debilitating anxiety. Most people couldn't tell - I could go to the shops, drop my kids off, carry out daily tasks and hold a short conversation. I couldn't work because I couldn't make appropriate decisions, focus sufficiently to remain on task or handle any kind of stress. Thankfully I was maternity leave so it didn't matter, but I absolutely couldn't have returned to work, not would the people I worked with have wanted me to.

Children under 16 don’t get PIP. Parents can claim DLA. We’ve been claiming for DD1 since she was in primary school and carer’s allowance for me.

We had to apply for PIP when she turned 16 and it was a very different, very complex form.

Middle rate. And at renewal has received the higher rate. Both times low rate mobility.

Are you struggling with comprehension? Does it become true for you if I type it all out again?

Or, are you claiming you don't believe that the lazy fuck I work with behaved that way?

Bizarre.

anxiety, when it gets going, is a literal fucking monster

its not getting naturally nervous or apprehensive about a speech, job interview, or abseiling down a 200 foot cliff

I think what the poster meant was that there are far too many who exaggerate symptoms in order to do so.
With the help of the internet medical conditions and symptoms are far easier to find information about.

Lol so 4 out of 5 do then.

What you've got some weird idea about that PIP and DLA are so different for, is for reasons known to yourself only.

You can apparently claim that you can't get from a to b even on a familiar route though or do the "activities of daily living " and get full pip awards though.

Pip is to help offset the extra costs of having a disability, it's not to replace wages, it's to offer people at a disadvantage some equity, the whole point of it is to help disabled people live as normal a life as possible as if they weren't disabled, not leave them with the absolute bare minimum.

PIP-haters never talk about the fact there are plenty of disabled people who will never claim it. I first applied last year, when I've been disabled for 10.