I created one of the campaign election videos for Labour, and Jeremy Corbyn,
This is a new version of Emeli Sande, Hope "You Are Not Alone
You can see the video here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P5o8hRHh9IY
If I was you I would be over the moon in not having a review within the next 10 years.bugsbunny said:Hi i had a paper based review and I sent medical evidence into dwp which clearly stated I won't get better only worse I have been awarded enhanced on both until 2024 so the 10yr light review is another pack of lies as i still have to be reviewed again for pip. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news and as i have read on hear the dwp and government is a joke so don't believe what the say.
I would have been extremely happy with six years too.poppy123456 said:Not everyone will receive a 10 year award. A lot of people receive an award for just 1 year before a review. My daughter was one of them and she received Enhanced for both parts. 6 years is a decent length of time so it's great news in my opinion.
@bugsbunny I sorry you feel a little disappointed, but I can understand if your disability will not improve, I was lucky with mine as I've recieved an ongoing award after 10 years. Light touch.bugsbunny said:Hi my condison is also degenerative and I am also on higher rate so who knows what dwp does but they seem to target all disabled people to save money which is wrong people have enough to contend with without them adding to it.
1.10.5 The following are illustrative examples of review periods which may be appropriate:
Where the HP considers that the claimant has a level of functional impairment that will likely improve to the point where there is little or no functional limitation present, for example after treatment, surgery or medication, a short review period should be advised. The HP should indicate the duration of such treatment and the date at which there are likely to be little or no functional limitations present. This will help the CMdecide the duration of a short fixed term award.
9 month review – ‘She has a significant disability due to osteoarthritis in the left hip but has no other conditions which cause functional limitations. She is scheduled for hip replacement surgery in 5 months’ time, after which it is likely she will recover to the point where there will be no significant functional limitation after 9 months.’
12 month review – ‘The claimant is due to undergo surgery within the next 9 months, after which an 8 week recovery period is anticipated. It is likely that the claimant will not experience their current functional limitations post-recovery period and after 12 months there should be no significant functional limitation.’
18 month review – ‘She is experiencing some reduction in their functional impairment due to severe depression and anxiety. She is undergoing treatment in the form of antidepressants and therapy with support from a mental health nurse. There may be some improvement in the future so a review at 18 months would be appropriate.’
3 year review – ‘He is experiencing limitations to his functional ability due to sciatica, which he has had for a few years now. He had previous surgery which has not been completely successful. He now attends a pain clinic and remains under review by specialists and may be considered for further treatment options in the future. A review at 3 years would be appropriate.’
8 year review – ‘His learning disability has been present since birth and will be lifelong, but he is aged 16 and with time and maturity his functional ability might change. He attends a supported education centre at present and has hopes of living in independent accommodation when he is older. There’s unlikely to be any change in the shorter term so a review in 8 years would seem appropriate.’
3 year review – ‘He is experiencing limitations to his functional ability due to sciatica, which he has had for a few years now. He had previous surgery which has not been completely successful. He now attends a pain clinic and remains under review by specialists and may be considered for further treatment options in the future. A review at 3 years would be appropriate.’