Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:01 pm  

samwire wrote:

i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs.

You are misunderstanding the questions. You cannot eleborate on the question you have ticked. You have to chose one of the questions and answer yes/no to it. You have to "chose" the phrase that "fits" you and thats it. I cannot explain that I cannot do it repeatedly, safetly and in a timely fashion.

How can you possibly know anything about the system when you haven't been through it as I have? I don't think you qualified to comment really.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:08 pm  

samwire wrote:

i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs.

The information you have linked to is useful and interesting but to be honest, and speaking of one who has twice been subjected to civil service incompetence resulting in them reclaiming tax payments form me (after they had incorrectly read the forms that I had submitted) then I always remain very sceptical about any government department who ask questions that can be re-interpreted later to mean something else that will benefit them.


As an example...

The term “repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed.


"Reasonably" is a very subjective word, indeed you will find that the word reasonably is interpreted differently between one and another assessor let alone an assesor and the assessed.

A decision maker will also take into account any aid or appliance you normally
wear or use or could reasonably be expected to wear or use when assessing your ability to carry out a descriptor.

There is that word again, suppose that they reasonably expect that if you used a wheelchair then you'd easily be able to complete the 200 metre test, yet the use of a wheelchair will put you into a completely different league employment-wise ?

If you have a fluctuating condition the most appropriate descriptor will be the one which is likely to apply for the greatest proportion of that time


Massively open to interpretation is that one, you claim one thing and they'll pay you, turn up next year for a re-assessment and they'll decide it was inappropriate and you owe them twleve months over-payment.

Personally, with my subjective experience I would be very wary of claiming anything under these terms, unfortunately if I needed to claim then I wouldn't have the luxury of refusing - there but for the grace etc etc

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:10 pm  

Those descriptors you quote have just been amended this week. All during the consultation period it has been 50metres and cannot mention repeatedly, safetly and in a timely fashion. The Spartacus Group have worked hard to make changes but it was bittersweet; they got the repeatedly etc changed but in doing so the governement changed it to 20 meters without mentioning it in any of the consultation periods.

In any event, the descriptors still don't allow for fluctating conditions, nor the pain level it would mean for a lot of people. Maria Miller has already stated the aim of PIP is to save 20%of the DLA/PIP bill so why people are so intenent on pretending otherwise is beyond me

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:24 pm  

HWS: When is achool a hospital? Apparently they stopped Miss D's mobility allowance for days she is in "hospital." The 'hospital' being a school which has nurses.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:53 am  

samwire wrote:

*sigh*

Sigh all you like ... but pain / discomfort are simply not addressed and the only terms coming close to recovery time and repeatability are so vague as to be meaningless.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:09 am  

The Public Accounts Committee don't seem too impressed with the fitness to work programme. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how finding more people fit for work will actually create the job vacancies for them to move into

The Public Accounts Committee don't seem too impressed with the fitness to work programme. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how finding more people fit for work will actually create the job vacancies for them to move into

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:22 am  

Dally wrote:

HWS: When is achool a hospital? Apparently they stopped Miss D's mobility allowance for days she is in "hospital." The 'hospital' being a school which has nurses.

I don't interpret the rules I'm afraid. If I did, every disabled person would get what they needed to live a full, independent life

As I understand, if you go into hospital for more than 28 days you lose your benefits for the number of days you are in. I only know this because it states on your paperwork you must inform them if you go into hospital, which I did but I was only in for a week each time. Rubbish, I know because your rent/bills don't get cancelled because you are in hospital.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:28 am  

cod'ead wrote: The Public Accounts Committee don't seem too impressed with the fitness to work programme. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how finding more people fit for work will actually create the job vacancies for them to move into I'm more suprised (or am I?) that its taken 2 years of disability groups, charities, organisations, TV programmes, Lords and individuals of relentless campaigning to shout it from the roof tops to anyone who'll listen that its not fit for purpose. Its what we've all known for 2 years but no one would listen, with some "news" papers prefering to focus on the "lazy, scrounger, sponger, workshy, liar" propaganda instead of doing some proper investigive journlism into whats really going on.

cod'ead wrote: The Public Accounts Committee don't seem too impressed with the fitness to work programme. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how finding more people fit for work will actually create the job vacancies for them to move into I'm more suprised (or am I?) that its taken 2 years of disability groups, charities, organisations, TV programmes, Lords and individuals of relentless campaigning to shout it from the roof tops to anyone who'll listen that its not fit for purpose. Its what we've all known for 2 years but no one would listen, with some "news" papers prefering to focus on the "lazy, scrounger, sponger, workshy, liar" propaganda instead of doing some proper investigive journlism into whats really going on.

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:53 pm  

samwire wrote: i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs. http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/0 ... f-nowhere/ This may help clear up a few things you are unclear of

samwire wrote: i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs. http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/0 ... f-nowhere/ This may help clear up a few things you are unclear of

Re: Cameron reprimanded for false claim on debt : Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:13 pm  

Interesting point raised on Radio 4 this evening re the Phillpott arson case - It stated he stood to lose >£1,000 a month in benefits after his girlfriend and her 5 children moved out - £1,000 a month why would he ever consider working?