The Student Room Group

Benefits claimant dies

This is what the current benefits system can lead to.

Absolutely disgraceful in 2017

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/tragic-mum-four-dies-alone-13876301
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by paul514
This is what the current benefits system can lead to.

Absolutely disgraceful in 2017

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/tragic-mum-four-dies-alone-13876301


This is so sad :frown:. A number of my clients live on benefits and I find that many members of the public have had the wrong picture painted for them. Of course there are people who abuse the system; this is the case with every system. But a lot of them are in situations where they don't have a choice. People with severe learning disabilities, mental health problems or physical health problems struggle more than others in already tough job market. Universal Credit is a nightmare for vulnerable people and isn't the solution to cases of benefit fraud.
Reply 2
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Frankly I don't believe these sorts of stories. The idea that being in intensive care is not sufficient reason to miss a Jobcentre appointment is utter rubbish, and it would be transparently ridiculous if someone actually said that, never mind a trained DWP official, accompanied by a DWP decision-maker. The idea that somehow not being eligible for ESA means that you get nothing is also silly: she'd have been on Jobseekers' Allowance. Even if she was sanctioned, there are obviously hardship payments that attach to people who cannot afford basic necessities.

How she died is full of innuendo with no actual details given, yet we're expected to apportion blame to the DWP? The idea that she froze to death and that was somehow foreseeable is quite odd: I have spent many a cold November in single-glazed flats in Scotland without ever turning the heating on during the day. I don't think most people have central heating on during the day in autumn.

If it was suicide, then obviously that relates back to her mental health issues. While I know mental health teams do excellent work in the community, it doesn't mean that they will be able to successfully help everyone in every occasion. Tragic, but going around telling us that public services that are there to help and support people are responsible is offensive.
Original post by L i b
Frankly I don't believe these sorts of stories. The idea that being in intensive care is not sufficient reason to miss a Jobcentre appointment is utter rubbish, and it would be transparently ridiculous if someone actually said that, never mind a trained DWP official, accompanied by a DWP decision-maker. The idea that somehow not being eligible for ESA means that you get nothing is also silly: she'd have been on Jobseekers' Allowance. Even if she was sanctioned, there are obviously hardship payments that attach to people who cannot afford basic necessities.

How she died is full of innuendo with no actual details given, yet we're expected to apportion blame to the DWP? The idea that she froze to death and that was somehow foreseeable is quite odd: I have spent many a cold November in single-glazed flats in Scotland without ever turning the heating on during the day. I don't think most people have central heating on during the day in autumn.

If it was suicide, then obviously that relates back to her mental health issues. While I know mental health teams do excellent work in the community, it doesn't mean that they will be able to successfully help everyone in every occasion. Tragic, but going around telling us that public services that are there to help and support people are responsible is offensive.


I’ve heard way too many cases where stupid sanctions have been put on people and let’s face it what are these people supposed to live off when they do get sanctioned.

The benefit system is a joke, and the public are complicit through their ignorance.

Someone says benefits they automatically think of JSA and it’s 1% of the benefits bill.
Original post by L i b
Frankly I don't believe these sorts of stories.


One can read through the newspaper account to see what is actually likely to have happened here. This is a woman leading a chaotic life. You can see references to several admissions to "intensive care". We don't know whether these are admissions to ICU because of suicide attempts or emergency admission to a psychiatric unit, I suspect the latter. What will have have happened, is a "no show" at an assessment. The DWP will have written asking for the reasons for the "no show". There will probably have been no answer. Benefit will have stopped. At that point the claimant will have contacted the DWP and tried to explain. The DWP will have said "write in and ask for a reconsideration". Meanwhile the DWP will have informed Housing Benefit and that will have also been stopped.

A lot of criticism of the DWP doesn't hit the right mark. The DWP invests a lot of time in assessment. Almost certainly, they are overgenerous in awarding the main ill health and disability benefits. One can see that if one looks at the statistics for the higher rate of the mobility component for DLA/PIP "the free car". The numbers are disproportionate to other measures of mobility problems in the UK.

However, the DWP is unreasonable and unyielding about compliance failures by people from whom it is unreasonable to expect high levels of compliance. Moreover, it is bureaucratically much easier to deprive people of benefit for not turning up at a particular date and time, compared with showing that someone is able to walk further than they claim to be able to do.
Original post by L i b
The idea that somehow not being eligible for ESA means that you get nothing is also silly


It's actually true. I do know someone this happened to - doesn't fit ESA criteria; but is also too sick for JSA. (you can be disabled and claim JSA; but in her case, she wasn't fit for work) It took several attempts to get ESA.

If it was suicide, then obviously that relates back to her mental health issues. While I know mental health teams do excellent work in the community, it doesn't mean that they will be able to successfully help everyone in every occasion. Tragic, but going around telling us that public services that are there to help and support people are responsible is offensive.


Strangely, I know of at least one person who'd say the complete opposite.
I suggest Lib watches I, Daniel Blake.
Original post by nulli tertius
One can read through the newspaper account to see what is actually likely to have happened here. This is a woman leading a chaotic life. You can see references to several admissions to "intensive care". We don't know whether these are admissions to ICU because of suicide attempts or emergency admission to a psychiatric unit, I suspect the latter. What will have have happened, is a "no show" at an assessment. The DWP will have written asking for the reasons for the "no show". There will probably have been no answer. Benefit will have stopped. At that point the claimant will have contacted the DWP and tried to explain. The DWP will have said "write in and ask for a reconsideration". Meanwhile the DWP will have informed Housing Benefit and that will have also been stopped.

A lot of criticism of the DWP doesn't hit the right mark. The DWP invests a lot of time in assessment. Almost certainly, they are overgenerous in awarding the main ill health and disability benefits. One can see that if one looks at the statistics for the higher rate of the mobility component for DLA/PIP "the free car". The numbers are disproportionate to other measures of mobility problems in the UK.

However, the DWP is unreasonable and unyielding about compliance failures by people from whom it is unreasonable to expect high levels of compliance. Moreover, it is bureaucratically much easier to deprive people of benefit for not turning up at a particular date and time, compared with showing that someone is able to walk further than they claim to be able to do.


Over generous????
Have you any idea how difficult it is to qualify for sickness and disability benefits?
It’s not just filling in a form.
There are thousands of cases where a gp tells the dwp that a claimant is unfit to work but an outside agency with targets and bonuses disagrees. With no medical knowledge. No one who is genuinely ill/disabled object to the assessment. They object to being assessed by a pen pusher with limited experience ticking yes/no buttons on a screen.
There were more mobility cars under the old dla system. The majority have been removed under pip. And not because the claimant has no mobility problems but because the criteria is impossible to meet. It is not a walking test anymore. It’s a mobilising test. And that includes wheelchair users. If they can wheel themselves 50 yards they can mobilise and in lots of cases have lost that element.
Before you generalise and assume claimants are undeserving you should read the descriptors and see just how hard getting either benefit is today.

On the other side re sanctions, I have recently helped a lady who lost her sickness pay. Esa. Because she was single she was moved to jsa. Despite a strongly worded letter to the dwp of the damage it would do to her health. She complied with their rules and applied for every single job that came up on her personal page online. These are sent to her by dwp. And was then sanctioned for applying for jobs that she knew she had no chance of getting.

Just because a very small minority know how to work the system does not mean that all claimants are the same. Stop being so judgemental and hope that you are not in that position yourself one day
Original post by Tiger Rag
It's actually true. I do know someone this happened to - doesn't fit ESA criteria; but is also too sick for JSA. (you can be disabled and claim JSA; but in her case, she wasn't fit for work) It took several attempts to get ESA.


But with respect, that isn't her call. There is no power in the JSA Regulations to refuse a claim on the basis the claimant is not fit for work.

All she has to do is sign on and make efforts to find a job. The fact no-one will hire her, is not her problem.
Original post by L i b
Frankly I don't believe these sorts of stories. The idea that being in intensive care is not sufficient reason to miss a Jobcentre appointment is utter rubbish, and it would be transparently ridiculous if someone actually said that, never mind a trained DWP official, accompanied by a DWP decision-maker. The idea that somehow not being eligible for ESA means that you get nothing is also silly: she'd have been on Jobseekers' Allowance. Even if she was sanctioned, there are obviously hardship payments that attach to people who cannot afford basic necessities.

How she died is full of innuendo with no actual details given, yet we're expected to apportion blame to the DWP? The idea that she froze to death and that was somehow foreseeable is quite odd: I have spent many a cold November in single-glazed flats in Scotland without ever turning the heating on during the day. I don't think most people have central heating on during the day in autumn.

If it was suicide, then obviously that relates back to her mental health issues. While I know mental health teams do excellent work in the community, it doesn't mean that they will be able to successfully help everyone in every occasion. Tragic, but going around telling us that public services that are there to help and support people are responsible is offensive.

Many people who lose or cannot get esa are not eligible for jsa
Reply 10
Avatar for Dez
Dez
20
Original post by L i b
If it was suicide, then obviously that relates back to her mental health issues. While I know mental health teams do excellent work in the community, it doesn't mean that they will be able to successfully help everyone in every occasion. Tragic, but going around telling us that public services that are there to help and support people are responsible is offensive.


If the government are allowing mentally ill individuals to die out of sheer negligence then that is a problem that needs to be addressed, not written off as some sort of accident.
Original post by nulli tertius
But with respect, that isn't her call. There is no power in the JSA Regulations to refuse a claim on the basis the claimant is not fit for work.

All she has to do is sign on and make efforts to find a job. The fact no-one will hire her, is not her problem.


But she was too sick to claim JSA. That was the problem - DWP claimed she wasn't sick enough for ESA but won't give her JSA because she's too sick to work.

Old but - http://toomanycuts.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/caught-in-trap-between-esa-and-jsa.html
Original post by nulli tertius
But with respect, that isn't her call. There is no power in the JSA Regulations to refuse a claim on the basis the claimant is not fit for work.

All she has to do is sign on and make efforts to find a job. The fact no-one will hire her, is not her problem.


It is if she does not live in a single income household. And her six months of jsa is up
Original post by Sammylou40
It is if she does not live in a single income household. And her six months of jsa is up


I didn’t know that was a thing, the system actually worries me
Original post by Tiger Rag
But she was too sick to claim JSA. That was the problem - DWP claimed she wasn't sick enough for ESA but won't give her JSA because she's too sick to work.

Old but - http://toomanycuts.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/caught-in-trap-between-esa-and-jsa.html


I am certainly not saying that Job Centre staff don't get it wrong; however, the problem here is usually a malign conspiracy between Job Centre staff and the Claimant from which the Claimant loses out.

Lets assume the ESA decision is correct (or at least it has been appealed and lost).

Full-time for JSA purposes is 16 hours a week. Any reasonable restrictions can be written into a Jobseeker's agreement with a right of appeal if the DWP don't accept them.

Let's say the Claimant gained 9 points only for ESA for activity 17c
"Occasionally has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace". So she is fit for work;she doesn't have 15 points. She signs on for JSA.

It would be perfectly reasonable to put in the Jobseeker's Agreement that any employer must be willing to accept occasional uncontrolled episodes of aggressive behaviour that are unreasonable in any workplace.

Now, Mr Employment Adviser find her a job.

But the reality is she doesn't want to claim JSA and the employment adviser doesn't want a hopeless case on his books, so they conspire to say that she is unfit to work. She isn't unfit to work. That has been determined in the ESA claim. She has been found fit to work in an environment where she can occasionally behave in a disinhibited or aggressive that would be unreasonable in any workplace. The problem isn't hers, it is the DWP's employee's but by this "understanding" it becomes her problem.
Horrible news - the benefits system definitely needs some refinement as it currently stands, even more so given cases like this.
Original post by paul514
I didn’t know that was a thing, the system actually worries me


That, albeit with a 12 month timeline, has been part of the system ever since the system has existed. What is now called Contribution-based JSA lasts 6 months. After that JSA is subject to a means test and if your partner is working (and possibly also if there are non-dependent adults in the house) you won't pass the means test.
Original post by nulli tertius
That, albeit with a 12 month timeline, has been part of the system ever since the system has existed. What is now called Contribution-based JSA lasts 6 months. After that JSA is subject to a means test and if your partner is working (and possibly also if there are non-dependent adults in the house) you won't pass the means test.


Ah right, I always ignore the contribution based benefits and look at the income only ones personally.
The Tory goverment will always s**** on those that need help if they think they can save a quick buck instead of actually helping the people that need it.

My mum was the same and my father is in that position now. Thankfully I work 2 jobs to support my dad but its bs.
Original post by Sammylou40
Over generous????
Have you any idea how difficult it is to qualify for sickness and disability benefits?


Yes.

I worry for your clients if you are an adviser. I worry for me, if i trained you.


It’s not just filling in a form.
There are thousands of cases where a gp tells the dwp that a claimant is unfit to work but an outside agency with targets and bonuses disagrees. With no medical knowledge. No one who is genuinely ill/disabled object to the assessment. They object to being assessed by a pen pusher with limited experience ticking yes/no buttons on a screen.


All benefit decisions are made by pen-pushers. All those pen pushers are directly employed by the DWP. The Claiamnt never meets any of those pen-pushers.

The claimant is assessed by an outside agency. Their contracts have been gone over with a fine toothcomb. there are no targets other than throughput. In the modern expression, to say there are targets for failing people is "fake news".

The assessors employed by these outside agencies are all doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and occupational therapists.


There were more mobility cars under the old dla system. The majority have been removed under pip.


Of the 526,000 people reassessed from DLA to PIP up to October last year, 254,200 had higher rate mobility before the reassessment. After the reassessment, 182,700 had enhanced rate mobility. That is about a 28% drop. So much for the suggestion that the numbers had more than halved.



And not because the claimant has no mobility problems but because the criteria is impossible to meet. It is not a walking test anymore. It’s a mobilising test. And that includes wheelchair users. If they can wheel themselves 50 yards they can mobilise and in lots of cases have lost that element.



No, it doesn't. ESA has a mobilising test. PIP has a rising and walking test. In addition it is now possible to get enhanced rate mob for problems in planning and following a route either alone or in combination with walking distance, which was never possible under DLA.



Before you generalise and assume claimants are undeserving you should read the descriptors and see just how hard getting either benefit is today.


I am fully aware of the descriptors



On the other side re sanctions, I have recently helped a lady who lost her sickness pay. Esa. Because she was single she was moved to jsa. Despite a strongly worded letter to the dwp of the damage it would do to her health. She complied with their rules and applied for every single job that came up on her personal page online. These are sent to her by dwp. And was then sanctioned for applying for jobs that she knew she had no chance of getting.



Who wrote the letter? There would be very few DWP clerks, and fewer tribunals, who would go against a letter written by the claimant's consultant which states in terms:

By reason of [disease X or disablement Y] there would be a substantial risk, namely [ABC], to the [mental or physical] health of [claimant/named other person] if [claimant] was found not to have limited capability for work.

That is the test for Regulation 29, and if you have that you should win. If you don't have that, then what you have isn't worth the paper it is written on.
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you