I agree with the benefit cuts for promoting

[Canaryhead]

I am on disability and universal credit and I don’t work (which will change when I get the support to some part time work, and I have been in contact with a disability charity). I get points for a physical disability and a cognitive disability. I do have severe mental health issues which I am working on but I don’t claim for it.
So I can see that currently you can score 2 points across a number of categories for needing prompting. And I can see how that relates to mental health, and if you score enough you would then get the full amount of the care component, with the full mobility component if you say you need to have someone with you for your mental health condition (I agree they need someone with them but they shouldn’t be able to use that money to pay for a mobility car in my opinion if they aren’t physically or cognitively disabled) For neurodivergence you would get more than two points as it comes with executive functioning difficulties that have an impact for the majority of the time, harm to yourself and others, so you could argue you're needing supervision and things take longer like for example in processing and tiredness.
if a family and their children are claiming full pip and DLA and associated benefits because they need prompting to do tasks (sorry if I’ve got this wrong and it’s not possible) and are getting thousands for it all combined then I agree that’s so wrong and needs to stop. And I could also see how that allows the family to spend that money on lots of nice things.
people with more expensive disabilities are getting the same rates with more significant costs. I have had to make do with two pairs of leggings from the factory shop that have split apart at the seams and can’t be repaired because of the quality, and I have just been gifted money to buy better quality leggings.
If I am wrong about how I feel towards those that are on full pip for needing prompting, I wouldn’t mind being corrected

Just because you don’t have the ability to see how posts were offensive, doesn’t mean that they weren’t

Ha that's actually hilarious ... you want to talk to me about posts being offensive? I've read all of yours and i got to say I'm very offended by your views on disabled people.

OP, you are mistakenly working on the assumption that PIP is assessed honestly and that claimants are awarded the amount of points that they are genuinely entitled to.

I have seen awards where points were withheld as a dead person in another country could help/support that individual with communication issues so they didn't need the points.
Others where paraplegics have been reported as getting out of bed and answering the door which they absolutely did not.
PIP is not judged honestly or fairly.

As PIP has been set up so that if you get a total of x points spread over the descriptors you get the lower amount even if it's all judged at less than 4 points, many PIP claimants have accepted the award they have been given without appealing through fear that incorrect as it is, they will get less points if they appeal.
This threat is printed by the DWP on every award letter, they tell you that appealing might mean you lose it all.

What this is going to lead to are many more appeals.
There are a lot of people currently on standard rates who really ought to be on the higher rates, but they couldn't face appealing so just let it go for the security of having the lower rate and no more stress right then.
With the new rules, they will have no choice but to appeal every time and the amount they receive will go up.
If they somehow lose, they will just have to start all over again, they aren't all going to just lie down and die for the convenience of Keir Starmer.

Just like everything else the Labour party touch, it will turn to shit and cost more than ever.
The backlogs will grow, the new problems Labour are creating will be costly and unhelpful, probably even leading to people with mental health issues becoming sicker due to the aggressive abusive way applying is handled by the DWP.

That’s definitely possible, but I haven’t gone into the posts that others have directed at me and that MNHQ have claimed didn’t break TG. If those were consistently deleted I would not have an issue with mine being. It’s the double standard that makes me so sure there is bias. I have discussed this quite a bit with other autistic posters too and I’m far from the only one who thinks this. I’m not saying all my posts are perfect as I’m sure they aren’t! It’s the fact that personal attacks on autistic and disabled women are often left up but our posts are often highly policed that bothers me.

Anyway, a bit off the point! But you’re not wrong, I expect my autism does make me less good at judging with total accuracy.

I’m sure some people will think I made a heinous personal attack! Earlier on when I first joined Mumsnet that would have bothered me a lot, but now I’ve accepted that MNHQ has this bias and that I have to accept it if I want to use the site. I don’t like it, but I can’t control it. Plus as OP said, I expect I am a little bit of a poor judge because of my autism. So while the bias definitely is real (discussed many times with other autistic people based on specific example), when it comes to any specific post of mine, I could be wrong. I can’t control if others assume I made a personal attack, so no point stressing too much over it. I just have to let that go, iyswim? I have so much to handle with my disability and it will only make my life harder to stress out over others misreading me.

Well says, and I agree totally.

Many people with disabilities also have quite severe mental health problems anxiety/ depression because liveing with a disability is hard often lonely or isolating. Often people are OK one day and not the next because of a accident or injury .

OP it would have helped if you had a basic understanding of the changes proposed - maybe read the green paper - as your repeated incorrect comments were infuriating.

Prompting is not being scrapped. Points awarded from 1-3, including prompting, will still be counted but will only result in an award if one category scores at least 4 points in daily living. You cannot be assessed a danger to yourself or others if you can’t wash below the waist!

Lots of physically disabled people used to qualify for daily living because the 1-3 points across all/most categories used to add up to standard or even enhanced award. No more. They need to score 4 points in one category.

This will lead to an individual with the same care needs losing their award, not being able to afford therapies that kept them in work, not being able to afford therapies essential to well being whilst unable to work, loss of carer due to loss of CA for those supporting them, loss of care element on UC, loss of reduced or absent requirement to work and upgrade to ESA etc.

An affected individual and their carers is in the same situation they were before but hundreds of pounds down every month.

The cuts are not spread so hundreds of thousands face a cut of a couple of hundred pounds a year but concentrated so that the most vulnerable face a cut of thousands of pounds per year. They are no less disabled and their needs have not changed. Society has just hardened its heart and said ‘tough - we can’t afford it’.

If austerity is the key - spread it around. Can’t afford in work benefits so employers can pay low wages would be a good start. Can’t afford HB so private landlords can charge high rents would be another. Any tax paying workers disagree with that?

I don’t have any offensive views about disabled people. I was always referring to the characters that the media portray who are faking. Not someone who has a disability

So you are essentially saying that you believe I should be forced to work, at my implied detriment, with my disabilities, as a form of punishment. You therefore believe I should be treated inhumanely as a form of punishment.
You say I am “taking from others” as a way to patronise me for being too unwell to work. You believe that I could spend my time working instead of looking at the media.
And it’s all because you think I’ve been attacking disabled people (I haven’t), because of your interpretation and not what I have actually said.

@Canaryhead I think you should probably let this thread go now. Read the green paper so you understand the actual propisals and maybe not believe the shit the Daily Mail and it ilk spew forth.

Not at all. That’s just your interpretation.

You’re an adult playing games and trying to “win”. You wanted to act like I was attacking disabled people when I wasn’t to that you could argue with me. So I don’t really care what you think

Yes, I think so too

Classic DARVO from you.

That’s bold of you

@Canaryheadthere are no proposed changes for the “prompting” elements of daily living descriptors for PIP. The only change is to restrict daily living PIP awards to those with a total of at least 8 points (standard rate) or 12 points (enhanced rate), AND at least one descriptor of 4 points. So critical issue is having at least one descriptor of 4 points. The whole narrative of deserving vs undeserving disability is really tragic.

I do believe that if an award is given for a disability car gen it should be used for a certain type of car. Not used towards a Range Rover or other fancy car
it’s a joke the benefits some people are getting .

@Nightjar33if someone is awarded an enhanced rate mobility for PIP they can opt to apply to the Motability scheme which then takes the entirety of the enhanced mobility PIP in exchange for a lease on a Motability car. PIP does not give any awards specifically for a “disability car”. The Motability scheme has a range of cars available, most of which have an upfront one off cost in addition to the monthly lease element.

You don't understand how Motability works.

Its a lease scheme. It can get large discounts on new cars because of the size of its fleet. At the end of the lease the cars command a premium in the s/h market so it's financially efficient.

The cost to the taxpayer is limited to the cash value of PIP Mobility at Enhanced Rate. If the claimant wants something where the lease cost is more than c£75/week then, as with other lease set ups, cash is needed upfront.

The cost to the taxpayer of a Range Rover, and I doubt there are very many, is no more than that of something like Peugeot Rifter that can be had at no upfront payment.

Jealousy is a cruel trait. Would you have the claimant's disability in exchange for £75/week?

It’s a joke when people just spout nonsense.

nobody gets a Range Rover on motability.

If they get the payment they can choose which car. If the government had an arrangement with a car manufacturer it could save money. After all we the people paying NI and tax are all contributing to the payments

Motability is a charity. They own the cars that are leased to disabled people.
https://www.motability.co.uk/how-it-works/who-we-are/

You can only choose form what is available on the scheme though, Range Rovers are not.

Perhaps a basic google before making things up?

Also, for the several millionth time -

PEOPLE ON PIP CAN AND DO WORK.