Jump to content
westie

Disability Living Allowance reform – public consultation (link)

Recommended Posts

Disability Living Allowance reform – public consultation

This consultation seeks your views on the Government‘s proposals to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with a new benefit – Personal Independence Payment. The Personal Independence Payment will continue to be a non...-means tested, extra costs benefit. It will help disabled people remove the barriers they face to leading full and independent lives. This consultation asks for views to inform our policy for reforming DLA and introducing a new objective assessment. The consultation applies to England, Wales and Scotland.

 

The consultation is aimed primarily at disability organisations and disabled people, but we would like to hear from anybody who is interested.

 

(the above info. is taken from the website)

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/dla-reform.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humph.

 

I've skimmed through the document: the only phrase that really matters is

 

The rising caseload and expenditure is unsustainable...

 

Woe betide those with invisible or fluctuating disabilities. :wacko::(

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is without doubt the most disturbing piece of proposed legislation to come out of the Coalition yet. It is also something that is being completely ignored by the media.

 

In essence this policy proposes complete removal of the lower rate care benefit, which at the moment is the "catch all" tier for mental health conditions. It further proposes that anyone who still manages to retain benefits will be regularly re-assessed by a "suitable person" - potentially including occupational therapists and social workers. These re-assessments are simply going to be a source of unecessary stress for those with life long conditions and for people with autism, that simply isn't fair.

 

The policy will penalise disabled disabled people for what they can do while by and large ignoring what they can't. For those with physical disabilities, any adaptions they use will be taken into account and they will be financially penalised for using them - including the use of wheelchairs!

 

They are actually using the equality act 2010 as justification "with it we are a much more equal society", to remove benefits from disabled people.

 

Those are just some of many issues with this policy. I strongly urge you all to read this through and to follow the responce process for consulation. If anything I am underselling how bad this proposed legistlation is.

Edited by zenemu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is to be replaced by PIP's, it was mooted many deaf people will lose any right to the DLA/PIP, and the new interrogations (Sorry assessments), will exclude many autistics and their parents too. The endless identical questions that apparently ask the same question all the time are designed to to find a reason to deny any allowances, 40% of current DLA claimants stand to lose out under the new system. You will have to get a financial advisor to fill in the forms and you will have to PROVE where every penny is going to be spent,anything that cannot be quantified will be refused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really unfair.

this is really disregarding a person`s disability.Disability is disability.This term is not understood by lots of people in the society but if it is going to be "personal living" or something then everybody will think that they have got no problems at all,and they do not deserve at all a penny.

Nobody knows at the moment about the extrem stressful life of disabled people,confusion,stress that often leads to financial loss too.

personal items are lost regulary and needs to be repleced.

We often need a taxi as the disabled person just cannot cope in the middle of a shopping or in the surgery.

the list is endless .wallpaper is stripped,or carpet is damaged etc.

 

The stress and humiliation of the disabled person and their relatives when being "assessed" /I would call interogation/ and how to make notes of each item where money is spent.

who and how will we cope with that kind of more paperwork????????

 

Yes and the media .......why they do not deal ,address this topic....I wonder.....

 

 

Best for the next year for everybody.

 

Edith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm not too worried by this. I'll see how it works out in practise first. I think it probably, however much we don't want to read it, is unsustainable as things are, and I know that some individuals have it whilst having no additional expenditure as a result of their disability which doesn't seem right, so tying it to that, if it works (and I realise that's a big 'if') seems sensible. Of course, I may change this opinion, depending on how they work out expenditure, and I'm a little concerned about things like including adaptations like wheelchairs in the assessment process, but I think we have to see how it goes. It's very easy to get caught up in rumours which may not be quite what is happening. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm not too worried by this. I'll see how it works out in practise first. I think it probably, however much we don't want to read it, is unsustainable as things are, and I know that some individuals have it whilst having no additional expenditure as a result of their disability which doesn't seem right, so tying it to that, if it works (and I realise that's a big 'if') seems sensible. Of course, I may change this opinion, depending on how they work out expenditure, and I'm a little concerned about things like including adaptations like wheelchairs in the assessment process, but I think we have to see how it goes. It's very easy to get caught up in rumours which may not be quite what is happening. :unsure:

 

But you can't afford to ignore in case the 'rumours' are fact, it will be too late to object once the decisions are made. Changes to benefits can go through without parliament. Currently few doubt the media and the condems are out to remove disabled from claiming allowances, the media has drawn up against the disabled too, we are all scroungers, frauds and fiddling everything. Joe public laps it up, they want to blame everyone else too, the state cuts everywhere, our kids suffer. I would have though a potential reduction or removal of 40% of all DLA would cause some alarm ? even lower rate gives disabled an 'in' to other allowances, like help with council taxes rent etc, lose DLA lose them too... and support options it has a knock on effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no "rumours", their are proposals. You can read the current proposals on the link in the first post, more importantly you can give feedback on them. Waiting to see what happens and then complaining about it seems like a stange descision to me. Read the document and give feedback in the recommended ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no "rumours", their are proposals. You can read the current proposals on the link in the first post, more importantly you can give feedback on them. Waiting to see what happens and then complaining about it seems like a strange decision to me. Read the document and give feedback in the recommended ways.

Sorry, that's not what I meant, I wasn't clear. By rumours I meant things people are saying that might happen that get exaggerated Chinese whisper style and create panic developing a cycle whereby people get more and more worked up when if you go back there's not much basis in their fears in the actual proposals.

 

I have read through all the proposals and for me, from my point of view and in my circumstances, I don't find it overly concerning. Of course I'd prefer things not to change, and things as they are seem to work for me, but I also accept that there has to be change.

 

In terms of seeing how things happen, I'm thinking more of things we can't know what they're actually be like from the proposals, for instance we don't know exactly what the assessments will be like and it's only once in place that they can be truly evaluated. I don't think that's 'wait and complain', it's wait, experience, evaluate and raise concerns if there are any to be raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you will have to PROVE where every penny is going to be spent,anything that cannot be quantified will be refused.

It is still going to be a cash payment like DLA. Where did you hear that you are going to have to account for what you have spent it on? I haven't heard that at all. I don't think it is true.

 

It does sound a lot like DLA, but with a more vigorous vetting procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually see the problem with it being re-assessed regularly, so long as it's done by appropriate professionals.

 

Bid :)

 

I don't see how Occupational Therapists and Social Workers are qualified to comment on medical matters - but it seems the government thinks otherwise. I would also suggest that for life long conditions - paraplegia or quadraplegia for example, that regular reasssessments are a waste of tax payers money.

 

Further I would also suggest that stopping the mobility component when people are in hospital will cause a severe financial disadvantage to those people who have motability vehicles, as they will default on payment and those who are in social care will also loose their entitlement to a vehicle.

 

Perhaps more closely to home for this forum, people with Autism who do require DLA will have to face the prospect of an annual or bi-annual reassessment whereby their benefits could be removed based on the opinion of one indvidual, who in most likelyhood will be unfamiliar with their condition, symptomology and difficulties. Perhaps more important is the uneccessary stress that will be caused to these individuals, stress being something that most people with autism don't deal well with at all. I would also add that currently most autistic people who claim DLA currently recieve the lower care component - which is going to be scrapped entirely.

 

An independent report in 2006 suggested that approximately 5% of DLA claims are either fraudulant or no longer necessary - the government aims to cut disability payments by at least 20% with a suggested target or 25% by 2016 according to the current judicial review newsletter.

 

And Mumble, Perhaps it shouldn't be a question of whether it affects you, but more of a questions as to whether or not the proposed legislation is fair.

Edited by zenemu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, Zen, but I don't see how you can realistically not have re-assessments.

 

Things do change in people' conditions, people do make progress or improve, etc. My son had mid-rate care (high rate for a couple of years when he had problems at night) and low rate mobility DLA from the age of 6 until he was 18. Then he didn't reapply, because both he and I recognised that he had made huge progress and no longer fulfilled the criteria. You could equally argue that some conditions can deteriorate and would benefit from a regualr review to see if more help is needed.

 

I'm not saying that the proposed system isn't flawed, but as a principle I don't see the problem.

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, Zen, but I don't see how you can realistically not have re-assessments.

 

Things do change in people' conditions, people do make progress or improve, etc. My son had mid-rate care (high rate for a couple of years when he had problems at night) and low rate mobility DLA from the age of 6 until he was 18. Then he didn't reapply, because both he and I recognised that he had made huge progress and no longer fulfilled the criteria. You could equally argue that some conditions can deteriorate and would benefit from a regualr review to see if more help is needed.

 

I'm not saying that the proposed system isn't flawed, but as a principle I don't see the problem.

 

Bid :)

 

 

The problem is they are not interested in the issue if it is obvious you need MORE help, they are only interested if they can give you less. As far as assessment goes, they only listen to their own, and I've been there when their own doctors supported a greater financial need and they ignored that too. It doesn't matter if you can prove it, they still can refuse to accept it. Now I wouldn't go anywhere near filling in a form or any kind of assessment without legal representation in attendance. They can't refuse to have you represented. They tend to take more notice of a lawyer with you. The prime mistake is trying to fill in any form or attend any interview without realistic help, you are bound to lose out. what is the point of medical declarations when they have the onus to refuse to accept it ? The real issue is getting legal representations sorted out so we can use it no-win no fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Mumble, Perhaps it shouldn't be a question of whether it affects you, but more of a questions as to whether or not the proposed legislation is fair.

You make it sound like I'm only thinking about myself because I disagree with some people. All I'm trying to do is give a more balanced opinion. As far as I can see, the proposals are fair particularly when viewed in a climate where there have to be cut backs and there has to be change. If someone loses out because of that, it doesn't mean it isn't 'fair'.

 

We should look at how little rewordings in public readings of the documents change what they mean significantly. For instance, you talk about the removal of lower-rate care - this isn't quite true, but a change from a 3-tier to 2-tier structure is proposed - that's not the same as wiping out all lower-rate care.

 

One of the major issues people have had (and you'll find lots of references to this searching on this forum) with filling in the DLA forms is that they are very negatively worded and focus only on what you (or your child) can't do. Someone then comes along and proposes a change that will look at what we can do and suddenly that's 'not fair'. How can you have it both ways? :unsure:

 

The problem is they are not interested in the issue if it is obvious you need MORE help

In my case, I can say that this is not true, therefore a sweeping generalisation isn't true.

 

As far as assessment goes, they only listen to their own

Again, no, not in my case - they used the evidence presented by my consultants.

 

The prime mistake is trying to fill in any form or attend any interview without realistic help, you are bound to lose out.

I was helped by various people who support me day to day to complete the forms, but this was not any type of legal support - and I didn't 'lose out', so it is not a definite either.

 

These are the sorts of comments I'm referring to when I talked about rumours and spreading of incorrect information which generates bad feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone loses out because of that, it doesn't mean it isn't 'fair'.

 

Of course it isn't fair! If the goverment want 20% people to lose their DLA, the new assesment process WILL be much hursher than now. This means that a BIG number of disabled people will lose out. You didn't have problems, Mumble,(and not only you) because you were assesed by the old criteria. In this economic climate, I wouldn't trust much the language that goverment is using, esspecially the word 'fair'.

 

I just wonder, why everybody talks only about (inevitable) cuts, and mostly about cuts to disable and poor? I haven't heard the goverment's talk about raising taxes for the rich yet!?

 

IMO reassesments will be very difficult for many people and children with ASD. Losing DLA for many children will be very bad. In the area where I live there is no NHS SALT provision for the secondary age children. Without DLA I wouldn't be able to pay for the private SALT and OT for my son. Without it, he wouldn't get any help whatsoever. And for him assesments are very frustrating!

 

Dana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What system would you guys suggest then? Do you think people should be awarded DLA with no re-assessments?

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the question is not only how often reassesments will be done but my main concern is WHO will do them. Now, the three year contract for assesing and reassesing people with DLA was given to ATOS, the same multinational company which assess people for ESA. Their profit will directly depend on how many people they will put into work program. Tell me, how 'objective' and 'independent' they will be? And how much they will take into account the opinions of the professionals who closely work with the DLA claimants and know him/her best? IMO, they should be the ones to decide about assessments, reassesments and who can get DLA or not.

Here is the link for some more information:

 

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/latest-news/1275-charities-fight-for-scraps-from-private-secto

 

Further more, they are still examining the possibilities of assesing the children who receive DLA and are thinking to take into consideration the other public funds such as Statements. This could mean that statemented children might not be elidgeble for DLA or will get less money? :unsure:

 

Dana

Edited by dana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to me to make more sense to campaign vigourously to ensure assessments are carried out by appropriate professionals, rather than campaigning against assessments per se. I don't see how it is logical to expect anyone to receive benefits for years, maybe for life, without regular reviews.

 

Bid :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do, if you are blind or deaf, or lose a limb none of it is going to return. Why re-assess that ? Do they expect your sight will come back ? your hearing ? grow a new leg ?

 

And you don't think regular reviews are necessary to check if things have deteriorated then?

 

I'm not for one minute saying that the present system, or the proposed system is adequate or appropriate, but it doesn't make sense to me, either economically or socially, to award a benefit and then have no reviews. There is a difference between criticising a specific system, and criticising a principle - and as a principle it seems entirely logical to me that any benefit should have regular reviews.

 

Bid :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps more closely to home for this forum, people with Autism who do require DLA will have to face the prospect of an annual or bi-annual reassessment whereby their benefits could be removed based on the opinion of one indvidual, who in most likelyhood will be unfamiliar with their condition, symptomology and difficulties. Perhaps more important is the uneccessary stress that will be caused to these individuals, stress being something that most people with autism don't deal well with at all. I would also add that currently most autistic people who claim DLA currently recieve the lower care component - which is going to be scrapped entirely.

Absolutely - my fears exactly.

One of the major issues people have had (and you'll find lots of references to this searching on this forum) with filling in the DLA forms is that they are very negatively worded and focus only on what you (or your child) can't do. Someone then comes along and proposes a change that will look at what we can do and suddenly that's 'not fair'. How can you have it both ways? :unsure:

It's true the forms are negatively worded, but I've never heard anyone say this isn't fair. Most of us who've had to battle through them recognise that it has to be so and we just have to deal with the emotional fallout. After all, DLA is there to support people who can't do stuff - I don't see how you can get away from the focus on the negatives and the comparisons with "normal" individuals which are an inherent part of the process.

 

Of course it isn't fair! If the goverment want 20% people to lose their DLA, the new assesment process WILL be much hursher than now. This means that a BIG number of disabled people will lose out. You didn't have problems, Mumble,(and not only you) because you were assesed by the old criteria. In this economic climate, I wouldn't trust much the language that goverment is using, esspecially the word 'fair'.

 

I just wonder, why everybody talks only about (inevitable) cuts, and mostly about cuts to disable and poor? I haven't heard the goverment's talk about raising taxes for the rich yet!?

Agree with you Dana. And what gets me is the dishonesty. The need to make cuts is what is driving this process - not the desire to create a better system for disabled people. Unless those doing the assessments are completely independent of those making the awards it will be like the statutory assessment/statementing process - inherently unfair. The people with obvious major well recognised impairments will always get DLA - (as they should), but the people with hidden and fluctuating disabilities who happen to be assessed on a good day by some clerk who's just looking at tickboxes, will lose out.

 

What system would you guys suggest then? Do you think people should be awarded DLA with no re-assessments?

 

Why not? We've all accepted universal child benefit for many years without question - the state's recognition of the extra cost of bringing up children. accepted that pensioners get bus passes, regardless of their individual circumstances. Why not universal DLA?

 

Sorry but this is one thing I get really wound up about. My daughter has been fully dependent on her DLA for 6 years - and she was one of the few the DWP saw fit to send a medic round to assess her before they awarded it. I feel certain that she won't be seen to meet the criteria when and if she gets reassessed in the future because her natural instinct is to act capable and play down her difficulties in front of strangers. Which leaves her with what means of support I don't know, as it's by no means certain that she will ever be able to support herself - I hope she will. We can't afford to continue to support her either and will become less able to in the future as the govt continues to put the squeeze on us in every way possible. And nobody is stepping in to help us help her to become more independent.

 

K x

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My adults son has AS, Keratoconus (KC) (a progress and degenerative eye impairment) multiple allergies three skin conditions and has seen no one about his autism since he was 16. Who are we going to be able to call on if he should fail his DLA reassessment which was awarded to him for life? My worry is that because my son has never ticked the right boxes for support and services he will be deemed not to need his DLA. His eye specialist fails to grasp who my sons AS and KC impact and interact with each other. So he will not be much use to us and he has no understanding at all about autism. There are many adults in the same boat as my son.I know for a fact that there is no one, and this includes the NAS, who are working in collaboration with the DOH regarding the new PIP benefit. I have this from the NAS themselves. There are other charities like MENCAP working with the DOH but no autism specific orgs. That really worries me. If autism was a well understood disability then we might not need to be concerned but it is not.

 

The DWP ATOS assessors have 'apparently' all had a DVD training module. But this has not stopped them from finding 11 adults who have AS and who all live in the same LA fit for work following a works capability assessment. This pattern is being repeated in other areas.

 

My gut feeling has been since the June budget that this Government will use whatever level of DLA or PIP that a person received to determine their other benefits entitlements. While I am sure that many adults with autism could work 'if' they had the correct level of support and understanding. There are many who have been failed by not only our education system but also our health service who can not work. Do we continue to punish people who have been failed by successive Governments? It would appear that we do.

 

Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We should look at how little rewordings in public readings of the documents change what they mean significantly. For instance, you talk about the removal of lower-rate care - this isn't quite true, but a change from a 3-tier to 2-tier structure is proposed - that's not the same as wiping out all lower-rate care.

 

In essence it is. You see the two tier system will be based on what are currently middle and higher rate care payments. As the majority of DLA claiments are actually on lower rate, that will ensure a much more stringent process for claiming and the loss of the benefit for an awful lot of people.

 

One of the major issues people have had (and you'll find lots of references to this searching on this forum) with filling in the DLA forms is that they are very negatively worded and focus only on what you (or your child) can't do. Someone then comes along and proposes a change that will look at what we can do and suddenly that's 'not fair'. How can you have it both ways? :unsure:

 

The negative wording is a necessary evil, as DLA is there to focus on the things you need help with, but this reform is more subtle than that. The irony is that the reform actually uses the Equality Act 2010 to remove benefits from disabled people. The Equality Act for example means that public transport should be accessible for wheelchair users. The fact that the majority of public transport outside of major towns/cities aren't and the fact that to use a train, a wheelchair user needs to book assistance 24 hours in advance is not taken into consideration, nor is the fact that they are expected to sit at bus stops in the pooring rain, and then sit in a wet chair all day. It doesn't take into account the need to take someone shopping with you, or the required aid to get in and out of inaccessible buildings. The fact that such people will default on their motability payments if they go into hospital for more than 28 days has also been overlooked.

 

Depite what it says in that document I have never heard anyone say that the current form is unfair. Difficult perhaps, and yes negative, but certainly not unfair. By its nature (trying to find out what your exact difficulties are), the form is going to have negative overtones, but freversing that and forgetting what your difficulties are and focusing purely on what you can do without giving your difficulties any consideration is absolute madness.

 

What system would you guys suggest then? Do you think people should be awarded DLA with no re-assessments?

 

Bid :)

 

For many conditions I agree, reassessment is an excellent idea, but not by the people proposed in that document, it is something that should be carried out by someone with a specialist knowledge of your disability. For certain conditions universal - life long disability benefots without need for reassessment is a no brainer. Under the current scheme if your condition changes you are legally obliged to inform the DWP, so if your life long condition becomes worse, simply inform the DWP with suitable medical documentation - why waste tax payers money on uneccessary reassessments?

 

I am lucky and have never had to claim benefits, but the legislation here is simply another stepping stone on the way to dismantling the welfare state. It is probably the worst piece of proposed legislation I have read in the last 20 years.

 

Anyway, on a happier sidenote - happy christmas all :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find is surprising that anyone is an any doubt that the present government is intent on cutting the welfare state. Part of what conservatives stand for.

 

There is a lot of talk that the changes to the assessment process are not fair as some people will lose there DLA, I fully understand that no one wants to lose money. But there will be people, undoubtedly only a small number, who will qualify who dont at present. Is that unfair? But then there is an underlying requirement to cut the amount of benefits payed out. (As part of the government drive to cut public spending. Not a principle that sits easy with me)

 

Our personal situation is there is a good chance that my son will lose all or some of his DLA.

(Not sure when as at the present they are only looking at adults.)

But my wife may and I stress may qualify under the changes were she doesn't at present.

 

The extra Money that we I get for my son is very useful, With DLA and the associated extra Tax Credit It comes to in excess of £100 a week. It is very hard to quantify that we spend that much more because of his disability. No doubt if I did not have the caring responsibility for my son (and my wife) I would be in a job with better earning prospect, so would potentially be better off.

 

One of the problems with the present system is that there are some people Only a small number I would think but there are there, I have know a few, who do qualify for Higher rate care and mobility but are also able to do a high (Relatively) payed job. Is that fair.

 

The present system looks at what you can't do and not at what you can. But then isn't that what this whole discussion is all about. We must remember that the purpose of DLA is to cover the extra cast you incur due to your disability and not as a source of day to day financial support. This is something that will always be a problem for people with non physical disabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I can fully appreciate that many people are extremely concerned about their own personal situations. Although my son felt he no longer needed DLA, one of my DDs gets DLA having been left with only one functioning hand after a road accident.

 

I've had several thoughts, but can't do 'multiple' quotes, so hope the following isn't too confusing!

 

The DWP ATOS assessors have 'apparently' all had a DVD training module. But this has not stopped them from finding 11 adults who have AS and who all live in the same LA fit for work following a works capability assessment. This pattern is being repeated in other areas.

 

Cat: I may be misunderstanding things, but I didn't think DLA was related to employability/fitness for work so I don't really understand this statement?

 

Kathryn: As your DD is an adult surely it isn't your place to be supporting her? I thought that there were benefits other than DLA for those unable to work? Again, apologies if I've misunderstood. And sorry, but I don't see how DLA is comparable to Child Benefit, which is a 'finite' benefit to begin with as it only lasts until the young person finishes full-time education...and it's another whole argument whether it is sustainable or indeed right that everyone, regardless of income, should automatically receive this benefit...

 

Zen: Surely what you are saying gives weight to my point that it would seem to be more logical to campaign vigourously for appropriate professionals to do reviews, rather than the principle of reviews itself? I can't see how there is a logical argument that stands up either economically or socially for no review system. I think that campaigning against the principle of reviews is actually counter-productive on many levels, as opposed to focusing the campaign on ensuring appropriate re-assessments which is reasonable and logical.

 

Chris: Agree with much that you say, and I also wonder just how many people inform the DWP if their condition improves?? In certain ways, and in certain situations I can see that benefits like DLA may possibly have a disabling effect (I read an interesting article about this a while back, will see if I can find it).

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find is surprising that anyone is an any doubt that the present government is intent on cutting the welfare state. Part of what conservatives stand for.

 

There is a lot of talk that the changes to the assessment process are not fair as some people will lose there DLA, I fully understand that no one wants to lose money. But there will be people, undoubtedly only a small number, who will qualify who dont at present. Is that unfair? But then there is an underlying requirement to cut the amount of benefits payed out. (As part of the government drive to cut public spending. Not a principle that sits easy with me)

 

Our personal situation is there is a good chance that my son will lose all or some of his DLA.

(Not sure when as at the present they are only looking at adults.)

But my wife may and I stress may qualify under the changes were she doesn't at present.

 

I am sorry, Chriss54, if my question is too personal but which change to present DLA may help your wife qualify to get it? Maybe I missed it.

 

Bid: The problem is that the goverment has already decided about the way the assessments will be done and who will do them, they haven't consulted any of us about it. And ,of course, they don't want to do that. More impersonal it is done (assessor not knowing the full picture, taking into account only the assesment day results)-more likely it is the claim will be rejected. In the present system we have to give the evidance of the proffesionals closely working with the claimants. What is wrong with that? Why is it not enough? Why give £100.000.000 to the firm to assess people when that money could be more wisely spend on, for example, improving the services for disabled people and children and ultimately help them become more independent?

 

I would be the happiest in the world if my son when he grows up manage to fnd a job and is able to live independent life. We would gladly give up DLA if this happens! However, I don't know if this will happen and, without any support of SALT and OT if his DLA stops, it is unlikely it will ever happen.

 

Danaxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kathryn: As your DD is an adult surely it isn't your place to be supporting her?

 

Well what the heck else do you suggest we do? Kick her out? Is that what you would have done with A when he was living at home?

 

I feel I'm being judged here, and that's making me angry so I'm bowing out of this thread before I say something I'll regret.

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I can fully appreciate that many people are extremely concerned about their own personal situations. Although my son felt he no longer needed DLA, one of my DDs gets DLA having been left with only one functioning hand after a road accident.

 

I've had several thoughts, but can't do 'multiple' quotes, so hope the following isn't too confusing!

 

 

Cat: I may be misunderstanding things, but I didn't think DLA was related to employability/fitness for work so I don't really understand this statement?

 

Zen: Surely what you are saying gives weight to my point that it would seem to be more logical to campaign vigourously for appropriate professionals to do reviews, rather than the principle of reviews itself? I can't see how there is a logical argument that stands up either economically or socially for no review system. I think that campaigning against the principle of reviews is actually counter-productive on many levels, as opposed to focusing the campaign on ensuring appropriate re-assessments which is reasonable and logical.

 

Chris: Agree with much that you say, and I also wonder just how many people inform the DWP if their condition improves?? In certain ways, and in certain situations I can see that benefits like DLA may possibly have a disabling effect (I read an interesting article about this a while back, will see if I can find it).

 

Bid :)

 

Bid, you seem to be missing the point here. The reassessments are a minor thing - as I have said, there is no point in reassessing life long conditions, it is a waste of money - as others have pointed out, if you loose a leg, it isn't going to grow back, and if you become paraplegic, that is unlikely to change - and indeed under the current system, conditions that are likely to change get awarded the benefit for a finite amount of time. As for campaigning for the appropriate professionals, follow the link above and submit a formal response to the proposal.

 

The most insidious point here is the fact that the government is planning on using the Equality Act 2010 against the disabled with almost Machiavellian execution to remove benefits from at least 20% of people who currently have them, not only that but they are jeopardising the support that people with mental health problems rely on. Further to that, those with people physical disabilities will either loose their transport or become financially disadvantaged simply for being in hospital for more than 28 days. Those points are indisputable, they are there in black & white - and the bottom line is that simply isn't fair.

 

I think it was Chris who commented above about the current government cutting the welfare state - and he is absolutely right. Given enough time and enough freedom, I have no doubt this government will dismantle the British welfare state to the point where we no longer provide any support to the vulnerable members of our society. I suppose the true irony here, is that the welfare state was a Conservative idea to begin with.

 

Whatever your thoughts on the previous government, where disability is concerned, as a society, we made more progress towards equality and disability awareness in those 15 years than we ever have before, but unfortunately under a conservative government (and don't fool yourselves, that is exactly what this government is), we are already loosing site of that. Sure, they allowed the Equality Act to go through – well the parts that suited at any rate, but large parts of the disability policy approved by the previous government have yet to be enacted, indeed there is no timeline for those policies to be enacted – the social housing parts for example. Disability in general is not very high on the political agenda at the moment and with the help of a sympathetic media, ridiculous policy like this will be passed and will go largely unopposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what the heck else do you suggest we do? Kick her out? Is that what you would have done with A when he was living at home?

 

I feel I'm being judged here, and that's making me angry so I'm bowing out of this thread before I say something I'll regret.

 

Sorry, Kathryn, I wasn't judging you at all :( I thought we were debating, and I was responding to your points.

 

In response to your comment above, A worked part-time and then full-time, and gave us housekeeping. If he hadn't have been able to work he would have claimed the appropriate benefits and given us housekeeping from those.

 

If people re-read my posts they will see that I have said at least once that I am not for one minute saying that either the present system or the proposed system is adequate or appropriate.

 

I am just trying to express the perfectly valid opinion that I think the camapigning needs to have a different focus, but I shall bow out now.

 

Bid :(

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bid, you seem to be missing the point here. The reassessments are a minor thing - as I have said, there is no point in reassessing life long conditions, it is a waste of money - as others have pointed out, if you loose a leg, it isn't going to grow back, and if you become paraplegic, that is unlikely to change - and indeed under the current system, conditions that are likely to change get awarded the benefit for a finite amount of time. As for campaigning for the appropriate professionals, follow the link above and submit a formal response to the proposal.

 

 

Autism is a life-long condition, but certainly HFA and AS are not static. People can make huge progress, and my personal opinion is that to make DLA automatically life-long for people with HFA and AS is counter-productive and negative, but I shall bow out now.

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...