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?

@Kirbert2 nobody is talking about cutting dla so it's irrelevant.
But hospital transport is for those who can't get to the hospital by public transport or taxi. There is a scheme for those who care very poor to claim travel back. But otherwise cost doesn't come into it for anyone. Lots of people with medical issues struggle with the cost who don't get benefits. CCTV

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/welfare-inquiry/article/pip-killing-people-addicts-spend-benefits-drink-drugs-dgms3z9kx

I have known a few.
But what do you want to achieve by removing their PIP?
They do not get PIP because they are addicts.

Save the taxpayer some money.

Explain how.

By not paying PIP.

For the impact of their addiction. So a full blown alcoholic or drug addict often does not keep themselves clean, eat properly, prepare meals, manage money properly e.g. spends rent money on drugs, etc etc.

So yes it is for their addiction.

But PIP is not awarded due to addiction.
Addicts don't stop if their money is stopped. They turn to crime instead.
How is that helpful?

Some people do want DLA cut. Also, some DC on DLA become adults on PIP.

You don't think that DLA would be next? Of course it would be.

I know what hospital transport is for. I've used it....before I had the motability car.

The pip money could be better used to find soup kitchens for drug and alcohol addicts. They won't spend money on food but might eat it if it's free.

What are you suggesting should happen to these people instead?

Wouldn’t that just incentivise assessors to approve PIP in cases where it’s not required on the basis that they’re only ever going to have rejections challenged (as who would ever challenge getting PIP when they don’t think they should!)?

Such a KPI wouldn’t work in practice and have negative unintended consequences

How many addicts have you known on an up close and personal basis?

FGS OP- these threads are becoming so bloody tedious… but as you ask…

I think so many here are of the impression that obtaining PIP in the first place is a walk in the park, it really isn’t. It’s often months of sheer hell, uncertainty & yes, financial detriment, whilst navigating some real challenges.

Many carers to young adults will be on a limited income due to having had to give up their career. This means often that household costs are not just strained, they’re broken.
Many in receipt of PIP will be NEET , which not only means they lack the ability to generate their own income yet or at all, they are home full time & therefore consuming mch more in terms of food, entertainment, education & utilities.
Then there’s transport-petrol is expensive, many cannot take public transport, but may not receive motability… often means taxis or adapted cars…
Those with restricted diets, digestive problems all need safe foods which often is expensive.
Then there’s the need for tech, phone bills, Wi-Fi, all the things we all take for granted, but are necessary for education, safe access to the community, vocational & volunteer activities etc…
That’s before they have funds for any luxuries or social opportunities, your notion that disabilities generally come without cost is painfully deluded,

Whilst not ideal, it might be worth your son going private as it’s only a few hundred £ if it’s causing him significant issues (which I’m assuming it might be if he’s a teenager and into sports etc).

Haha! There are plenty of soup kitchens where I live.

Soup does not sure addiction.

Why are you assuming anyone with a drug/booze problem is homeless?

That’s because for younger people parents carry the costs. Honestly why aren’t millionaires dodging taxes subject to this scrutiny. Or people that run businesses but don’t declare earnings. ‘Yeah mate, pay cash and it X price’!

Many in receipt of PIP will be NEET , which not only means they lack the ability to generate their own income yet or at all, they are home full time & therefore consuming mch more in terms of food, entertainment, education & utilities.

So get a job and stop sitting around watching Netflix? No sympathy, sorry

@Kirbert2 no I don't think they will come for children. That is an election loser policy.
The aim is to cut the spiralling number of young people on pip and get them into work. No one wants a generation of young people on benefits for life, when their parents and grandparents did work with the same issues.

We all know it is very common for young adults with ADHD and autism to have at least one parent and grandparent with the same issues, but who do work and care for themselves.

So? Household income has been taken into account for years for certain benefits.

They are. The top 1% of earners pay 29% of all income tax.

Fewer disabled YP would be NEET if LAs didn’t act unlawfully around EHCPs so often.

I am not. Why are you assuming only homeless people consume free food?

I know all this chest beating about entirely fair boundaries. Like anything less than just handing out money no questions asked is a human rights abuse.