Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    The "acceptable standard" was ignored completely at my assessment on almost everything. It was just "can you..." "no because..." "I see no reason why she can't" Even though I had evidence stating the opposite and they had none.

    You also can't base the assessment on that one day.
    One of the problems with administering these benefits is an effective desire on the part of claimants to exclude any evidence not under their own control.

    It had become clear 20 years ago that G.P. evidence on which the welfare state was founded could no longer be relied upon as being independent of the Claimant.

    The gold standard for assessment is undoubtedly the medico-legal process for personal injury claims and there really is no problem with assessment on a single day.

    There quite a lot of weaknesses in the assessment process (the main one being the absence of consideration of medical records) but frankly that isn't one of them.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    But the criteria for pip is different.
    Yes, but anyone with any experience can look at a PIP assessment and decide whether the Claimant would have been eligible for DLA. It is harder the other way around.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The change for ESA is sensible as long as it isn't used for Regulation 35 (exceptional circumstances) cases. You can't be placed in the Support Group under a totting provision, Multiple less severe problems aren't enough.
    It's not; it's only going to be used for people who have a schedule 3 descriptor that applies to them, plus some other, rather stringent, conditions that I don't remember.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Disgraceful. There’s no reason why a first-world country shouldn’t be able to look after its poor and vulnerable citizens.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I suggest Lib watches I, Daniel Blake.
    Yangtze, Amazon, Rhine, Nile? Which river would you like me to cry for all this bleeding heart nonsense?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Yangtze, Amazon, Rhine, Nile? Which river would you like me to cry for all this bleeding heart nonsense?
    Your own tears would be enough honey.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Your own tears would be enough honey.
    That doesn't even make sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    That doesn't even make sense.
    So's your face.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Can I ask your source for that figure? Apologies if it's been given, I haven't followed the thread all the way through.

    To be honest I just became a good deal more sceptical of your position for having seen it. In fact I think, if I wanted to discredit an argument that the benefits system is too harsh on disability claimants, pointing out that 'disability' is being used in such a way as to encompass pretty well a fifth of the working age population of the UK would be quite high on my to-do list.
    You could have just googled it in the time you wrote that out :rofl: This is from the Disabled Living Foundation website, and all sources are cited http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by It's****ingWOODY)
    You could have just googled it in the time you wrote that out :rofl: This is from the Disabled Living Foundation website, and all sources are cited http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts
    Well I was making a wider point, which is basically that I think the figure is inherently implausible. Seems to me quite like when feminist groups claim that 83% of women are raped at university, or whatever it is that they say.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Well I was making a wider point, which is basically that I think the figure is inherently implausible. Seems to me quite like when feminist groups claim that 83% of women are raped at university, or whatever it is that they say.
    Not a fair comparison in the slightest. Those disability figures come straight from the Department of Work & Pensions. Figures feminist groups use seemingly come from their own arses.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The learning disability is irrelevant. It is not a sensory impairment and therefore does not form part of activity 7.

    The key is "using any aid it is reasonable to use" It will always be reasonable to use an aid that you in fact do use,

    I am a stranger. If I type "the fire escape is at the end of the corridor" and you can fully understand that written message using whatever aids you do use, you shouldn't get 7.
    Disability really isn't that straightforward. Mine is well known for being variable. I've also lost count of the amount of the times I've mentioned my main problem being chronic tiredness, which makes reading impossible. Aids don't correct that at all.

    I personally get 7 because I cant read large print it Braille.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    Disability really isn't that straightforward. Mine is well known for being variable. I've also lost count of the amount of the times I've mentioned my main problem being chronic tiredness, which makes reading impossible. Aids don't correct that at all.

    I personally get 7 because I cant read large print it Braille.
    Disability may not be that straightforward but PIP is.

    My own view is that PIP is a failure but DLA wasn't any better.

    I think that the objective points based system of ESA has generally been a success. It is not perfect but nothing ever is. The attempt to replicate that success with PIP has not worked.

    If you back to first principles, the objective of DLA/PIP is to compensate for the additional cost of being disabled. However, DLA grew to be an income supplement for the poor. It has become the prop of welfare dependency. PIP has not addressed this. Large numbers of families with someone on one of these benefits have no significant additional costs through disability, what they perceive they have is insufficient income without this benefit. The benefit system is designed to make work more attractive than idleness. What is has produced is a system where disability is more attractive than idleness. The poor are significantly more likely to be claiming DLA/PIP but they are not claiming those benefits because of an increase in the diseases of poverty. The rate of disability in this country is climbing inexorably.

    DLA was a holistic assessment. The only proxy in the system was the main meal test. For many years there was confusion about the test, with umpteen Commissioners' decisions ruling on whether this piece of equipment or that was to be disregarded as being "an aid". Lord Hoffman eventually set all this to rest by saying it was nothing to do with actually eating meals, the Claimant could have his dinner at the Ritz if he liked. The cooking test was a proxy for a certain level of disability. There were three problems with DLA.

    • It bore little relation to the costs of disability
    • It wasn't being assessed frequently enough
    • The test for higher rate mob was too generous.

    PIP has addressed the last two of these, but has made the position of the first worse.

    The need for a kitchen aid (perching stool, pan tipper, slotted spoon), grab handle at the loo and bath and button fastener or assistance to fasten shoe laces gets 8 points and £55.65 per week, probably for life as the need for these aids will probably not diminish and will be re-awarded on re-assessment.

    I think the government should start again. Their aren't enough OT's to go round but I think assessors should be trained in the methodology of OTs and rather than look at the disability, look at the costs of the disability, probably in points rather than money. Unless that hits a certain figure, there would be no benefit. But you can then go much higher for those people whose disability costs a lot of money.

    If I live in a remote rural area with no bus service, can only walk 50 metres but can drive an unadapted car; there basically are no additional costs of transport due to my disability. I am running the same car, getting the same lifts or hiring the same taxi whether I am disabled or not. If there is a bus service, the additional costs of my disability depend on whether realistically I can use it or not. Can I walk to the bus stop? Can I get on? Will it or some other bus I can connect with, take me within my walking distance of anywhere I am likely to want to go? If it won't what are the likely costs of alternative means of getting to such places.

    Essentially we need a cost-focussed, not a disability-focused assessment.

    There will be a huge impact on juvenile DLA claims. There is no doubt that children are being used as cash generators by poor families. Most of the claimed disabilities are autism, asthma. learning difficulties and ADHD with virtually no additional costs of disability other than the cost of attending a few doctors' appointments and what is very noticeable is the drop off of claims at 16, when teenagers are not themselves willing to renew parental claims.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Disability may not be that straightforward but PIP is.

    My own view is that PIP is a failure but DLA wasn't any better.

    I think that the objective points based system of ESA has generally been a success. It is not perfect but nothing ever is. The attempt to replicate that success with PIP has not worked.

    If you back to first principles, the objective of DLA/PIP is to compensate for the additional cost of being disabled. However, DLA grew to be an income supplement for the poor. It has become the prop of welfare dependency. PIP has not addressed this. Large numbers of families with someone on one of these benefits have no significant additional costs through disability, what they perceive they have is insufficient income without this benefit. The benefit system is designed to make work more attractive than idleness. What is has produced is a system where disability is more attractive than idleness. The poor are significantly more likely to be claiming DLA/PIP but they are not claiming those benefits because of an increase in the diseases of poverty. The rate of disability in this country is climbing inexorably.

    DLA was a holistic assessment. The only proxy in the system was the main meal test. For many years there was confusion about the test, with umpteen Commissioners' decisions ruling on whether this piece of equipment or that was to be disregarded as being "an aid". Lord Hoffman eventually set all this to rest by saying it was nothing to do with actually eating meals, the Claimant could have his dinner at the Ritz if he liked. The cooking test was a proxy for a certain level of disability. There were three problems with DLA.

    • It bore little relation to the costs of disability
    • It wasn't being assessed frequently enough
    • The test for higher rate mob was too generous.

    PIP has addressed the last two of these, but has made the position of the first worse.

    The need for a kitchen aid (perching stool, pan tipper, slotted spoon), grab handle at the loo and bath and button fastener or assistance to fasten shoe laces gets 8 points and £55.65 per week, probably for life as the need for these aids will probably not diminish and will be re-awarded on re-assessment.

    I think the government should start again. Their aren't enough OT's to go round but I think assessors should be trained in the methodology of OTs and rather than look at the disability, look at the costs of the disability, probably in points rather than money. Unless that hits a certain figure, there would be no benefit. But you can then go much higher for those people whose disability costs a lot of money.

    If I live in a remote rural area with no bus service, can only walk 50 metres but can drive an unadapted car; there basically are no additional costs of transport due to my disability. I am running the same car, getting the same lifts or hiring the same taxi whether I am disabled or not. If there is a bus service, the additional costs of my disability depend on whether realistically I can use it or not. Can I walk to the bus stop? Can I get on? Will it or some other bus I can connect with, take me within my walking distance of anywhere I am likely to want to go? If it won't what are the likely costs of alternative means of getting to such places.

    Essentially we need a cost-focussed, not a disability-focused assessment.

    There will be a huge impact on juvenile DLA claims. There is no doubt that children are being used as cash generators by poor families. Most of the claimed disabilities are autism, asthma. learning difficulties and ADHD with virtually no additional costs of disability other than the cost of attending a few doctors' appointments and what is very noticeable is the drop off of claims at 16, when teenagers are not themselves willing to renew parental claims.
    Advert a parent of a child with autism and adhd i can only speak for myself. The dla he received was spent on courses, lessons etc which benefited him in the long run. Don’t minimise the effect these conditions have on learning in school. It was a success. He has a first and a masters and is building a good career for himself and after uni ended the claim. There are many parents who don’t use the money for anything other than trivia but don’t include everyone in that
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammylou40)
    Advert a parent of a child with autism and adhd i can only speak for myself. The dla he received was spent on courses, lessons etc which benefited him in the long run. Don’t minimise the effect these conditions have on learning in school. It was a success. He has a first and a masters and is building a good career for himself and after uni ended the claim. There are many parents who don’t use the money for anything other than trivia but don’t include everyone in that
    I don't agree that the money is being spent on trivia; it is being spent on the general household needs of poor families, but that isn't what it is designed for. Let's be clear, it isn't designed for what you put it to either.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I don't agree that the money is being spent on trivia; it is being spent on the general household needs of poor families, but that isn't what it is designed for. Let's be clear, it isn't designed for what you put it to either.
    Maybe not but i am very proud of the outcome. We could instead have left him to struggle with learning, communication, adapting socially, managing in the outside world and gone on holiday. He then would probably have spent a lifetime on benefits instead.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammylou40)
    Maybe not but i am very proud of the outcome. We could instead have left him to struggle with learning, communication, adapting socially, managing in the outside world and gone on holiday. He then would probably have spent a lifetime on benefits instead.
    You are perfectly entitled to be proud of what you have done for your child as a parent, but that doesn't mean the benefits system should be designed around it.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You are perfectly entitled to be proud of what you have done for your child as a parent, but that doesn't mean the benefits system should be designed around it.
    of course not. It’s not a perfect system. Those courses/lessons were described as aids by the dwp themselves. They were in fact aids. They assisted him to live a normal life
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Disability may not be that straightforward but PIP is.

    My own view is that PIP is a failure but DLA wasn't any better.

    I think that the objective points based system of ESA has generally been a success. It is not perfect but nothing ever is. The attempt to replicate that success with PIP has not worked.

    If you back to first principles, the objective of DLA/PIP is to compensate for the additional cost of being disabled. However, DLA grew to be an income supplement for the poor. It has become the prop of welfare dependency. PIP has not addressed this. Large numbers of families with someone on one of these benefits have no significant additional costs through disability, what they perceive they have is insufficient income without this benefit. The benefit system is designed to make work more attractive than idleness. What is has produced is a system where disability is more attractive than idleness. The poor are significantly more likely to be claiming DLA/PIP but they are not claiming those benefits because of an increase in the diseases of poverty. The rate of disability in this country is climbing inexorably.

    DLA was a holistic assessment. The only proxy in the system was the main meal test. For many years there was confusion about the test, with umpteen Commissioners' decisions ruling on whether this piece of equipment or that was to be disregarded as being "an aid". Lord Hoffman eventually set all this to rest by saying it was nothing to do with actually eating meals, the Claimant could have his dinner at the Ritz if he liked. The cooking test was a proxy for a certain level of disability. There were three problems with DLA.

    • It bore little relation to the costs of disability
    • It wasn't being assessed frequently enough
    • The test for higher rate mob was too generous.

    PIP has addressed the last two of these, but has made the position of the first worse.

    The need for a kitchen aid (perching stool, pan tipper, slotted spoon), grab handle at the loo and bath and button fastener or assistance to fasten shoe laces gets 8 points and £55.65 per week, probably for life as the need for these aids will probably not diminish and will be re-awarded on re-assessment.

    I think the government should start again. Their aren't enough OT's to go round but I think assessors should be trained in the methodology of OTs and rather than look at the disability, look at the costs of the disability, probably in points rather than money. Unless that hits a certain figure, there would be no benefit. But you can then go much higher for those people whose disability costs a lot of money.

    If I live in a remote rural area with no bus service, can only walk 50 metres but can drive an unadapted car; there basically are no additional costs of transport due to my disability. I am running the same car, getting the same lifts or hiring the same taxi whether I am disabled or not. If there is a bus service, the additional costs of my disability depend on whether realistically I can use it or not. Can I walk to the bus stop? Can I get on? Will it or some other bus I can connect with, take me within my walking distance of anywhere I am likely to want to go? If it won't what are the likely costs of alternative means of getting to such places.

    Essentially we need a cost-focussed, not a disability-focused assessment.

    There will be a huge impact on juvenile DLA claims. There is no doubt that children are being used as cash generators by poor families. Most of the claimed disabilities are autism, asthma. learning difficulties and ADHD with virtually no additional costs of disability other than the cost of attending a few doctors' appointments and what is very noticeable is the drop off of claims at 16, when teenagers are not themselves willing to renew parental claims.
    How about we just pay more to people who are disabled with conditions meaning they aren’t going to work.

    I think we don’t pay enough to the claimants.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    How about we just pay more to people who are disabled with conditions meaning they aren’t going to work.

    I think we don’t pay enough to the claimants.
    I am not saying "no", but:

    • You are turning your back on the working disabled
    • The costs associated with physically disabled children can be very high
    • There would be a very big fall off in income for the disabled in attaining pension age
    • There remains the tension in ESA whether it is a "day by day" or long term benefit
    • It turns a non-means tested into a means-tested benefit
    • There is also a tension in ESA whether it should address employability or misfortune. Cameron when PM took up as local MP the cause of some ex-seviceman who had lost his leg on active service and had "rightly" been turned down for ESA. One could well think "Douglas Bader flew Spitires with tin legs; why can't you push a pen?" The relapsing alcoholic or heroin addict is almost certainly unemployable
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.