Me and Various Benefits

[Nystagmite]

That's good to hear.

[confusedbunny]

Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me....I am posting on behalf of a friend, who i am helping with his disabilty claim....

 

July 2012-Made a claim for DLA

Sept 2012-refused on both mobility and care

4th Oct 2012-re-appealed

13th Nov 2012-won appeal, awarded high mobility and high care

 

The letter states that payment will start from Oct 2012,appeal date, surely it should be from July 2012,no?

 

Also, to qualify, he needed to have had the illness/disability 3 months previous to July 2012, which we stated on original form, as his care started from march 2012, can we ask to be backdated to March 2012 aswell? Or is it just from wwhen he claimed?

 

Any advice would be appreciated....

[dpick]

Hi I do not know the reg's now but when I applied for DLA had similar to you refused then appeal etc I got my DLA mobility and care back dated to start of claim between 25 and 30 weeks.

 

dpick

[estellyn]

Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me....I am posting on behalf of a friend, who i am helping with his disabilty claim....

 

July 2012-Made a claim for DLA

Sept 2012-refused on both mobility and care

4th Oct 2012-re-appealed

13th Nov 2012-won appeal, awarded high mobility and high care

 

The letter states that payment will start from Oct 2012,appeal date, surely it should be from July 2012,no?

 

Also, to qualify, he needed to have had the illness/disability 3 months previous to July 2012, which we stated on original form, as his care started from march 2012, can we ask to be backdated to March 2012 aswell? Or is it just from wwhen he claimed?

 

Any advice would be appreciated....

 

dLA should start from the date the claim was accepted - either the date stamped on the form when sent out to you, or if not date stamped, then the date received by the DWP. Write to them questionning the start date - could just be someone input the wrong date into the system. No it can't be backdated March.

[Nystagmite]

There's normally 2 dates on the form. It should be back dated to the earlier date, (form request date) unless the needs have lasted less than 3 months.

[confusedbunny]

My friend called them today and they said that although the claim was submitted in July 2012, he dont get DLA for the first 3 months of his illness, despite him stating that he was ill 4-5 months prior to initial claim (no medical evidence for march-July 2012) but is for July 2012 onwards....is that right, they do not pay the first 3 months of illness? (they said if he appeals, he could lose award altogether!!)....

[estellyn]

If he can't provide medical evidence for the period March-July, then he may just have to accept it. I take it the appeal wasn't won at Tribunal?

 

I wouldn't advise someone to appeal a high care, high mob decision, with no medical evidence, to query the start date of the care and mobility needs.

[Nystagmite]

is that right, they do not pay the first 3 months of illness? (they said if he appeals, he could lose award altogether!!)....

 

That's right. With the exception of terminally ill people, you have to have the care and /or mobility needs (not the diagnosis) for at least 3 months)

[dpick]

Hi when I applied you had to have been diagnosed for 6 months prior to claim

 

dpick

[confusedbunny]

Hi,

 

I am making an enquiry on behalf of a friend.

 

Basically, up until one year ago, he was a self-employed labourer.....he then had a major stroke and has been in receipt of ESA (awarded for 5 years) and DLA (awarded for 2 year, both high components)...

 

A few days ago, (precisely a year this week since he claimed both ESA and DLA) he received a letter from the DWP along the lines of:

 

"We would like more information regarding your voluntary or part-time work........"

 

Its not asking "Are you working voluntary or part-time" if so, please provide details.....It reads like he is! (He is not of course!)

 

Does anyone know if this a standard annual computer generated letter that people receive? or should this be something to worry about? (worrying in the sense of having to prove his not, which is easy but un-necessary stress for him at this time)

 

He has not informed HMRC to strike him off as self-employed, could that be why?

 

I would appreciate any advice.....Thank you.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

All he needs to do is state that he neither volunteers or works part time.

[confusedbunny]

All he needs to do is state that he neither volunteers or works part time.

 

Is it a standard letter that they send out or is for suspicion of fraud? (maybe he is anxious and over-analysing the letter!)

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Is it a standard letter that they send out or is for suspicion of fraud? (maybe he is anxious and over-analysing the letter!)

 

I believe it is standard and is o worry and not anything to worry about.

[confusedbunny]

I believe it is standard and is o worry and not anything to worry about.

 

 

Oh, that's good news! I did try to re-assure him but he was so stressed....

[Mr.P]

He has not informed HMRC to strike him off as self-employed, could that be why?

 

He really needs to inform HMRC about his change of circumstances just in case they expect him to fill out tax returns. If nothing else, it would put him in a better position to reclaim any tax that might have been overpaid.

[confusedbunny]

On behalf of a friend, she need's advice with the following scenario please:

 

She is a 35 year old female with a child.

 

-she is joint owner of a property (about 33.3% share ownership with both her parents), she does not live their nor do they pay her rent for her share in the property. (no mortgage)

 

-she is sole owner of a 2nd property that she currently lives in with her child (mortgaged)

 

Her plan is to rent a property (and rent out her 2nd property) and is not sure how long it will take her to find employment when she relocated and therefore, may need help with rent......(housing benefit)

 

Does anyone know how housing benefit is calculated? Do they take into account she has to pay a mortgage on her 2nd property but will have excess left over each month from the rental income?

 

e.g.

 

mortgage of 2nd property is £500

Rental income on 2nd property is £800

Surplus is £300

 

Rent on new house is £1000, therefore, would housing benefit pay her £700 top up? And would it be a 2 bed LHA rate, as she has a child?

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you

[id6052]

if a person has capital in excess of £16k, they are not entitled to HB

 

capital value of properties is calculated as follows:

90% of market value minus outstanding mortgage(s) and/or secured loans

 

if the value of second property is calculated to be more than £16k, she will not be entitled to any HB

[confusedbunny]

Dear Caggers,

 

I need your advice/thoughts on the following query on behalf of a friend.....I will try and keep it simple:

 

His housing circumstances:

He is a 45 year old male, single,lives with his mother (a pensioner) after he had a major stroke 18 months ago. His mother does not receive carer's allowance nor has my friend ever applied for it.

 

His financial circumstances:

Since his stroke, he has been awarded ESA (support group) for 5 years and DLA (high care and mobility) for 2 years. He and his mother to not have benefits joint with DWP (like partners do)

 

My friend was informed that he may qualify for a benefit (or additional component with his ESA) called "severe disability premium" of approx. £52 per week as he has never claimed for carer's allowance.

 

The DWP advised on the phone that they will send the forms needed but believe he will not qualify as he "does not live alone". After trying to help him and do some online research I am slightly confused over this part, in order to qualify.

 

Here is a link and at the bottom of the page its states:

"live alone (there are exceptions to this rule - (For more information see our Disability Rights Handbook.)"

http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/employment-and-support-allowance-overview

 

Given his circumstances, would he qualify? (as he is not living with a partner, nor financially linked.

 

Any advice is greatly appreciated.......Thank you

[abc123def]

He wouldn't qualify as he is living with his mother. The only times you can claim the premium when not living alone is if the person you live with could not be ecpected to be a support to you, for instance a lodger who is there on a commercial basis for example.

[confusedbunny]

He wouldn't qualify as he is living with his mother. The only times you can claim the premium when not living alone is if the person you live with could not be ecpected to be a support to you, for instance a lodger who is there on a commercial basis for example.

 

Oh I see, could it not be argued that his mother is not able to care for him (she disabled herself), therefore, technically that would be an assumption of the DWP that she was obligated/expected to?

[antone]

Oh I see, could it not be argued that his mother is not able to care for him (she disabled herself), therefore, technically that would be an assumption of the DWP that she was obligated/expected to?

 

Is she in receipt of DLA (middle or higher rate care) or Attendance Allowance?

[confusedbunny]

Hmm, good question.......No she is not. She has never applied for DLA....

[antone]

It is possible that if she was awarded either DLA or AA (depending on her age) then she would not count as "living with him" for SDP purposes. As things stand, though, he probably won't be entitled.

 

Non-exhaustive list of people who don't count when determining if a claimant lives alone:

 

• Children under 18
  
• Children under 20 in full time non-advanced education
  
• Lodgers
  
• Joint tenants who have their own agreement with the landlord
  
• Sub tenants
  
• Anyone who is themselves in receipt of DLA at Middle or Higher Rate Care level
  
• Any person who is registered blind
  

[confusedbunny]

It is possible that if she was awarded either DLA or AA (depending on her age) then she would not count as "living with him" for SDP purposes. As things stand, though, he probably won't be entitled.

 

Non-exhaustive list of people who don't count when determining if a claimant lives alone:

 

• Children under 18
  
• Children under 20 in full time non-advanced education
  
• Lodgers
  
• Joint tenants who have their own agreement with the landlord
  
• Sub tenants
  
• Anyone who is themselves in receipt of DLA at Middle or Higher Rate Care level
  
• Any person who is registered blind
  

 

Thank you for this info. I think its probally a case of the decision maker basing his/her decision on this case's own merits, as in the "qualifying" criteria, is it not an assumption that any persons over the age of 18 living in the household is "obligated" to care for the claimant?

 

Also, not every "disabled" person claims all the benefits they are entitled to, as claiming more benefits does not necessarily reflect the non-claimants capabilities, mentally and physically, agree?

[antone]

Thank you for this info. I think its probally a case of the decision maker basing his/her decision on this case's own merits, as in the "qualifying" criteria, is it not an assumption that any persons over the age of 18 living in the household is "obligated" to care for the claimant?

 

Also, not every "disabled" person claims all the benefits they are entitled to, as claiming more benefits does not necessarily reflect the non-claimants capabilities, mentally and physically, agree?

 

The SDP is not an "own merits" issue, although some things in benefits are. The required form (IS10) doesn't actually get submitted to a Decision Maker; regular processors will deal with it because there's no decision to be made. But yes, people in the claimant's household are expected to care for the claimant from an SDP point of view. It comes down to how "household" is defined. Obviously lodgers, joint tenants and so on are not counted as part of the household. Some people, such as children under 18 or those registered blind, are normally part of a household for benefit purposes but are exempted.

 

With regard to other household members who are disabled, they are exempted. But the law defines "disabled" as "in receipt of one of several benefits paid to assist with disability." I do agree that not everyone who is disabled claims everything they might be entitled to, yes - claiming is a whole lot of hassle in many cases.