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.

Because it is personal that is why people respond like they do, you can say oh "im not talking about you" until the cows come home, but most original posters of these threads are meaning it personal they are aiming their "opinions" at all disabled and ill people.

If they do that then report them.

You need to understand human psychology: people do not often like to admit they are struggling, either for money or when living with their condition. People have pride.

And if they have been struggling for a long time, it is not uncommon for someone to think ‘fuck it’ and treat themselves to something nice to boost their mental health, even if they cannot really afford it.

And my god, if you’re living with a disability, particularly if it causes you pain or inconvenience daily, you need to feel there’s something to look forward to.

It is also very common for people who have very little financially to tell others they are spending their benefits on something non-essential. It’s unhelpful to the society because it encourages benefit bashing, but it’s usually a pride thing that helps the individual to feel seen as canny rather than dependent.

I don’t think you are wrong but you’ll get nowhere with this because it’s a government issue and there’s very little that can be done about it unless the rules change.

I know two very egregious cases but what can be done about it? It’s not illegal to spend your PIP money in Botox and hair extensions and still be behind on bills.

The bad part is that claimants like that will inevitably screw it up for others. PIP is a very good thing on principle.

I think you make a really good point. But then I also think the earth is flat and JFK is alive.

I know a number of people, particularly teenagers whose parents are in on it, who take the absolute piss with PIP, but if you say that on here you just get called a liar. I have a disabled brother who has been refused and really struggles so I find it quite upsetting. Of course there are many genuine claimants, but any system is going to be exploited by those who know how to play it, unfortunately. The OP understands that PIP isn’t means tested but we need to be able to discuss whether it should be without biting each other’s heads off as the country now pays out more in welfare than it receives in tax from those working.

Interesting points, I hadn't thought of it that way. Perhaps that's sometimes the case but I'm not convinced it always is.

They get all the benefits they are entitled to I would not be fulfilling my role as Deputy if they didn't! My point is the system is clogged up with "disabled" people who aren't imo disabled.

We must stop the ill and disabled from having any joy in life, sod the long term social and health repercussions of such a policy!

And again, you’re not responding to the people who are writing about how the spending actually works and the thought process behind it. You only reply to people who say they don’t believe you or anyone you can argue with without going into specifics.

Why did you post?

You can’t reply to everyone so start ignoring those posters instead, and reply to the people engaging in the discussion you started.

If she can't drive due to her epilepsy, has your daughter looked into a disabled person's bus pass? This is free and she needs to apply through her local council

Can I ask you something, and this is genuine. I would really love an honest answer. Are you disabled?

Maybe because we have a national health service and other countries do not? A significant amount of PIP and DLA spending goes on accessing services that are not available through the NHS but should be and are available in other countries through health insurance etc. I suspect it would actually cost the country more to correctly provide these services through the NHS than to give people the money via PIP to then spend on the services through the private sector. I am particularly referring to mental health support but I'm sure it applies to physical disabilities/ therapies etc too.

I've literally just responded to someone who made some good points in counter to my argument. Look further up the thread on this page. If someone is misrepresenting what I've said or accusing me of lying, I'm going to respond.

Also, anyone who works and pays tax has a right to discuss how the government is spending our money.

@Ljcrow I think there's a misunderstanding about what PIP is for. PIP isn't a means-tested benefit and it isn't intended to provide a basic income. It's intended to help with the extra costs that can arise from living with a disability or long-term health condition.

Someone can be working full time and still face significant additional costs compared with a non-disabled colleague. For example, an amputee might need to spend hundreds of pounds a month on taxis because public transport isn't always accessible in practice, or because weather conditions make walking unsafe. Someone with chronic fatigue, autism, severe anxiety, sensory issues, mobility problems or chronic pain may need to pay for transport, practical support, specialist equipment, higher utility bills or other disability-related expenses.

If PIP helps that person stay in work and remain independent, the state may actually spend less overall than if the person's condition deteriorates and they end up unable to work and relying on means-tested benefits as well.

The fact that some people use part of their income on non-essential things such as tattoos doesn't prove they don't need PIP. Money is fungible. If PIP covers disability-related costs, the money they were previously spending on those costs becomes available for other things, just as anyone else's disposable income would be.

It's perfectly reasonable to debate whether the assessment system is working properly, whether some people qualify who shouldn't, or whether the criteria need reform (I think it does as delays for claimants are too long and its not working). But seeing a claimant in work, owning nice things, or occasionally spending money on luxuries doesn't in itself show they are not entitled to PIP.

I would also challenge your assumption that because they can see someone buying a tattoo, they can see the whole financial picture. What they don't see may be: £200 a month on taxis, A cleaner because the person cannot manage household tasks, Higher heating costs from being at home more. Prescription costs, specialist items, continence products, dietary requirements, or mobility aids. Reduced working hours compared with what they could otherwise do.

The strongest argument, in my view, isn't "everyone on PIP needs it". It's:
"You can argue about where the eligibility line should be drawn, but judging entitlement by whether someone has a job or occasionally buys themselves something nice misunderstands what PIP is designed to do."

I don’t claim universal credit as I have savings. My enhanced indefinite pip is being saved for household improvements. For my disability. I have a steam shower which my dr recommended and a jacuzzi for my circulation m. An electric bed to help me get up. I have dysphagia so I have to buy my supplements in liquid form and just bought a nutribullet so I don’t have to have the god awful drink thickening on prescription. I am saving the pip at the moment for a new kitchen with one part adaptive for me and the rest usable for my family. Then I will save for a wet room. I work full time but minimum wage from home. Do you begrudge me this?

Ok I'll bite ,I work full-time and use my pip for blow drys and having my nails done BECAUSE they are the things my disability now prevents me doing for myself .Pip is designed to pay towards the extra costs one incurs as a result of a their disability and that is exactly what I use it for ..

You are not doing thinking here OP. The mentioning of tattoo might be just a small tiny fact . Very often disabled young adults haven’t got much opportunities for actually doing something. Mine can’t apply make up herself so don’t use it at all, limited in what clothes and footwear she can wear, she can’t cope with accessories sensory and can’t actually physically put them on/ off. If the mentioned young adult in a similar situation this tattoo might be the only rare way for them to do something for themselves. Think about how many things they can’t do or really struggle to do. Many disabled young adults can’t d even go to places by themselves - they need someone with them or where you and me will walk or cycle or drive - disabled person needs a taxi. A lot of them can’t do their nails so need to pay someone, can’t clean their teeth properly so need extra visits to hygienist, they need specially adapted clothes and footwear which both are expensive. It’s just a few things.
You know nothing about the reality of disability expenses.

added: and when I say “can’t do their nails” I mean mine can’t file or cut them physically at all - she needs another person to do so. We are not talking about such extra as nail polish we are talking about basic hygiene.

It should be means tested

Thank you - we will look into that. It would be a great help for her.

I would and have reported people. I don't give a shit if someone has a problem with that.

It might be good to look at means testing. I used to claim pip but I didn’t ‘need’ the money.

Then you misunderstand what it's for.

I think you make an interesting point about it not being means tested. But I think that slightly sorts itself out, e.g. I have a child who has pip. We have very high household expenses because we have several DC and so whilst our income is high, so are our outgoings and the pip really helps with the additional costs for DC.

In the next couple of years we are hoping for a.couple of events to have come to fruition that will mean we will be very comfortable. Will I then bother to fill out that feck awful form for a £100 a week top up? Definitely not. Because I don't need it and it's an absolute ball ache.

I think the issue is the level of fraud, not the income of the fraudsters. Everyone's "what am I like, I'm so on the spectrum" or "omg I'm neurospicy" because they like the attention and the way to access a non means tested funding pot. Which feels like a punch in the gut when you've raised a child who would crawl through broken glass to not have the problems their genuine ND condition brings.

There will always be abusers of the system. Always. Is it easier to abuse now? Definitely.