Spring Statement Discussion (link to documents here)
Comments
-
Sorry to hear your going through this it's horrific experience isn't it especially been threatened sanctions.My advice is to write a complaint in your journal and ask to speak to another person or work coach as the person you spoke to is ignoring your health issue and your request for a reasonable adjustment to be put in place.Also under the equality act they have to make some kind of reasonable adjustments.This worked for my partner. Really do have to get onto them about it with a complaint to get anything done. I really hope this bit advice helps you
0 -
I just looked through my PIP reports and on the start of it where they give you that summary thing of their points and what was said in the assessment, it says "His mother cooks as he has problems with eating. His mother will prompt him to eat food and it's hard for him." But she's put that I need prompting on preparing food. I do need prompting to prepare food but also taking nutrition and this point acknowledges that but she put that I take nutrition unaided. If she awarded me correctly and put that I need prompting to take nutrition, I would've had that 4 points on one descriptor saving me a bit of anxiety and stress. I've only just seen this now and have been waiting for a change of circumstance since last month (due to starting medication when I wasn't on any medication before). Just annoyed myself with it because had I noticed it, I could've done an MR
2 -
I’ve been looking for the last hour at jobs in my area, if the chancellor thinks enforcing poverty on me is going to magically get me into work. Not a single job in my area I would be able to do or would have a hope in hell of getting. I haven’t worked in nearly 10 years, I couldn’t complete even a levels or equivalent due to the reasons I was signed off. People that are in the prime of health can’t even find work so where the hell do people like me stand? I even went on the national career service and took their quiz to find jobs suited to me. It said they couldn’t match me with a single thing. Who wants to employ someone who’s been mentally ill and unable to function, ever, with no qualifications or experience. I just feel such despair I wish I could have lived a normal life and got a levels, a degree, work experience but I never could and that’s not because I’m lazy it’s because I couldn’t and still can’t. All I can see in front of me is a life of poverty and destitution
1 -
What's your understanding of the following?
The OBR says:
"The Government will reintroduce reassessments for claimants placed in the LCWRA group prior to April 2026 with certain short-term prognoses (such as high-risk pregnancies or cancer treatment) or who, without LCWRA, faced substantial risk to their physical or mental health. The savings from this policy are estimated to reach £0.3 billion in 2029-30, due to reassessments leading to more claimants leaving the LCWRA caseload. The key uncertainties in this costing are the level of off-flows following reassessment and whether there is sufficient workforce capacity for the reassessments to take place."
0 -
They lied on my pip report , I never challenged it though because I'd just had surgery for cancer and just wanted to recover. I should have got some 4's too . I have two conditions to add on review , I suffer severe anxiety and have a fear of masks face masks etc, and I need to wear a silicone mask with the cpap machine to keep me breathing while I sleep , my husband has to sit with me while i fall to sleep and he has to be with me when I wake up as i panic , whether this will be accepted as having to have help with my therapy I don't know . It has 8 points for this . Isn't it dehumanising that we are looked upon as points to qualify for financial help because we cannot work . My hearing loss is profound , and it causes me to lose balance , I need to see the ears nose throat specialist as audiology cannot help with this , I have fallen down the stairs and almost been knocked down so how I put this on the review I have no idea . I am waiting for the review form and then will have MacMillan help me fill it in .
1 -
Really it's like a poorly dream up twisted Christmas board game .
Where the Flannel Goes!
The new family game that allows you to win or lose your benefits. Can you decide is it a 4 or a 2 for where the flannel goes. Challenge family & Friends. Just throw the Flannel at Mr PiPs and watch your score go up or down.
"Higher than the shoulders doesn't mean a 4 so remember throw carefully to get your score"
Available from A labour MP near You
The government says, needing help to wash your hair, or your body below the waist, would be awarded two points, but needing help to wash between the shoulders and waist would equate to four points.
Who has made this decision is it by a doctor?
Since when has washing between the shoulders been more painful and difficult than washing below the waste.
2 points for help washing your hair
4 points for washing between the shoulders.
Surly the hair is higher and more difficult to wash than between the shoulders which is lower.??
3 -
I appreciated you posting it @worried33 as it highlights what could actually be the case but I still stand by the point that surely charities etc know what can and cannot be done legally by now? If not come out an explain why to try to ease some of the worry that is clearly more and more evident everyday.
Btw I'm not saying that the charities etc are not doing anything as I'm sure they are doing so much but any sort of update about what can be done legally would help many people know where they may stand instead of just the constant worry of not knowing anything.
We can all assume this and that regarding delays and changes etc but until someone with some legal know how comes out and states whats possible every one is left in worrying limbo.2 -
I agree, it's so dehumanising having our living just put down to points of what we can do that determines whether or not we're allowed support. I'm so sorry you have all of those issues are going on and added on the fact that they lied on your report. I hope MacMillan helps you summarise all of your difficulties for your PIP review x
1 -
Bless you , we need to try and keep the fear away and rise our vibration , love over fear x
2 -
The Government are floundering around, not really knowing how they are going to achieve the random figures.
In just a week its become clear they wouldn't be able to get the 5b from welfare cuts Kendallsaid they'd get.
They're going for welfare because it's the only place they can rip money out of.
If they taxed their rich mates there would be an absolute outcry.
I worked for forty years and loved it, therefore I support that people should havd the opportunity to experience it.
But the Government is simply using this as an opportunity to penalise anyone who needs support.
If they particularly go for the young people they know there will be an outcry and if will also be considered discriminatory.
They are chomping at the bit to try and prove they are being fair. They know they are persecuting the vulnerable and theyre scratching around to try and make it sound better .
Hope this makes sense!
2 -
Are you legally trained? No need to reply specifically..
My comment was a statement rather than a question 🙂
0 -
This is what I expected, but this provides more info than I found in the green paper, the way I interpret this is that this will be the priority to reassess people who got LCWRA via something deemed as a short term problem or regulation 35. Substantial risk for a while has been eating ministers. As they see it as a soft way to get LCWRA. My understanding is that because of the court case victory over the WCA consultation, that the rules should be the same as previous WCA although the DWP are so sly, there is always the possibility of new guidance been issued to assessors.
This suggests those with long term conditions who managed to get LCWRA via 15 points will be low priority and might not be reassessed.
Originally regulation 35 was a lot tighter as designed by the previous Labour government, the Tories made a lot of changes to it to allow people to be awarded LCWRA.2 -
I am not aware of any charities saying anything else to dispute this, instead they are been quiet about the legal reality. The only group I have seen indicate that its something else is that facebook group of which I think they have it wrong telling people there is nothing to worry about for 18 months, but they also stated they are preparing legal action behind the scenes. Benefits and work as an example have made it clear, that once this is ratified in parliament its done. Sadly Labour know what they doing here. I think its the wrong thing to sit there thinking this wont be much of a problem, it will take years, it can be challenged later etc. Labour have said they will make the PIP change legislated in this parliament session, the page I linked to clearly states parliament is supreme over the courts. In short everything possible needs to be done to stop this going through, after that point its about trying to get a lower rate of daily living or TP for those who lose out.
2 -
I am LCWRA substantial risk with Bipolar Disorder. I have been hospitalized with it. My paper work says medium term. I am worried I am going to get caught up in this reassessment. Unless the fact I have got a psychiatric condition that has had me in hospital I am someone they intended to protect in the first place.
1 -
Sadly it isnt looking good. I also cant help but feel they seem confident a specific amount are going to lose LCWRA, we going to need to keep an eye on the first people who get reassessed to see if the old regulation is applied or they play games.
1 -
They are bound to play games. I tactically voted to get this lot in I feel absolutely shafted. I do qualify LCWRA on continence as well, so we will see. I will appeal them too.
1 -
The Tories and Labour alike have been shafting young people for decades now. The overt backlash is minimal outside of activist circles, but has left deep generational trauma and hatred. A lot of young people are either leaving the country or dropping out of the workforce entirely because they know their life chances in the UK are fucked (whether by choice, disability or parenthood). Brexit has made this harder, but not impossible. Yet because convervatives of all stripes know young people don't vote for them (and prior to Corbyn's Labour, not at all), they will ignore what they want.
tactical voting is a sham that benefits nobody other than opportunists. Best vote with your heart next time. At least then your conscience is clear.
2 -
"I am LCWRA substantial risk with Bipolar Disorder."
How do you know that you were awarded on the basis of substantial risk? Was it mentioned on the report written by the assessor? I'll have to read out mine.
Did they did you that you had failed to qualify for LCWRA and that instead they wanted to to award you LCW, but then due to "substantial risk" they awarded your LCWRA? Because on somewhere else, it says:
"The provision can only come into play if a claimant has been found to have LCW but then fails to satisfy any of the LCWRA descriptors."
0 -
Does the report written by the WCA assessor mention whether one has been awarded LCWRA on "substantial risk" basis?
In the same report, does the assessor state that you've failed to meet LCWRA criteria and instead of awarding you LCW, they awarded you LCWRA on "substantial risk" basis?
Here it says:
Substantial risk (LCWRA)
A claimant can be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) if, by reason of their health condition or disability, there would be a substantial risk to the health of the claimant or others were the claimant found not to have LCWRA. The provision can only come into play if a claimant has been found to have LCW but then fails to satisfy any of the LCWRA descriptors.
3 -
The bigger problem is that so many of the papers are either ignoring that or are genuinely confused by the difference. The misinformation in the press of late has been so intense, in order to turn public opinion against those claiming.
It happened in 2011 right before the government austerity closed my workplace. There was a concerted campaign against public sector workers, quoting the salaries of chief executives and claiming that we had all these extra privileges and higher pay rises and so on (I think the phrase was pigs in the trough, actually). At that time public sector workers had been under a pay rise freeze for years, and in my case, I was working 25 hours a week (the maximum I can manage with my disability, factoring in transport as an extra as well), and the amount I earned in a year was less than the cost of a new car at the time.
The people who lost their jobs in austerity were those of us who were patching up the frontline services after years of cuts and not the ones who were earning the big money.
Just like the people who are going to lose their benefits are the most vulnerable, not the (alleged) fraudsters (who probably don't exist anyway).I did notice with distaste the suggestion that people will just 'claim for more severe disabilities' to keep PIP. The implication being we all just lie on our PIP forms to get more money. Even though the DWP's own official fraud figure is 0%.
Feeding the media misinformation is a surefire way to get the gullible on board with cuts that will doubtless lead to loss of life. The abuse against disabled people on social media lately (most of it from people who haven't the first clue and have just copy pasted opinions from the Mail or some other right wing paper) has been really disgusting.
It isn't rocket science, either, that the 3.2million who are going to lose out are those at the poor end of the spectrum. The ones who will benefit will be in the upper wage brackets. The ones who can actually get working from home jobs, or who can relocate at a moment's notice to take a better job - or the ones who are employed because recruitment favours those who can babble about themselves for hours rather than do the job they're interviewing for.
Adding in a few thoughts before I finally go to bed…
Firstly - they might take the PIP and other stuff to primary legislation, the Lords kicked about and kicked out the monitoring of bank accounts because they saw it as prompting potential legal action. They highlighted this as an issue even if it became law. So even if they made it law in a ridiculous "Rwanda law" way, that doesn't mean the fight is necessarily done. The actual qualification thing might be put into law, but there is the potential to challenge what the assessment criteria are (and we know they discriminate against invisible disabilities) and also how the DWP are awarding them (to ensure they are not downgrading people to save money).
We actually have a sort of precedent for this, when Cameron et al tried to remove 'psychological distress' from PIP to reduce the number of claimants and was forced to back down because it discriminated against certain disabilities. It's not quite the same but it does mean that if their suggestions disproportionately impact certain disabilities, it could be harder to get it through without amendments.So there are still areas they can contest, even if the 4 points becomes fixed. Plus, if the monitoring bank accounts law could have been challenged legally even after becoming law, I am not sure why this one could not be too. I think maybe in the case of the other law it was the potential for individual claimants bringing legal action - which would also be an option, if several individual claimants took the DWP to court over points not being allocated correctly, or whatever. But I'm not a lawyer. So. Onto my other point…
Government keeps talking about severe disabilities, but the Equalities Act mentions a substantial and long-term impact. It does not use the term 'severe'. This is a government opinion, or assumption, but with regard to equality, they surely have to prove that having many criteria at 2 points each is not commensurate with a disability that has a 'substantial and long term' impact. This is not the same thing as the 'severe' disability argument they keep painting. Nobody knows what a severe disability is, not really - afaik there's no official definition :/
I do miss the DDA, though. At least then we had an act that was designed to protect us, whereas right now we're the afterthoughts of the Equalities Act, and govt policy indicates they don't think our rights matter very much.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 14.8K Start here and say hello!
- 7K Coffee lounge
- 78 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 92 Announcements and information
- 23K Talk about life
- 5.4K Everyday life
- 221 Current affairs
- 2.3K Families and carers
- 851 Education and skills
- 1.8K Work
- 488 Money and bills
- 3.5K Housing and independent living
- 972 Transport and travel
- 676 Relationships
- 67 Sex and intimacy
- 1.4K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 855 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 912 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 37.6K Talk about your benefits
- 5.8K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.1K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 7.4K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.4K Benefits and income