So scared and nervous about my PIP assessment on Thursday

I cannot remember what i wrote on my form and it sucks that i did not take a copy of the form before i sent it off but that was because the forms were delayed at getting back to me and the date on the form to have it back with DWP was two days after i received the form. I am assuming they have an electric copy of the form on the PC when they do the assesment?

No mention of any evidence being submitted by the genuine claimant?

?Mind you it doesn't take much to find a website that for a price is able to produce 'evidence' to support a bogus claim. If they can produce fantastic quality payslip for a job that doesn't exist, bank statements showing high capital both used to support a mortgage application, I'm sure that some medical evidence would not be a problem. 

Hey Natalie. I was thinking about you today.  How did you get on ?

Mike and that is why I state that we the disabled shouldn't refer to others as 'chancers' because it undermines us as we subject our own to the same bigoted views that some non-disabled people have.

Also you made the comment in context to your own situation. With respect your situation has nothing to do with anyone else whether they are a benefit cheat or not.

Mike.  Forgive me but you've made a nasty little assumption that all those people parking their 4x4 at the supermarket disabled bays are benefit claimants, and by inference that they are driving motability vehicles. Disabled badges are not dependent on claiming benefit, not all disabled people drive motability cars, and my husband parks our motability small 4x4 in the supermarket disabled bays and 'sprints' in to pick me up.  Interestingly, it's also the case that a number of disabled people who, like myself use a wheelchair, choose a 4x4 type vehicle because of the ease of getting in and out of a vehicle which sits higher up, and the ability to fit a proper wheelchair hoist. We could very easily be classed among the group you've singled out - not everything is as it seems.

Mike I also think this point is important but you continually avoid that point by either going off on a tangent (referring to claimants abilities to fill forms in) or by using the sympathy card.

My point remains the same you made a reference to 'chancers' which is an inference that there are many disabled people attempting to defraud the system. The numbers that actually do so successfully are negligible and it is of no help to anyone for you to make such a comment.

Of course if you want to talk about your condition then by all means do so (providing you don’t hijack someone else’s thread) but don’t try enhancing your circumstances by using a disgusting narrative that disabled people are chancers. As I said this helps no-one and why you can’t see that is a mystery.  

I think that 'exaggerations' are what is probably the problem.

?'Chancers' are those that have no hope in hell of getting an award but still persevere in pushing a claim forward. I have seen many comments along the line of 'What can I get - I'm on ESA is there another benefit available'

?The answers that come are generally along the line of 'well you could try for PIP - if you don't try it - you'll not get it'.

?As for cases that are exaggerated I would include those that attempt to portray that every day is the worst day possible, yet knowing that it isn't actually true. Many tell these claimants that if you put anything positive on the claim form it will be used against you.

?Then there are those that claim pain is an issue. No harm is seen by those claimants in telling a little white lie over the level of pain - it can't be proven one way or another so why not make it look worse than it actually is.

?And finally one bit of advice that I saw on a forum was to look up what your symptoms could be that you actually don't have but put them down as though you do.

Mike your statement was " I know that it is public money, I know it's not a God given right, but it is nevertheless mental torture to all of us genuine claimants wronged because of a few chancers."

Your clear inference was you are a self proclaimed ‘genuine’ claimant who is hampered by ‘chancers’. Surely if you didn't mean that ‘chancers’ were not those attempting to cheat the system then surely it is reasonable to have expected you to have explained that in the original post?

The issue of how many benefit cheats exist was raised by me when trying several times to explain to you that using such phrases is self defeating and simply buys into the Government’s rhetoric.

Mike I accept your apology but again I must urge you to refrain from using such words as 'chancers'

I have given my reasons why but I will also add that having spoke to a number of assessors and benefit advisers at the Citizen's Advice they both state that when someone claims they are a 'genuine' claimants unlike others who are trying to cheat the system they immediately raise a red flag.

The reason for this is it’s a very well used trick to throw suspicion off the person who is saying it. It’s basically the adage “those who shout the loudest have the most to hide” in real time action.

I’m not saying that this applies to you but those who think it helps their cause to do so are very mistaken. That is another reason why seeing posters use such phrases does upset me as I know the damage it can do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, and hope that people listen.  The levels of disability benefit fraud even before PIP was introduced was very, very low.  The government launched a media campaign to try to convince the public otherwise, so as to better facilitate the savage cuts to disability benefits that they were planning.  They got the public on their side and then used the backdrop of austerity to do what every successive government since the introduction of DLA had wanted to do - abolish it and introduce a far harsher and less generous system.  They succeeded, and looking at some of the comments and opinion on here, it's not hard to see why.  The DWP were forced to respond to a freedom of information request, and to admit that fraud and error in DLA and ESA was less than 0.5% - and that includes errors on the part of the DWP in benefit calculations.

I was part of a major campaign group when consultation on PIP first started, and we warned everyone repeatedly that genuine claimants were going to be the hardest hit, and it's happening.  The government had already decided on the design and roll out of PIP before it even consulted, and the consultations were just lip service because none of the opinion expressed was ever acted on.  In fact the DWP lied about the reduction in the walking test to 20metres, saying that it had been suggested by one of the consultation  respondents. Our group scrutinised all the responses and no such suggestion was ever made. We called them on it and they had to back down and admit it was not true. Before the 2010 election, the Tory website was pledging that DLA would remain in payment as a cash benefit because the tories recognised it was an important part of supporting disabled people.  They were elected to coalition in May and by the autumn statement, DLA was to be replaced by PIP.  That fact alone should tell you everything you need to know about the Tory attitude to disabled people, and since then they have unleashed attack after attack - and when the savings didn't roll in (because they realised that claims were genuine) they tried in Osborne's last budget to reduce PIP entitlement even further by introducing petty minded changes, but were thwarted by their own MPs.

And yet still we have silly talk about benefit fraud being the driver behind the abolition of DLA and introduction of PIP, and by disabled people themselves - give me strength !!  This government made ideological changes to the benefit system on the assumption that a lot of people were claiming who shouldn't have been.  I have no doubt that some were, but the assumption on here seems to echo the governments' assertion that DLA was an unregulated free for all and required no medical evidence with which to claim.  I can tell you from first hand experience that it was not.  All that was needed was for the DLA rules to be tightened and more checks introduced, but that wouldn't have achieved the savings this government wanted - a 20% reduction across the board. So PIP was introduced with the sole intention of making that saving.  It hasn't worked, because the government assertion that disabled claimants included a high number of 'chancers' simply isn't true, and large numbers of awards based on unfair and subjective assessments  are being overturned at tribunal because independent expert panels recognise the unfairness.  That's costing a fortune and eating up any savings PIP makes, so the government is about to nobble the tribunals by introducing more DWP presenting staff to try to reduce the number of awards overturned - they are also proposing to move tribunal hearing online, thereby reducing the claimants' opportunity for a panel of experts to see the disability for themselves.  If you want to be angry about something, don't you think that's enough to be going on with ?  Silly talk about 'chancers'  and fraudsters reducing available resources for genuine claimants is detracting from the real issue - the systematic dismantling of the welfare state and NHS and, therefore the removal of any meaningful safety net for those who are sick, disabled or otherwise unfortunate enough to be dependent upon it.  

 

TBH Pam not sure why your directing that rant at me, your preaching to the converted. I'm the one arguing that Mike shouldn't have used the word 'Chancer' to describe other next to non-existant disabled claimants.

Wasn't directed at you Anthony, sorry. It was meant to be by way of support at the message you're trying to get across.  My apologies for any misunderstanding.

Hi pam,

I don't know about Anthony, but I now have a red smacked bottom.

If nothing else it got people talking.

Mike

ps sorry to any and all that I may have offended.

I'll be back,

Mike

I thought so just checking

Sorry. I've been with PIP since the beginning in on way or another and it still makes me angry when I see evidence that people still think it's about support.  The descriptors for PIP are entirely different from DLA and were designed to deliberately screen out high levels of disability, and reduce support.  DLA was always seen as too generous because it examined the claimants' condition in more depth and made allowance for certain types of disability known to be severe, which saved the claimant from constant reassessment.  The only way to make the kinds of savings the government wanted was to move away from that and assess every aspect of the disability ad infinitum and base it on a points system.  That enables them to then oversimplify the disability and reduce support - for thousands. It's happening now andit looks to the layman as though they were right all along and thousands of people were claiming fraudulently.  That just isn't true - all that's happened is that the descriptors are so narrowly drawn that thousands of people with genuine need, no longer qualify. It's not about reducing fraud and it's not about better targeting the resources. It's about saving money

Agree with every word Pam but I live by the mantra of "don't get angry get even". Admittedly I don't always come out on top but I have quite a good record in helping those who need support get it which in my little world is getting even.

We are stuck with PIP for the meantime so we have to make the most of a bad deal for now and get as many success stories as possible.

Hi Anthony.  Had an interesting development today which I wanted to get your thoughts on.  I was helping a lady from our support group prepare for a tribunal - the MR I prepared for her and backed up with the relevant medical evidence from her GP, was dismissed totally and they refused to alter the decision.  Virtually no mention was made of the GPs report in the MR decision  - although it was directly relevant to to the descriptors in dispute and provided an opinion based on 15 years knowledge of this lady.  The MR simply restated the original decision and stated that assessors were experts in disability analysis and there was no reason to doubt the validity of the assessment report.

I completed the submission for the tribunal, which was virtually the same as the MR request and I resubmitted the GP report along with it.  My friend got a letter earlier this week to say that the tribunal had received the submission and had sent it to the DWP - and that as soon as the DWP submitted their response they would be in touch and would send us the tribunal bundle.  This morning my friend phoned me to say she had just had a phone call from a DM at the DWP to say that they had decided to award the two points she needed for the enhanced rate (The only two points we had challenged) and that the tribunal would not proceed.  They are going to write to her with the full revised decision and will be backdating the award to the he date of the original decision and paying the difference directly into her bank account in the next few days.  We are obviously delighted, but I just wondered if you have come across anything like this before and if so, what might have changed their minds about the tribunal - given that the MR was so comprehensively dismissed on the same grounds.  Thanks.

Well done firstly Pam on your excellent work.

This is just my opinion which admittedly is based on anecdotal evidence but I have seen this kind of thing many times.

The MR wasn't even looked at and simply rejected. The reason for this was probably due to the work load at the DWP, they simply didn't have the staff or time to read through it. Also there is a strong possibility they deliberately rejected it hoping the claimant would just 'go away' and the DWP would incur a saving.

However, when the claim was referred to Tribunal the DWP had to review the decision and due to your excellent work they knew they were on a hiding to nothing and had to reverse their decision.

But if you think about it how many claimants give up at the MR stage? I bet it’s around the 50% mark at least and all of them represent a saving to the DWP whether warranted or not.

Thank you so much - I value your opinion, as you have much more experience than myself.  I am helping out with the Spina Bifida Association at a local level - I have the condition myself.

 I have a benefits background having worked for what is now the DWP, many years ago when benefits were split between the DSS and what was then the Department for Employment and Education.  I was also on the editorial committee of the WeAreSpartacus campaign group - we responded to public consultations and prepared reports for various charities on PIP and along the way I managed to gather quite a comprehensive knowledge of the design and intentions of PIP (hence the fairly cynical attitude).  When all the consultations finished and PIP was introduced I kept a close eye on what was happening with the first assessments and I decided that the best way to put what I have learned to good use was to get involved with my support group - helping out firstly with advice, and then hands on assistance to members with form filling, MRs and appeals.  

This is is only the third actual appeal I have been involved with - most of the claimants I helped managed to get a reasonable award and were happy to leave it at that.  I have one successful MR under my belt, done for a gentleman who has hydrocephalus as well as Spina Bifida - the DM had failed to take into account his cognitive problems in the original decision and we were lucky that the medical evidence supporting the MR was quite comprehensive.  

The first tribunal I was involved with resulted in a lady who had lost enhanced rate mobility and care DLA on reassessment for PIP - the tribunal overturned the standard rate mobility to enhanced rate, and no award of care component became a standard rate award.  This is the only case I've had that actually went all the way to a hearing. The second appeal came after a very disabled gentleman who suffered intractable pain and crippling depression as part of his disability, lost all his enhanced DLA care allowance and his motability car on reassessment to PIP - he got standard rate mobility only.  His supporting medical evidence was excellent and wide rangeing - and was dismissed in favour of a report done by an assessor who clearly didn't understand the extent of his problems.  I was so outraged I wrote to his MP at the same time as preparing for the tribunal, sending copies of everything to her and asking her to investigate.  Within a week the DWP had treated the MPs subsequent letter as a complaint and sent it to their chief medical officer, who upheld the complaint.  They cancelled the tribunal and overturned the decision a couple of days later, and he got enhanced rate mobility and care with an open ended award.  The lady I contacted you about today was number three.

I always had a strong suspicion that MRs were being routinely turned down on the premise that not everyone would appeal, and benefit savings would be achieved by the back door.  It just alarmed me that this ladys' MR having such strong supporting evidence which spoke directly to the descriptors and challenged the weight of the assessors findings, could be so quickly dismissed.  I know one of the things DMs have to consider for MR is whether the decision would likely e overturned at tribunal.  If they think there is a strong possibility of this happening they are actually directed to deliver that decision at MR to avoid the expense of a tribunal which would inevitably reach that same decision.  This is obviously not being done, in the hope the claimants will simply accept an unfair decision based on a sub standard assessment.

 

Hi Anthony - count me in the 50% figure - I just couldn't face the throught of anymore arguments and trying to further evidence my claims.

?I was never a quitter but over the years I have come to the conclusion that the DWP would hold on to the decision to not make an award even if their 'finger tips were bleeding'. As you say there eventually does come a time when they are forced into submission. Shame that the claimant has to progress it that far generally without any help.    

None of what you say surprises me although I do have a little sympathy with the DM's in that they have a huge work load so mistakes are bound to happen.

However, using rejections as a strategy for savings is wrong but it has been around for quite a while now and was used to stop the payment of other benefits. There used to be social grants (which were abolished about 4 years ago) to buy furniture for homeless people who had been re-housed and they were always rejected at every stage up until just before pre-Tribunal.

The reasons for rejection were obviously wrong. I remember several cases where they applications were rejected because the DWP stated that the Claimant was not in receipt of income related benefit, when they clearly were.Like you I only get involved with a small number of cases but any success gives a good feeling and helps in a small way to balance things out. Keep up the good work there are people out there that need you.