Jump to content


20 metre limit for PIP has been agreed!


bedofweeds
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2894 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Then it's reasonable to say no. It's something you must be able to repeat without pain, etc.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

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 that are supposed to need 24 hour care and can't put one foot in front of another making claims. Then the ME - CFS claimants - what is all that about. None of those conditions or the effects of them would have seen the light of day pre 1992.

 

Yes lets go back to the old days of DLA assessment that you long for, where their idea of a mobility assessment was to hold the assessments on the first floor (no lift). The receptionist would then tell the applicant that they wouldn't be assessed and would fail their application if they didn't get up the stairs. I remember my grandmother crawling up the stairs in agony on all fours, eventually making it to the top crying in pain, to be told that as she made it up the stairs she had failed the mobility assessment.

 

It's also pretty idiotic to suggest that conditions not known about before a certain date shouldn't qualify. And just because you personally don't 'believe' in a condition, doesn't mean it does not exist.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The principle of repeatedly and safely has been around for a long time, it is not new, and has been defined by upper tribunal.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's also pretty idiotic to suggest that conditions not known about before a certain date shouldn't qualify. And just because you personally don't 'believe' in a condition, doesn't mean it does not exist.

 

Personally, I don't see why we should accept this new-fangled "tuberculosis" as a medical condition. I mean, before the late nineteenth century we died of consumption and we liked it.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle of repeatedly and safely has been around for a long time, it is not new, and has been defined by upper tribunal.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy seems like a troll I remember last year who conveniantly had ESA SG and DLA and then proceeded to claim it was all too easy to get etc.

 

I was not on the forum last year but you are not the first member of CAG to say " Is that a Troll I see before me".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't see why we should accept this new-fangled "tuberculosis" as a medical condition. I mean, before the late nineteenth century we died of consumption and we liked it.

 

Yes, and of course we've fallen way behind with cleansing the air of all the dangerous disease causing miasma.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

bedofweeds I dont think any doctor can reliably assess someones ability to walk before severe discomfort. As any patient will be able to shorten that distance via fake pain if they chose to and the doctor would have a hard time of assessing if its real pain or not. The only reliable way would be in extreme cases such as paralysis or missing body parts. This leaves the patient's own statement of their capabilities. That doesnt mean that part of legislation should be simply removed because its 'hard' to assess.

 

It seems the way you thinking why not just scrap DLA altogether, that means noone can claim it wrongly so problem solved?.

 

Someone who is deemed not disabled enough to need a wheelchair but are disabled enough that they have severe issues walking in my opinion can be considered less mobile than someone who has a wheelchair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't see why we should accept this new-fangled "tuberculosis" as a medical condition. I mean, before the late nineteenth century we died of consumption and we liked it.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bedofweeds I dont think any doctor can reliably assess someones ability to walk before severe discomfort. As any patient will be able to shorten that distance via fake pain if they chose to and the doctor would have a hard time of assessing if its real pain or not. The only reliable way would be in extreme cases such as paralysis or missing body parts. This leaves the patient's own statement of their capabilities. That doesnt mean that part of legislation should be simply removed because its 'hard' to assess.

 

It seems the way you thinking why not just scrap DLA altogether, that means noone can claim it wrongly so problem solved?.

 

Someone who is deemed not disabled enough to need a wheelchair but are disabled enough that they have severe issues walking in my opinion can be considered less mobile than someone who has a wheelchair.

 

Yes, the difficulty in assessment of specific walking ability by just watching someone walk, is why assessments such as those for ESA, (and undoubtedly PIP) will look at lifestyle indications of walking ability - doing shopping, getting a paper, walking the dog, gardening in a hundred foot garden, leisure activities etc. People who are exaggerating or faking will often trip themselves up.

 

When I was working as an appeals rep, I was astonished at the people who were trying to appeal, who would be furiously trying to back peddle after a few well placed questions showed their walking ability was far more than they claimed on a regular basis and repeatedly, a couple who I regularly saw walking briskly in the town centre, who claimed never to be able to walk more than a few metres.

 

There are lots of genuine claimants, and sadly a few who were attempting to play the system.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy seems like a troll I remember last year who conveniantly had ESA SG and DLA and then proceeded to claim it was all too easy to get etc.

 

 

it was only the other day bedofweeds was saying he does not see himself as disabled in another forum yet he admitted he gets HRM and HRC and also the ESA with the support group " he does not see himself disabled and he can honestly say he is not to ill to work but the DWP do " he said.

 

but i guess this is world we live in and that's my opinion

Edited by time4change2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@bedofweeds.

 

The reality is that thousands of ill and disabled individuals will and have lose benefits due to this unelected tory governments witch hunt on the deserving and vulnerable.

There is going to be much suffering but as long as you are having a "fun time" watching this then thats fine.

Im sorry you have had a crappy life, I really am but dont wish it on others.

 

Oh and this country aint broke but thats another issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One bit of absurdity that PIP brings to mind is that when I applied for DLA Mobility that part of the idea of mobility was that it could allow a disabled person who has difficulty with walking the opportunity to be able to work and earn their own wages this seems to have gone out the window with PIP. I know the places I worked before my accident you would not have been able to walk from the car park never mind to the bathroom at work with the distances set by PIP.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was only the other day bedofweeds was saying he does not see himself as disabled in another forum yet he admitted he gets HRM and HRC and also the ESA with the support group " he does not see himself disabled and he can honestly say he is not to ill to work but the DWP do " he said.

 

but i guess this is world we live in and that's my opinion

 

Hello time4change2

 

Could post a link to these comments by bedofweeds on another forum !

 

Thank you in advance...

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One bit of absurdity that PIP brings to mind is that when I applied for DLA Mobility that part of the idea of mobility was that it could allow a disabled person who has difficulty with walking the opportunity to be able to work and earn their own wages this seems to have gone out the window with PIP. I know the places I worked before my accident you would not have been able to walk from the car park never mind to the bathroom at work with the distances set by PIP.

 

dpick

 

But surely, most people have aids they can use? Actually, that's one thing I don't understand - why am I am expected to use my mobility cane to get around; (I have a friend who lost her LRM this way. It was given back, thankfully) but those on HRM aren't expected to use wheelchairs, etc. to get themselves around?

Link to post
Share on other sites

bedofweeds I dont think any doctor can reliably assess someones ability to walk before severe discomfort. As any patient will be able to shorten that distance via fake pain if they chose to and the doctor would have a hard time of assessing if its real pain or not. The only reliable way would be in extreme cases such as paralysis or missing body parts. This leaves the patient's own statement of their capabilities. That doesnt mean that part of legislation should be simply removed because its 'hard' to assess.

 

It seems the way you thinking why not just scrap DLA altogether, that means noone can claim it wrongly so problem solved?.

 

Someone who is deemed not disabled enough to need a wheelchair but are disabled enough that they have severe issues walking in my opinion can be considered less mobile than someone who has a wheelchair.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the difficulty in assessment of specific walking ability by just watching someone walk, is why assessments such as those for ESA, (and undoubtedly PIP) will look at lifestyle indications of walking ability - doing shopping, getting a paper, walking the dog, gardening in a hundred foot garden, leisure activities etc. People who are exaggerating or faking will often trip themselves up.

 

When I was working as an appeals rep, I was astonished at the people who were trying to appeal, who would be furiously trying to back peddle after a few well placed questions showed their walking ability was far more than they claimed on a regular basis and repeatedly, a couple who I regularly saw walking briskly in the town centre, who claimed never to be able to walk more than a few metres.

 

There are lots of genuine claimants, and sadly a few who were attempting to play the system.

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was only the other day bedofweeds was saying he does not see himself as disabled in another forum yet he admitted he gets HRM and HRC and also the ESA with the support group " he does not see himself disabled and he can honestly say he is not to ill to work but the DWP do " he said.

 

but i guess this is world we live in and that's my opinion

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

You've spoken of this before - albeit under a different username and either you live in the [causing problems] (and drink driving) capital of the world, or you're making things up and trolling yet again. I'll let others decide what they believe.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Me? Being silly? Surely not!

 

There's no known test that can prove someone has severe depression, for example - lots of conditions are poorly understood but the presence of a coherent set of symptoms indicates that there is a problem. Same with FM, ME and CFS. The fact that we don't actually understand what causes those symptoms is not relevant to whether or not they exist and give rise to care or mobility needs. I mean, only a couple of decades ago, we didn't understand how bumblebees could fly - this seemed to violate all known laws of aerodynamics. Yet fly they did: it was our understanding that was flawed. Presumably you would argue that the bees were merely pretending to fly.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bedofweeds

 

Your comment regarding how well a claimant can acts in front of a tribunal or fills out forms is yet again another ill thought out slur on ill and disabled individuals.

 

Im not sure you are aware but we need medical evidence from doctors and such like to support our claims.

 

So to suggest someone can just "act" there way onto benefits is just all out propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2894 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...