One in six PIP claimants have no extra costs linked to their disability

[Allseeingallknowing]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/40693771/pip-claimants-disability-benefit/
So, can money be saved here?

Did the OP read the part where about 2500 (I think on X someone said it was 2611) people were asked? Yet 4 million people claim

This. DS get the PIP equivalent here in Ireland but doesn't use his money. Because I feed, water and chauffeur him and pay for everything. But as hes over 16 hes gets to manage his money himself. That system is under review here and Id be happy with pocket money style payment for teens, with the bulk going to the parents who are bearing the actual costs of disability.

How on earth could you possibly know this?

It’s not unreasonable for people to wonder how the country can limit the welfare bill when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has repeatedly warned the UK government to control its soaring welfare bill and exercise expenditure restraint rather than relying on higher taxes.

The link is below, it’s from the RF survey.

Something needs to be done about people with ADHD that spend their PIP on weed in the mistaken belief that weed is good for ADHD when in fact it will deteriorate their mental health.

You misunderstood me. I'm talking about the nasty things people post on threads like these.

I would have also told you at age 16-24 that being disabled didn't cost more. I was young and nieve. When you grow up disabled you don't know any difference.

Define extra costs? Dd can’t work and study, and can only work pt as an adult, that may not strictly be an extra cost but it’s certainly in economic speak an opportunity cost, if she wasn’t asd and a whole bunch of other letter acronyms she would be able to work full time hours and in a proper job

Luckily for the OP, 5/6 PIP claimants find that PIP does not cover the full cost of their disability.

So I guess things even out in the end.

Wow if people don't like that statement they are going to hate that the left wing Resolution Foundation are recommending that a portion of PIP is switched from being paid in cash to being paid in participation in services to improve the ability to engage in society.

Should alcoholics receive a pip. After all, it is an illness and they have extra expenses.

I don’t think you can conclude 1 in 6 PIP claimants don’t have any costs when the survey only included 2,500 people.

This is exactly why the country is in the financial mess it is in. Anyone who criticises the benefit system is apparently an ‘ableist benefit brasher’ 🙄🙄🙄 (shrieked of course by those in receipt of benefits).

The simple fact is that the current benefit system is unaffordable, so we either need to get a lot stricter about who gets benefits, or pay everyone on benefits a lot less.

Yep. Why is everyone so determined to attack the most vulnerable people in society? It’s not even a large part of public spending.

There are formulas to help work out how many people need to be surveyed to get an answer that is accurate

Another day another pip bashing thread

The implication is they are not the most vulnerable in all cases

i was always told PIP was for additional help and expenses. Not just a little treat

The recommendation is there should be additional elements that can be awarded, not that those elements would replace cash for everyone.

RF recommends a function test should remain at the heart of the PIP system, but that assessments should also include a discussion of what extra costs claimants experience and what would help them participate more in the wider world.

Also that there should be three elements that a decision maker can award a claimant: an ongoing cash element to contribute to additional costs; a capped one-off payment for capital items such as aids and adaptations; and a participation element, usually delivered through local services, designed to build claimants’ capacity to engage with society.

"In reality, PIP would be better as a personalised package of support, not just an ongoing cash payment".

Or assess people properly? There's no reason why the DWP can't get the decision right the first or second time. 65% go to tribunal and win

I’m not convinced that can reliably happen given the differences within the disabled population who claim PIP.

Do you think that everyone should have their costs individually calculated. Do you think that will be cheaper?

You really think that would be cheaper? Have you seen the cost of disability equipment?

Then you have to do it for all benefits and not just pip

You’re so ignorant I have started writing several replies and just deleted them. You don’t want to learn anything from this thread, you just want to create more hate.

Well I've never met an adult on pip who doesn't have extra costs. And that's just obvious things like the fact they can't go on certain modes of transport or even move some days.