nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Being Stoic Yet claiming Enhanced Care & Mobility - PIP

2oldcodgers

I was reading an article in my local paper about a lady who has not only had her PIP taken off her but is also facing a prosecution.
Sounds like someone has been caught pulling a fast one with the DWP. Not at all the lady in question I know her through friends and everyone is up in arms over this action.
Her problem is that she is very stoic and has an attitude that despite illness and disability she will put her pain to one side and try to live an independent life as best she can.
Seems that she was reported by someone that she was a benefit cheat.
They have videoed her putting her bins out, carrying shopping from her car etc etc.
She is to plead guilty in court as she cannot deny that what they have seen actually happened.
So I suppose the moral of the story is to always give in to your pain and disability and never never do anything that could be seen as having an ability better that as been claimed.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

poppy123456

Do you have a link for that artical?

2oldcodgers said:

So I suppose the moral of the story is to always give in to your pain and disability and never never do anything that could be seen as having an ability better that as been claimed.

I disagree. Claiming any disability benefits doesn't mean you can't have a life. There's likely to be more to this but impossible to comment with no link posted so we can read for ourselves.

nasturtium

I agree with Poppy we need to see the article to make judgement. There does seem to be more to this.

This is from PIP Case Law Case No. CPIP/2377/2015

"Whether a claimant can stand and then move a particular distance “to an acceptable standard”, inevitably links with two of the further relevant matters under regulation 4(2A): “repeatedly” and “within a reasonable time period. As these terms are statutorily defined, unlike the phrase “to an acceptable standard”, then if a claimant fails to satisfy that statutory test in either respect, it is unnecessary to give consideration to “an acceptable standard”; however, it might still technically be possible for a claimant, who is unable to show that he cannot carry out an activity repeatedly or within a reasonable time period, yet notwithstanding to establish that he is unable to do so “to an acceptable standard”. Such instances must be rare but may exist; for example a claimant who forces himself to walk quickly and repeatedly, through stoicism, despite a very high level of difficulty caused by matters such as pain, breathlessness, nausea or cramp."