Jump to content

bedofweeds

Registered.
  • Content Count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bedofweeds

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Worthless?? Why? He has quoted factual figures that are showing an approx. 11% reduction in claimants following the introduction of the 'bedroom tax'. Those figures may or may not be directly related to that reason - they are just as likely to as they are just unlikely not to. But the important thing is that which ever way you look at it, 25,000+ people are no longer claiming benefits since it's introduction. Make what you may of it, but please don't be so blinkered as only to see it from your singular point of view. The government are gaining on the overall reduction of the numbers claiming welfare which has to be a good thing however it is achieved 'bedroom tax' ATOS, sanctions or whatever.
  2. Why on earth are you so dismissive of good news? 25,000 claimants no longer claiming benefit for whatever reason surely is good news? Phibbs is saying that it is because of the 'bedroom tax' - who knows he might well be right.
  3. We all know what they are supposed to do, but in my own two hearings, they didn't and when I pushed the matter with the Chair he said that he was quite happy with the DWP's explanations as to why they shouldn't respond.
  4. The figures were revealed by Harry Phibbs, a Tory councillor, in an investigation for the ConservativeHome website. He surveyed councils across the UK and 141 responded. In their areas, 25,238 of the 233,732 people stripped of the spare bedroom subsidy – or nearly 11 per cent – were no longer claiming any benefits. Figures show the move has encouraged thousands to look for work Mr Phibbs said that extended across the UK, it would be the equivalent of 71,000 out of the 660,000 claimants predicted to be affected stopping claiming benefits. ‘Before this change it wasn’t rewarding for people to work,’ he said. ‘This is giving people a reward for working – they are able to stay in their homes rather than downsizing into a smaller home. ‘Because work is now being rewarded, many people are coming off benefits altogether and getting full-time jobs
  5. And your reply as to your experience/qualifications as evidenced by your ESA/DLA claims are still awaited? You see some are more qualified to pass comment on the Welfare Reform given the awards made without recourse to the Tribunal or multi applications.
  6. I beg to disagree with you. Yes scans can and do prove injuries. But there are many cases where they don't yet people complain of the symptoms with no evidence to back them up. I could once again cite ME CFS, there are no tests that can prove that they exist, if they actually do. Then we have the scans that do show an injury but cannot actually prove to what extent the true pain level is. Amongst my many problems, I have a damaged lower back (sports injury 30 years ago) Yes it aches, but it would be so easy for me to exaggerate the level of pain as it can never be determined medically nor can the level of mobility be properly assessed. The consultants would say that the level of disability is consistent with the injury but how much of that is true and how much of it is not? Hence why PIP is better placed to assess this as opposed to a consultant and a GP being told by the patient that they are suffering more than is true. How many claimants do actually exaggerate? Having said all of that I still will argue that 20 metres is a far better distance to find the most serious cases, as the higher the figure goes the more people will become eligible - something that this country can no longer afford.
  7. Thanks for that, but I don't know what you are going on about. Why is it that when somebody disagrees with the majority they are deemed to be a troll? I, along with many many others fully agree with PIP - it should have happened years ago. What is this, you are only allowed to post if that post is all about keeping the status quo and allowing people to claim as much as they can? I can see the two sides to Welfare Reform - you appear to only see one side - yours! And as for making this a personal issue, could I ask how many attempts you had to make to be awarded ESA? Maybe my single attempt which resulted in being put in the Support Group for 3 years more than qualifies me to comment on issues surrounding the DWP and the Welfare Reform Act. By the way one attempt only for DLA, no Tribunal - awarded HRM & MRC indefinitely on medical evidence only!!!!
  8. The DWP for some reason are now more and more deciding what evidence would suit their purpose and keeping quiet about other evidence that they hold that could well be of great help to the claimant. I have had two similar situations. One where the Tribunal demanded disclosure and that the DWP said were irrelevant and refused to supply them citing that the case was open and shut in their favour no matter what they disclosed. (Evidence that a decision notice had been sent to the wrong address - they only had to show that it was posted to the last known address in any event). the DWP won that case (when this became apparent it was beyond the 13 month time limit). And a second one where they refused to include a letter in their submission, that a copy hadn't been kept by me which clearly stated that it was to be treated as an informal appeal. I subsequently, at the request of the DWP, had to complete a GL24 as they wouldn't accept the appeal letter which was then immediately refused as it was outside the 13 month time limit. (The Tribunal required disclosure of this letter but the DWP cited that it was irrelevant as a formal appeal was issued which made the original informal appeal null and void and which was subsequently out of time. I do have a strong feeling that instructions have been issued to the DWP to tighten up on appeals and claims and to use whatever means that are available to stop money being awarded. Previously (years ago) these situations would never have arisen as decisions and awards were sometimes given if it was reasonable and just to do so despite legally they were not due.
  9. The reason for the reduction is that the government want to target the most disabled in society. One way of doing this is to reduce it to 20 metres. Anybody that can walk further than that cannot be classed as the most disabled and deserving. I'm not saying that reducing the limit won't hurt some people, but with the limited resources that this country has isn't it better to give it to the most disabled? I can walk just about 50 metres, 20 metres is easily attained. Would it be right for me to get the same enhanced rate as those who can't walk 20 metres? I don't think so. Would I give up my award so that the most disabled can have theirs? Course I would and would expect everybody else to do the same. There are only so many times that the government can divide the Welfare Budget into.
  10. Absolutely. I don't consider myself as being labelled 'disabled'. Yes I am awarded HRM & MRC but those were awarded based on medical evidence that fitted exactly what the DWP consider to prove a disability. There is a whole world apart from what the DWP consider proves a disability and what the reality actually is. It's a bit like sitting exams. You can spend hours learning all about the subject or you can be taught how to pass an exam, with only those elements that are expected to be in the exam paper. I also receive ESA and am in the Support Group. Again because the correct medical evidence submitted proved that I qualified. It's all about proving that you fit the right descriptors and the maximum number of points. For example if you can prove that you have limited use of both arms to such an extent that you cannot get something out of a top pocket of a jacket you will immediately qualify for ESA AND be put in the Support Group. Whether you are too sick to work has nothing to do with it - it's a question of passing the right descriptor.
  11. I would say that on balance there are fewer genuine claimants than there are [problematic], if my towns are anything to go by. Normally on a Saturday morning I go into town and have a coffee close to a large disabled only parking area. I sit there and watch them. Crutches under both arms and stick merchants that never touch the floor. Go and have a look at the tax disc - hey ho disabled nil tax!! Of the car park of the village pub, there are three cars parked up every Friday and Saturday evening that have nil tax discs- yet go inside and not a stick or crutch to be seen. What you can see are 6/7 guys in their early 30's swilling beer for the next 4 hours, then at 11.30pm they all pile into the 3 cars and head to the local nightspots in town!
  12. Thanks at least you are seeing what is happening. What should happen? The DWP must believe the claimant as it is impossible to prove it? And where would that get us? Treat all claimants as being totally honest - as if! If it cannot be proven and it is entirely down to how a claimant fills in a form or is able to act in front of a Tribunal - that will lead to a dangerous place. What happens to those claimants that can't fill out these forms properly or are so nervous at a Tribunal that they come over as being unsure - should they lose out? The best parts of PIP are the continual re-assessment and assessment by descriptors. It is quite possible that if I went for an assessment for PIP I would be well able to make out that I could only walk a maximum of 10 metres and would be in agony for hours afterwards. Should I be given the enhanced rate. No, I would have to prove the 10 metre limit using medical evidence and tests. It wouldn't matter what state I was in afterwards as I would have proven the 10 metre limit. However if my statement of 10 metres was proven to be exaggerated and the consultant said the figure was more like 100 metres, then I would have to rely on the non ability to do the whole thing again which I couldn't prove was the case and the DWP couldn't prove it wasn't. Hence a Tribunal which would rely entirely on how the claimant comes over - good liar or poor honest and nervous individual.
  13. Now that is being really really silly! I was talking about ADHD, ME, CFS and a whole bunch of other 'diseases'. In fact with ME & CFS there is no known test that can actually prove that you have it - much akin to the bad back and stiff neck of the 90's. And to actually suggest that someone that has had both arms and legs blown off in Afghanistan is classified as disabled in the same way as someone that claims to have ME/CFS astounds me. Yet DLA allows it to happen.
  14. I know it has - since 1992. And there hangs the reason why DLA has become a shambles - people pushing the boundaries of what the benefit was never intended to cover. Hence why it was the intention to not have it included in PIP. Now that it is we will have all and sundry putting up arguments that in reality can never be proven one way or the other. Surely it would be better to have a 'black & while' approach. Anyhow, I can walk to a proven maximum of 40 metres before the pain and severe discomfort becomes too much to cope with. However I will admit that if I want to I would walk for more than 100 metres whilst enduring pain and severe discomfort to prove a point. I also could only walk 10 metres before severe discomfort actually starts. Could I do it again after a short break - who knows? I have never had it tested on the treadmill at the hospital. Those are the facts. and on those facts I will not be awarded the Enhanced element of PIP but the Standard element Do you agree? However I know full well that there would be many appeals lodged stating that 'do it once fine' but could you do it again'. Which basically cannot ever be proven and we end up with the same argument that caused the demise of DLA. It's all academic anyhow, as I won't be putting myself forward for PIP as at my age I just want a peaceful life. I am eligible for Attendance Allowance in 8 months so I will go down that route and leave you all to argue amongst yourselves.
  15. Not at all. Daytime care Frequent means more than twice Throughout the day means at intervals during the day Significant period means more than an hour in total. http://www.lawcentreni.org/EoR/benefits-and-tax-credits/dla-and-attendance-allowance.html#1.DLA
×
×
  • Create New...