Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bedofweeds

  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 claim
  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
  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
  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 s
  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
  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 giv
  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
  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
  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-a
  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
  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
  16. What I have said is what the DWP look for. You should have appealed.
  17. But that is your opinion. You would certainly need to back up that argument with medical evidence. Otherwise everybody would be saying the same thing. Once maybe, twice, I don't know, three time damned impossible. You may think that it is reasonable, but what you think is immaterial, it's what is proven and accepted by the DWP. As I have said, the DWP by having those words included will give rise to countless unnecessary Tribunal hearings.
  18. In the first place you would have to prove that you couldn't do it twice a day with medical evidence. Take you back to the origins of DLA and PIP - Mobility Allowance. Given what you say - you wouldn't qualify as under those regulations you had to show that walking 20 metres would be impossible at any time.
  19. I agree, but then if you take those three words literally everybody is going to have their own interpretation. Are they defined in law? If not why not? The day they put those words into the PIP regs totally devalued what PIP stands for. No doubt there will be countless Tribunal hearings in the future as people try to define those three words in the context of their own circumstances. My way of looking at it should be 'you can or you can't'. Can you walk 20 metres Yes/No.
  20. Where did I say that it was easy to claim DLA?? It isn't. What I did say was that far too many conditions that needs arise out of have become acceptable for DLA purposes. If you go back to when DLA first started out in 1992, it was designed for those conditions that were already covered under the Mobility Allowance regulations. As for granting DLA on the basis of a diagnosis, governments over time have allowed this to happen. Their own data is set up in such a way that conditions are listed in accordance with the volume of claims being awarded. The highest being arthritis. Now I have no o
  21. That was the worst thing that the Tories did in 1992 was to provide cars. Now people have become far too reliant on the 'Motability car'. Very few would be housebound if the car was taken off tem - they would survive and find a way around the problem - maybe buy their own like everybody else does?
  22. Hang on, I too have been awarded HRM & MRC indefinitely, so you can't say that I'm not in the same boat as you! I tend to look at the bigger picture, not just my own misfortunes. The bigger picture is that the DLA criteria has over the past 21 years has gained more holes than the Titanic had. It is right that the government go right back to the days pre 1992 when only the most severely and vulnerable were awarded a similar benefit - Mobility Allowance. Now you have kids with goodness knows what - ADHD etc - enabling mum and dad to get DLA for them. Then we have the arthritis claimants
  23. I accept what you are saying, but should there be one rule for you and another different rule for someone else? Besides which, the government has to appease the general population who are of the opinion that those that claim benefits are nothing short of being scroungers and parasites on those that go to work. By the general public seeing that something is being done will help to reinforce public opinion that the government are cracking down hard on ALL benefit claimants. Maybe when the Welfare Reforms are complete the benefit claimants of tomorrow will have a much easier ride a
  24. But you might - you may well go into remission. I thought my future life would be like it was for those 7 years. Yet, with the excellent care, surgery and medication they have been able to hold it back for a while. I'm thankful for these past 2 years. I am never pain free, but after those 7 years I now feel that I could take on the world. Diary? I never did that, my GP & OT simply told the DWP that what and how I have described my situation is entirely truthful even to the point of me under stating quite a fair chunk of it. As for why the DWP would think that giving me money from my H
  25. 164 feet? That's far enough to say that there is nothing wrong with your ability to walk! Yet the DLA criteria says that 164 feet is an acceptable distance to prove that you cannot virtually walk? Who's kidding who? Now 66 feet is a more realistic limit to judge walking ability. But no doubt those that only a few years ago swore blind that they couldn't manage 164 feet without pain or severe discomfort will tragically find that when PIP comes about they will have the same problem with 66 feet. I have visions of claimants going back to their consultants asking for a rehash of their letter
  • Create New...