Dwp take 10k pounds of personal injury compensation but the declare fit wor work.

boristheblonde

Answer that one...

MarkN88

I think more information is needed first. 

mikehughescq

I don’t think we need any more information at all. 

I’d say the claimant didn’t understand the rules of personal injury compensation or benefits and maybe didn’t obtain the most basic of advice. There’s also no contradiction whatsoever between clawing back the comp and finding someone fit for work. 

1 - PIC is not a statement someone can never work again. It’s a statement of reduced earnings power. In some cases the person may well never work again but not all. 

2 - PIC is disregarded for means-tested benefits for the first 52 weeks after payment. That is ample time to seek advice and do the standard thing and get it into a discretionary trust. I’d be very surprised if any solicitor advising on the PIC failed to mention the option.

3 - being found fit for work is decided on the balance of probabilities and is not a statement of being fit for all work. It is most often about being found fit for a limited range of work. Many people who get PIC will indeed be fit for a reduced but nevertheless possible range of work. 

So, there you go, “that one” has indeed been answered. 

MarkN88

mikehughescq said:

I don’t think we need any more information at all. 

Well personally I’d of wanted more information to provide an answer. 

You can do as you please. 

Tori_Scope

Hi @boristheblonde Has the above information helped? 

mikehughescq

MarkN88 said:

mikehughescq said:

I don’t think we need any more information at all. 

Well personally I’d of wanted more information to provide an answer. 

You can do as you please. 

So what specifically, as presumably an expert in this area, do you think was missing? What do I or we need to know in order to correct the likely inaccuracies in my post?

Adrian_Scope

I don't believe @MarkN88 was saying anything was wrong or inaccurate in your post, but you dismissed his reply saying he would need more information to answer, so he was replying to that.

I'll be honest, while I agree lots could be gleaned and some advice given just on the few words in the question, I would have wanted more information to reply too. While the facts remain the same, it can help to know more about the situation and whether the poster is talking about themselves or a news article or a friend of a friends' mum's sister. It can help tailor the response and not only give the facts as you've laid out, but offer support and understanding.
My reply to someone asking because they've just read about it in a newspaper article would be somewhat different to someone finding themselves in this situation.

boristheblonde

Typing things on a mobile phone is not easy.
I wasnt drunk when i made this statement/ question.
Itsba question the tribunal are indeed very interested in.

MarkN88

mikehughescq said:

MarkN88 said:

mikehughescq said:

I don’t think we need any more information at all. 

Well personally I’d of wanted more information to provide an answer. 

You can do as you please. 

So what specifically, as presumably an expert in this area, do you think was missing? What do I or we need to know in order to correct the likely inaccuracies in my post?

As per Adrians post. 

Just so you know Mike, I don’t need your permission to ask questions or ask for more information. 

Neither was I saying you couldn’t answer on what information was provided. 

Where did I say I was an expert? Oh, I didn’t!

End of. 

boristheblonde

When poverty hits especially because you cant work.
Yet i feel there is alot more to add.
Its difficult when your brain is still answering other question. 
Generally for the answer comes much too late.

boristheblonde

Another issue i have is explaining the spending of the remains of the personal injury comp.
Which was less than 16k so i think im ok?

mikehughescq

Love the tone @MarkN88. Essentially you didn’t need to say anything but couldn’t help yourself, twice. By saying that you would have needed more information it’s implicit that someone else has answered prematurely or incompletely. It’s a full on criticism and suggests that armed with something extra you’d have had some expertise to offer. 

Disguised with the usual passive aggressive nonsense but I am not going to be called out for then treating that with the sarcasm it deserved. 

mikehughescq

boristheblonde said:

Another issue i have is explaining the spending of the remains of the personal injury comp.
Which was less than 16k so i think im ok?

No, it’s not that straight forward. There is very clear guidance about what it can be spent on and why. Ask @MarkN88 he’s your expert. I’m out.

boristheblonde

Thread hijacked.

mikehughescq

Not by me. I answered your query. Twice. 

MarkN88

I just asked for more information and got pounced on. 

mikehughescq

So, again, what information? What specifically was missing? You’ve nothing to fear from a straightforward answer surely, or was it just something to say? 

MarkN88

The point I’m trying to make is I am allowed to respond to threads and ask questions or for more information. I don’t need to ask your permission like you seem to think I do. 

mikehughescq

No, you don’t need any permission. I think that was understood from the off. Never in dispute. However, you made an assertion that more was needed. If you want to demonstrate that your intent was not to maliciously swipe at me then please elaborate. 

Frankly, I don’t think you can and that rather makes my point. 

Adrian_Scope

I wanted to update on our decision to close this thread.
I think a lot of confusion occurred during the course of this discussion and a lot of hostility that I frankly feel was unnecessary and completely avoidable. Whatever you believe this forum to be, it ultimately exists to provide support for a diverse group of people and there is no need for simple conversations to deteriorate into bickering and accusations.

I hope it is felt that the original query has been answered, but feel free to make a new thread if there are further questions.