Motability Cars

Your one of the ones who has been abused by the system, you deserve some support and don't get it and others who don't need it do, how can that be a fair system.

You should have exaggerated the truth, not that I think you needed to.

But obviously that was maybe the way you should have gone.

Hope your managing better.

Its been 5 weeks now since my assessment...im hoping I won't be kept dangling to long 😌

I've been told i have been awarded the standard rate for both care and mobility

Exaggerating the truth is classed as benefit fraud!

I certainly didn't want to go down that route. The DWP tried that one on me back in the early 80's which they ended up with their tail between their legs when they couldn't prove a thing.

?I was totally honest in all of my answers - telling them how it is over a period of seven days - the good days as well as the not so good.

?I'm not one for letting things drag me down so one way or another I get through my life my way - I explained all of that too just to balance it all. I also explained about the things I can no longer do and the things that I can do especially losing the ability to play in my old band but now spend my time working in the community as a Town Councillor and School Governor responsible for overseeing all of the financial decisions that the school take.

Good for you, I'm glad you have found something to help you stay active and something that is a helping society, stay as well as you can.

Also I was being facitious when I suggested exaggerating the health issues you have, I never considered that you would, in theory with your medical problemd which you have you didn't need to and you still didn't get it.

Fair or what

Let's get this into perspective though Les. When you were invited to migrate from DLA to PIP, you took the self assessment test on benefits and work website and decided you would not qualify, so you did not progress your application.  You can't really lay any blame at DWP's door because you were never assessed for the benefit.

I must admit I didn't realise that, if that's the case then its not a done deal surely, you have to apply to be refused, you can't second guess the outcome and the slate them because you didn't get it, I'm not putting you down Les, just think you should have filled out forms.

I did assessment online and got a bit less than they gave me but either way I got the same award.

The problem with Les's application as I understand it, was that he was over 65 when they 'invited' him to apply for PIP migration from DLA.  He did not apply when asked to and unfortunately with over 65's there is a time limit in which to respond.  By the time he did decide to apply he was too late as over 65's cannot claim PIP as a new claim - only if they have continued entitlement from DLA. He was advised he should make a claim for attendance allowance, and as far as I am aware, did not claim for that either.

I thought he had applied for AA as they went to his house, I might be confused though, want call it AA as that could infer something else,

You have missed one important part - I did try to start the PIP conversion. I wrote two letters to the DWP requesting form PIP1. Applicants have a choice - start the claim over the telephone or make a written claim on the PIP1.

?The DWP 'lost' both letters.

TBH Pam Les’ story with regard to DLA/PIP is not a simple one which can easily be put into boxes. He suffers with a chronic medical condition which is physically debilitating.

Further to that due to a serious head injury he suffered years ago (he was shot trying to stop a bank robbery) he has mental health issues as well. I can only speak from reading his posts and using a layman’s logic but it seems to me his mental state means he deliberately sets himself up to fail.

He qualified ten times over for both DLA/PIP (When he was under 65) and AA now he is over 65. Trouble is when he fills the forms in he does the complete opposite to exaggeration, he downplays his difficulties and won’t admit to receiving personal care from his wife.

He has also had many bad experiences with the DWP where they have failed to understand they are dealing with a claimant who is suffering with a severe case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and they have actually contributed to worsening of his condition. He really is one of those who should receive extra help with the application stage because his MH means he fails to fill the forms in properly (in my opinion)

The PIP 1 process establishes entitlement and most people do this over the phone as there is a time limit in which to make the claim. The paper route was designed for those with difficulty in using the phone and the DWP then flags these people as vulnerable and there are safeguards in place to avoid lost claims. You decided on the paper route, as I understand it, despite the fact that you were making a late claim having already decided not to do so and then changing your mind later on. As I understood you, your claim had already been closed by this time and you were advised to claim AA.  I'm not having a go Les but you've posted some incorrect info on PIP (see my reply to your earlier pos) and it seems as though this is from your own personal experience. I'm just trying to clarify the point that you actually did not apply for PIP within the time allowed and that because you are over 65 the opportunity was lost - as is made clear in the paperwork sent by DWP to all claimants.

I tried to claim by asking the DWP for the forms. Two letters. They told me that they had not received them and as I could not prove that they were posted I was then out of time to claim PIP. This resulted in the loss of my DLA award.

I then had the choice of either appealing against that decision or not. I decided to check if it was really worth the agro by doing the online test. The results of that test came back with just 4 points for Care.

Based on that information and the fact that I would find it difficult to cope with a Tribunal hearing where I could not prove that I had sent the two letters requesting the form PIP1, I decided that I would leave it as is.

If the self test had come back with a good result (Enhanced Mobility & Standard Care) to match what I was getting on DLA I would have appealed as it would have been worth all of the effort.

Fighting an appeal only to get 4 points would not serve any useful purpose.

The whole problem sits with the DWP and their systems. Surely they couldn’t lose 2 letters?

In which case maybe either Les or his wife should enlist the help of their MP.  The claim process for PIP has been criticised by a PAC committee report, as being difficult for those with this type of problem and if the DWP were not aware of his vulnerability perhaps they should have been from info on previous claims, and should have applied their own safeguards for vulnerable people to Les.   Despite popular belief MPs can be very helpful with benefit problems.  I made a complaint to the DWP via our MP on behalf of someone in my support group who went from higher rate mobility and care on DLA to nothing at all after PIP assessment.  The MP instigated a thorough investigation and the DWP upheld the complaint, admitting the examination was inappropriate and had resulted in the claimant being underscored. She was awarded higher rate of both components for ten years as a result. 

You are right. Anthony on here suggested that I should claim Attendance Allowance – that way if it was awarded I would be able to go back onto Guaranteed Pension Credit, get the mortgage interest paid, and get the 100% reduction of Council Tax.

I put a claim in and had a home assessment carried out by two guys. No idea who they actually were I just assumed that they were from ATOS/CAPITA??

Anyhow they left and a couple of weeks later got a letter from the DWP telling me that my care needs were so minor that I did not qualify for AA.

Then I gave up. I decided that I could not face more years of assessments, appeals, tribunals etc.

And that is where I am now – just waiting for a formal letter of apology from the DWP on how all this was caused by their inefficiency by failing to find any one of my two letters. It wouldn’t surprise me that they now actually admit to having found my letters which are of no help as things have moved on.

Les, see my post above in reply to Anthony, regarding involving your MP.  I really think you should consider it, because it seems the only way to get this properly investigated and I know from the personal experience described above, that the DWP cannot fob off an MP as easily as they can seemingly do so to a claimant.  As discussed, there are measures in place to protect vulnerable claimants with problems such as your own, and it would seem that these have not been applied,properly to you - you've slipped through the net and should really seek help to get this sorted out and claim the benefits you are entitled to. Your MP is the starting point.

I wasn’t making a late claim. My first letter to the DWP was sent 8 days after I received the ‘offer’ to move to PIP. 14 days later I sent the second letter. So by the time the second letter was sent I still had 8 days left of the 30 days allowed to start the claim off.

Then (my fault I admit that) I telephoned the DWP on day 36 (I should have telephoned on day 30) wanting to know where this form PIP1 was. I explained that two letters had already been sent to them requesting this form. They denied ever receiving either of these letters. They also said that I was now 6 days too late to make the claim in any event. They told me that the ‘offer’ to move to PIP had been withdrawn and as I had not contacted them until day 36 my DLA was being cancelled too. I tried to tell them that I HAD contacted them but it fell on deaf ears.

Shortly after I received letters to that effect.

I knew that I had the option to appeal against that decision and wanted to see if it would be worthwhile fighting them. I checked on the ‘Work & Benefit’ self-assessment and it came up as 4 points for Care only.

So I didn’t see the point in fighting them if at the end of the day that was all I appeared to be entitled to.

Thanks. As Anthony knows, I did get my MP involved a few weeks back. Fortunately through my voluntary work as a Town Councillor I see him on a regular basis during his surgery visits.

I copied everything that had happened and asked him to seek a full apology from the DWP on my behalf over the way they have handled the matter.

He received a reply back and sent me a copy of it. In a nutshell the DWP are not going to apologise for anything as they are satisfied that the two letters were never sent and that I was too slow in contacting them to start the claim off, by which time I was out of time in any event.

I have since seen him again and have told him that whilst I can prove that they were written (copies are in my documents folder on my laptop electronically dated when written and saved) I accept that through my fault I did not have any proof that they were posted.

He suggested that my only recourse due to my age is to claim Attendance Allowance.

That was the last thing I wanted to do – it felt wrong, it felt as though I was accepting that I was trying to suggest that letters which were sent were never written – in other words I was indeed trying to pull a fast one on the DWP knowing that I was late in making the application.

He then wrote to the DWP again, but the same reply came back – “we simply do not believe his version of the events.”

At that point I could not see any further way forward.

Pam Your advice is excellent and similar has been given to Les many times. Trouble is he is so disillusioned with the system he simply can’t be bothered anymore. What I should have added is his problems with the DWP started over 20 years ago so you can understand why a very ill man has been worn down to the point of giving up.

What he says is he is happy with his life now and doesn’t have to justify himself to the DWP every few years. It is a logic which you can understand if personally I wouldn’t follow.

I understand completely but it seems so unfair that someone with genuine needs should be so completely abandoned by the system.  I would strongly advise Les to apply for AA.  I did so for my Mum a few months ago and in the process had a telephone conversation with the actual decision maker, who had decided Mum was entitled to the day rate of care, but was ringing to make sure there was nothing else she needed to know which may have made the difference between that and the enhanced rate.  She explained that although AA is no easier to claim than any other benefit, decision makers are required to be aware that they are dealing with older and more vulnerable claimants and so take more care with the decision making process - including personal contact with the claimant or their family, to ensure the decision is right.  I later found out that she had discussed Mum's condition with our GP too.  The resulting decision, I feel, was subsequently the right one.  I just feel that if Les could summon up the courage to apply, maybe he would benefit.  I would be happy to help him with the application forms as much as I could.

Totally agree Pam and I have expressed the same opinion to Les many times as have tens of other posters on this forum.

However, as explained it all goes wrong @ the application stage where his mental health causes him to understate his needs. It is just my opinion but I believe it is because of his PTSD and he cannot handle repeated confrontation with the DWP.

At the end of the day you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink. Les has full capacity and it is his choice to follow his own designated path, those who try to help have good intentions but MUST respect an individual’s own personal choice when they make a final decision.

Hi Pam. I did claim AA this summer. I gave in to do so not only because of what my MP had said but in the main because of Anthony. I also checked out the stats for AA claims. It said that over 80% of first time claims resulted in an award.  In a way I felt that I was letting him down by not taking his advice. I completed the claim form honestly explaining what I couldn’t do and to balance it, what I could do with changing how I previously approached things. I had found ways around the many problems that I face on a daily basis – (how I communicate with people, how I try to walk away from confrontation).

I was happy with the ‘story’ on the claim form and sent it off.

I was then told that I was to have a home visit by a ‘doctor’ from the DWP. It nearly came to the point when I received that letter that I wanted to cancel the whole thing.

Anyhow I persevered and on the day two guys came to my home. I have to admit that I was very defensive but put a front on – I didn’t want to give in to my thoughts and feelings. With me it is always ‘fight or flight’ – fight being the general situation. That alternative in the past has had me arrested and sectioned not only for my own safety but for the public at large.

The assessment didn’t go well at home as I felt threatened and not in control of where I was.

I couldn’t remember half of what I should have known and failed miserably at trying to put over what I had put on the claim form – in fact I couldn’t recall anything that I had said on the form.

It was a nightmare. Later I received a letter telling me that my care needs were not of such an extent that I passed the bar to get an award. It was then that I decided never again did I want to go through with that.

Your mum seemed to have had a much easier ride than I did. No one telephoned me from the DWP they just sent the letter that said No!

I do honestly wish that I was different and more like the person I used to be.

This also makes me wonder why Les has no back up from medical professionals involved with his condition.  With a long history such as his, surely the DWP can and should be contacting his doctors for information instead of once again relying on the opinion of what could quite probably be inappropriately qualified or experienced assessors, carrying out what is in itself a very shallow assessment. This in itself doesn’t exonerate his doctors either – if they know what is happening why are they not making more of an effort to inform the DWP of his true situation ? 

In my opinion this is what is fundamentally wrong within the whole of the disability benefits system at the moment.  Since the introduction of private assessment providers, disabled people have been getting a raw deal at the hands of these firms who have one eye on their profits and so keep costs down by employing nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists to do the assessments instead of properly qualified doctors.  Some of the disabilities and conditions assessed are extremely complex and the assessors cannot possibly be properly experienced in everything.  The providers’ argument is that assessors are not diagnosing disability but assessing its’ physical effects on a range of activities, and so they do not need doctors because other ‘medical professionals’ can be trained to do this.  They also state that their assessors are fully trained in ‘disability analysis’ which actually consists of one week’s training which mainly focuses on what the DWP expect from them. Consequently, as with PIP, we end up with thousands of disabled people being wrongly denied benefit, due to inappropriate examinations from inexperienced assessors who don’t fully understand the disabilities involved.  Claimants lose support and other benefits to which PIP is the gateway and are losing much needed motability vehicles at the rate of 500 a week.   Vulnerable people are being forced to go to tribunal to get a fair hearing.   Huge numbers of decisions are overturned at appeal once these people get the opportunity to be assessed by tribunal panels consisting of properly qualified medics and disability experts.   

The DWP has answered criticism on this front, not by changing the system in favour of fairness to the claimant, but by training approximately 100 DWP staff to be deployed at tribunal hearings across the country, to try to reduce the number of appeals – part of their remit will also be to look at successful claimant appeals with a view to DWP appealing those decisions at higher tribunal levels.  The detail of how this will be achieved are not yet clear, but you can bet it will pile on the misery even further for claimants who decide to appeal.

I have been involved with PIP  from the start, and have taken part in all public consultations both as a private disabled individual and as  part of a campaign group.  My MP at the time was Esther McVey, the then minister for the disabled.  We wrote to her time and time again to tell her that the rules for PIP were unfair and so narrowly drawn that genuinely disabled people would lose support, and that the use of privately trained assessors would prove disastrous for claimants. It all fell on deaf ears and we were assured that ‘genuinely’ disabled people had nothing to fear, so  the PIP machine rolled on. Turns out that ‘genuinely’ disabled people had the most to fear, as the PiP assessment tries to reduce their condition to a set of points scored by attempting to minimise its’ effect on daily life, and those with the most severe conditions have the most to fear because they cost the most to support – thousands of genuinely severely disabled people have had their support reduced from enhanced rate DLA to standard rate PIP, or indeed, nothing at all.  Cynics would say this proves that they should not have had benefit in the first place, but when you realise that PIP is designed to reduce entitlement, that argument doesn’t stand up – someone whose condition remains the same ends up with less because the goalposts on how the severity of their condition is assessed, have been moved.  I think we all clearly saw the governments’ plans for disabled people when the chancellor tried to introduce yet more cuts to PIP – only stopped by the public outcry and disdain from his own party.  

So here we are.  The system has moved from providing support for disabled people, to openly denying it to the most vulnerable in the name of cost cutting and austerity.  No one seems to care, and disabled people don’t have a voice with which to complain. Disability organisations and major charities who are supposed to be our voice, have done little to help and are ineffectual at getting over to the general public what is actually happening – a general public who in the main don’t want to know, because it doesn’t affect them.  They prefer to believe the government sponsored rubbish spewed by the press and the media, that disabled people are benefit cheats and not worthy of support. This is why I am so dead set against those on this forum who for one reason or another believe that undeserving people are in receipt of PIP.  They should understand that PiP is not about support, it is about saving money.  Therefore you can be sure that anyone who is on receipt of it has been thoroughly scrutinised and has had the medical evidence to back up their claim accepted.  There are thousands of genuinely disabled people who have lost out under this system and my heart goes out to you all. But that does not give you the right to demand to know why other people whom you perceive as less deserving than yourselves have made a successful claim.  You have no right to demand to know what someone’s disability is – I say this because I was challenged in this way just recently.  I went to get out of my car, which was parked in a disabled space and two women approached me wanting to know why I had a badge, was this a motability car and that I didn’t ‘look disabled’.  One of them said she had a friend who was more disabled than I, who couldn’t get benefit. They hadn’t noticed that my husband was at the back of the car operating the hoist that brings my wheelchair to the driver’s door.  He shouted for them to mind their backs as the hoist did it’s job and he then helped me into the chair.  I actually suffer from Spina Bifida and can only move the few steps between car seat/furniture and my wheelchair.  Needless to say they were mortified and full of apologies. For myself I told them that my disability was between myself, my doctors and any necessary benefit staff and that I had absolutely no intention of discussing private matters with perfect strangers.  I also told them what I’m going to tell all on this forum.  This kind of behaviour does no-one any favours and it encourages discrimination and hate crime against disabled people.  No-one can possibly know the full extent of someone’s disability and quite frankly it is no one else’s business.  For reasons stated here, I believe the notion that the disability benefits system can be easily cheated is nonsense.  Tory policy of ‘divide and rule’ is well known on this country and it would seem that it’s working well in the area of disability benefits if the comments on here are anything to go by.  I think we should all mind our own business and get on with our lives. Disabled people face enough challenges in life without being judged like this by our own peers, who are in no position to pass this kind of judgment.  ‘This has turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry. Nuff said !! 

I'm just thoroughly appalled that someone with such obvious genuine need should be so badly let down by a system supposedly designed to support them.  Let me know if you ever change your mind and I'll help however I can with any application form filling etc.

One of the failings of this system is the complex rules surrounding benefit claim processes.  PIP is a perfect example of how complicated it has become, with rules governing how you establish entitlement, how you obtain an application form, and time constraints on sending the forms back completed. Anyone with a disability would find it difficult and heaven help anyone with a mental health or cognitive disability - they must find it impossible.  No mitigation is possible on the grounds of disability - if you don't follow the rules,you don't get benefit. It's a merciless attitude to apply even to able bodied people, but it's indefensible to apply it to the disabled.  

I would advise anyone reading these posts to look at what has happened to Les, and to be aware that if you send ANYTHING to a government department of any importance, and especially something that could affect a benefit claim, you send it by a recorded delivery service which tracks the date it was sent and delivered, and which collects a signature on delivery.  Government departments all have the same policy - proof of posting is not proof of delivery, so a simple free certificate of posting from your post office will not be sufficient for them to accept responsibility for any loss. It must be a service which collects a signature and the time of delivery and can be tracked.  The only Royal Mail service which does this is Special Delivery. I know it's expensive, but in the end it saves this kind of heartache.  You have been warned !!

Hi Pam. You put it into words how I am feeling about anything that relates to the DWP. Reading your comments only goes to reinforce what I know is wrong with the system and goes to increase the depression that I feel.

As for medical input, my GP hasn’t got a clue how I am feeling; I find it extremely difficult in admitting to anybody fearing that once again I will end up in another secure unit under section.

I only go to the GP when and if I have to. Normally once a year for a medication review.

Additionally I believe that if I did disclose everything and admit that I can’t in all honesty cope any correspondence that the DWP might want from him would be inadmissible anyhow as it would be third hand – ‘my patient tells me that………’

I too cannot understand why the DWP in the main will not talk or write to any of the people that treat me. I do however know that back in 2011 when I had one of my many DLA reassessments they did ask my GP to fill in a form which was presumably to do with the appeal that I lodged against them taking the DLA off me for the umpteenth time. It was by chance that I saw this form which was completed by the GP when I asked him for copies of part of my medical records. It was quite comprehensive and detailed all of the medical and mental health issues that I have. It was the first time that I found out that the Community Mental Health Team for Older People had diagnosed ‘Early Onset Dementia’ to add to the list!

Thanks for your offer of help which is appreciated especially coming from a complete stranger.

I don’t think that I will put my head in the lion’s mouth again – I just couldn’t cope with everything that it would entail especially the thought of another rejection.

Totally agree Pam.  Very well said.  x

 

Hear Hear !

Pam you are absolutely correct one of the failings (or indeed the design) of PIP is its complex rules. Unfortunately the Tories will be in power for the next decade at least so the chances of things changing are slim.

This means the DWP will always play by their rules and if you want to beat them then you have to do it the very hard way. I agree it is almost impossible to cheat the system to the degree that some people believe. Rather than claimants being cheats it’s more of a case that those who don’t qualify are jealous of those who do.

I had high hopes that Mrs May would be a bit more fair minded and would address some of the PIP failings (see also my earlier, longer post) but so far the only announcement has been that some of the more severely disabled in the ESA support group will be exempted from constant reassessment.  This is not giving very much away because this already happens - the most severely disabled already receive the longest awards and tend to receive paper based reassessments.  It also makes me wonder what they have in store for the vast majority of the support group because it's not so long ago they were talking about introducing some sort of compulsory job search for those in the support group who could manage it.  I don't believe they will give something away without taking something back so watch this space. 

As I've said before on these forums, my experience of dealing with the DWP has always been quite good and the decision maker in my mum's case couldn't have been more helpful or understanding.  Where the public perception is skewed is that the decisions rendered are seen as the 'fault'  of the assessors or the decision makers but you have to understand that the DWP don't make the rules - government do. And the staff have to follow these strict regulations governing how assessments are carried out and subsequent decisions made - however much they may not agree with it.  They have no choice because the processes are pre determined and they have to follow them.  The place to start in trying to bring about change, is government.  And you're right - I don't hold out much hope for a regime change any time soon

Which then leads me to the conclusion that either (a) my name is flagged up at the DWP and consequently I am given a harder time of it when making any benefit claim owing to previous matters

Or (b) Decision Makers are a law unto themselves and can decide who should have a harder or easier time when claiming.

It would have suited me fine and I would have welcomed it if someone from the DWP had have telephoned me to clarify things and to offer an explanation of where I may have gone wrong with my AA application.

As I have said – I received no feed back and no opportunity to talk to them about the claim – it was a done deal from the very start – a simple letter saying – No!

Do I then want to go through all of the claiming process over and over again only to find the same letter in my post box time and time again? My dealings with the DWP seem to point in that direction.

You could be forgiven for thinking that way but I doubt that'a the reason. I think your condition doesn't easily fit the descriptors and the assessor you've seen don't have the experience or qualifications to properly assess you. It seems to me to be that and a vast amount of incompetence.

Sorry les that post got away from me ! As I was saying, I think part of the problem is that assessors don't have the necessary knowledge when looking at a lot of claimants conditions and the more complex ones such as your own and indeed, the examples you've quoted, tend to be the ones that run into trouble because they don't easily fit the descriptors. I also think that the pip regulations are so complex that DWP decision makers have trouble interpreting them in a lot of cases - this has been cited time and time again when cases are overturned at tribunal. I don't think there's any conspiracy at work, just a badly designed system which is becoming more and more unworkable.

I think your chances of an explanation from the DWP about past claims are slim to none if your MP couldn't get anywhere with them. Your only recourse would be to make a fresh claim for AA and if that were to be turned down, exercise your right to an appeal to find out why . You would need a lot more support from the medical profession though and as you've already pointed out, it would be really stressful and with no guarantee of succes I'm here to help if you ever do decide this is what you want.