Welfare benefits news, possible changes & constructive ‘discussion - an ongoing thread

1…567911

Comments

  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    Hi all

    I’ve had a few more reads and though there are bits I’m still not clear on I’ll try my best to break things down in a number of posts

    Full disclosure (because on days like this everyone worries about how these things effect their own personal circumstances first and those circumstances will affect how we perceive any changes):
    my personal circumstances is (ignoring my disabilities and health conditions) that I’m single & have no reliant’s depending on me (I know that’s an added pressure for many on here) and I am lucky enough to currently have a ‘support system’ that goes above and beyond for me…….I still get really stressed out and panic about being on benefits & the neverending weight that puts on the shoulders but I’d be in a much worse position if it wasn’t for them.
    And perhaps it’s because of that that all of the announcements and documentation released today hasn’t (surprisingly) panicked me and I’m looking at all of this perhaps calmer and more positively than the majority of social media commentators I’ve read today 

    (I know misery loves company but there are a lot of panicked on this forum but I think the panic is panicking others and I think a different perspective may be helpful for some)


    First major points i want to make:

    in reaction to those on here currently on esa or uc lcw/lcwra groups

    > none of the long term sickness claimant government plans (the stuff on the consultation doc I posted earlier) kicks in until 2025 earliest (POST general election - meaning that the decisions made from the consultation may never happen if the tories don’t retain power)

    > the other stuff mentioned in the autumn statement document (like the sanctions and all the new schemes) is on the most part referring to those on jsa or uc ‘fit for work’ group……………..I believe a good chunk on this forum from reading comments are on neither of these groups so aren’t affected by most of the autumn statement 

    Honestly take a deep breathe and try and take a break from worrying and enjoy the holiday period

    even if the worst possible option did apply to most of us then it would take sources of support like charities at least a couple to figure out the best way to tackle all this and wouldn’t have the answers to those on here answering the panicked questions and the repeat questions may be stressing out those members who will be invaluable in the coming months - but they need calmness and time to get their own heads round things

    so id advise everyone here to take a step back from all the media and news till 2024 if you can - your mental health will thank you
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing

    Outcome to the wca consultation (in terms of esa50/uc50 form activities and descriptors:


    Honestly I’m seeing this as a partial win as the dwp could of chosen to make things significantly harder

    the current descriptors
    https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/resources/work-capability-assessment#:~:text=Each%20activity%20is%20divided%20into,task%20described%20reliably%20and%20repeatedly.

    https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/employment-and-support-allowance/esa-glossary/work-related-activity-group-descriptors

    https://www.advicenow.org.uk/know-hows/universal-credit-work-capability-assessment-descriptors-activities-and-substantial-risk


    i think that the changes to the esa50/uc50 forms from 2025 will be:

    > removal of activity 1 (mobilising)
    > removal of descriptors b, c and d for activity 15 (getting about)


    the consultation response doc (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/655dbd38544aea0019fb3218/work-capability-assessment-activities-and-descriptors-response.pdf)
    explains the dwp’s reasonings for these removals but I think my personal interpretation of those aren’t required
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    ‘Substantial risk’ element:

    if you read the ‘govs response to the wca’ document it is visibly obvious the dwp wanted to ditch the ‘substantial risk’ element altogether (they’ve tried twice in the past - the 1st time they succeeded but 6 years later an upper tribunal claimant case triggered the judges to reverse this, the second time they tried they had to drop it due to the backlash)
    Yes this amendment is a major tightening of the substantial risk element however those who replied to the consultation achieved a major concession from the dwp on this and that is a victory.

    There was another thing I noticed when reading the ‘gov response to wca doc’:

    I looked up both the definitions of both substantial risk and ‘active psychotic illness’ (aka, forms of psychosis - if I’ve understood correctly) 

    https://askcpag.org.uk/content/207488/substantial-risk-and-the-wca

    https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis

    now the major difference that popped out at me was that substantial risk is to do with mental and physical health but psychosis is solely a mental health issue


    and then it dawned on me that the dwp are using a single argument for the changes in the wca assessments (uc50/esa50 forms) - and it’s an argument that has been torn apart by disability commentator for the past week…………

    this all comes down to the dwp ‘one size fits all’ solution of ‘work from home’ wfh jobs providing all their solutions in one - the logic being that if you work from home you don’t need to travel to a potentially unsuitable workplace or talk face to face with colleagues so ‘issue of mobility must 100% disappear’ when WFH is put in play - going on simplistic dwp logic.

    those on this forum and charities know it’s a more complex issue than that

    the dwp argument also falls massively apart when you consider that there is next to no true WFH job vacancies available (by that I mean solely from home, no office days………..a single day in the office would null and void the dwp mobility theories on this subject) - the only way to get around this is self employment and I will discuss this in another thread

    point I’m making is the policy changes based on this particular dwp logic can be easily contested


    the other thing I noted from the govs doc is the following:



    This means psychosis may not be the only mental health condition that is covered in this new substantial risk definition
     (or psychosis being a symptom or side effect of another disability - when reading the definition of psychosis I think there’s an argument that some of us with disabilities, esp mental health based ones, may already experience some form of psychosis when we are under major stress……..like pressure from the dwp/job centre to find work/threats of losing benefits and trying to survive)

    also tribunal judges may use liberties to decide their own definition of the criteria as they are independent of the dwp and in theory overrule them
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    Dwp stepping up benefit fraud measures by monthly bank account checks rumours:

    the autumn statement screenshots on this:



    Firstly is it clearly suggests that legislation will be need via a:

    > new parliamentary bill which will most likely take 3-12+ months to get royal assent and be made law

    > an amendment to an existing act which can probably be completed within 3 months

    the existing ‘social security fraud act’ has nothing like this in it and adding that we haven’t had a new bill on that in years my guesstimate is more than a simple amendment will be needed on this


    There’s only one way the dwp can view 5-10 million claimants bank accounts and that via the use of ai
    that would be controversial, especially considering the amount of data security breaches the dwp has had the past few years (the dwp would need something like a password key to view our bank statements - if god forbid the dwp got hacked and statement details were leaked that would be a massive lawsuit against the dwp, banks or both (another guesstimate on my part) - it’s basically trouble waiting to happen)

    https://www.hayesconnor.co.uk/data-breach-claims/government-data-breach-claims/dwp-data-breach-claims/


    this is also a right for privacy issue which makes up parts of human rights and conflicts with the ‘rule of law’ - and there’s already evidence that the House of Lords would push back on this

    if it did go ahead (which I question the likelihood as it will be controversial) this article is an interesting read on current things the dwp look out for on bank statements)

    https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2014/11/24/im-a-civil-servant-and-i-investigate-fraud/
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    edited November 2023
    Until a few hours ago I was honestly starting to wonder if the disabled community’s biggest problem after the autumn statement was done and dusted by the afternoon was if it was possible that the worst thing going forward was somehow moving towards labour getting a large majority government

    (Kendall’s interviews this past week and rachel reeves reaction speech to the autumn statement were scary to read/listen to (and did I hear Hunt praising Reeves on backing him on the new benefits policy?)

    my worry is if my initial reaction was correct (and I was right to think worst case wasn’t presented and even prehaps mini steps in the right direction in some areas of the dwp treatment of the vulnerable) then the chance of labour making benefit/disability policy even worse than this Tory serving may have increased since yesterday

    surely labour can’t be a worse evil than the tories

    when will politicians start figuring out that compassion for another human is an asset and may gain a vote or 2 next GE

    (as I said I’m exhausted and head is overloaded)
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    Yesterday I said that I was starting to have trouble seeing the difference between labour and the Tory party

    i am also alerted to many posts on the autumn statement threads suggesting they would be happy if the next GE was held in May 2024 - I think I got it right the first time when I said that wca reforms look nowhere near as bad as they could of been - that is especially so for existing esa support group/uc lcwra group claimants that as things the year 2024 is at worst the calm before the storm.

    what I’m trying to say is there is room for labour to scrap these Tory changes and quickly introduce something much worse that ropes in all means tested disability benefits claimants (I’m being selfish here but at least for 2024 it currently appears like it will be a ‘quiet’ year and my personal preference has switched from last week that sunak clinging on till jan 2025 is now most beneficial to me as an early gr labour win is an unknown and a gamble)

    (didn’t think I’d ever say that)


    the reason I’m probably more concerned about labour is that the tories are a very predictable evil but with shadow minister appointment choices over the past few years it has become unclear if labour will be an improvement or just build on the Tory nastiness?

    Liz Kendall has shown nothing that differs her to the likes of coffey or stride, shadow disabilities minister has been dead quiet for over 6 weeks 

    and the shadow chancellor, well you tell me:

    rachel reeves speech responding to the autumn statement -



    Jeremy hunt’s response to Reeves response above - 



    Not sure how reeves differs to Hunt either - no warmth to her either
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    edited November 2023
    I know this sounds like I’m saying that as neither of the top 2 parties in power would be a good thing from a disabled point of view and we shouldn’t bother voting or registering to vote that is not what I’m suggesting at.

    Everyone on the scope forum whom haven’t registered to vote should do so without delay (and there are now more types of id cards recognised by polling booths - I’ll post links another day)

    In uk general elections you are voting for the mp (and by default the party may impact that choice)

    After this week I would recommend that every disabled person uses their vote to vote the mp candidate in your constituency that will serve and support you as a disabled citizen the most (if that happens to be your area tactical vote so much the better.


    im keeping an ear out on what the individual mps from labour and the smaller parties are saying in the House of Commons, the media and on social media in terms of being concerned about/standing up for the vulnerable & disabled  

    so far the SNP have probably been the most vocal party in the House of Commons in terms of concern for the disabled - if I lived in Scotland then they’d be looking like a viable vote in these early pre election days

    i think that Caroline Lucas and the Green Party may of been supportive of our community’s situation 

    I’m not overly sure of where the Lib Dem’s stand (I think they are supportive but I’m not sure if they are publicly so at this point.


    I will state that there are a few labour mps right now that are currently standing up for the disabled (which is a huge reason why you should vote based on the person, first & foremost, and party second) - the only sad thing is that is left leaning mps that are most likely to advocate (and starmers frying to stamp out the left wing of the party)

    I may keep a list on which labour mps speak out in support or shows compassion and post it nearer to election time
  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    John McDonnell’s commons speech from Thursday:








  • Kimi87
    Kimi87 Online Community Member Posts: 5,305 Championing
    edited November 2023
    What doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the Autumn statement was part 2 of the Tory plans. 
    Step 1: Make the WCA harder
    Step 2: Abolish the WCA and LCW/LCWRA and replace with UC Health Element (for those that get PIP). Work coaches for everyone else and maybe even those with UC HE too. 

    So as good as no more reassessments sounds, especially those with LCWRA under the current criteria, in the very unlikely event they get their own way with everything, it'll be a moot point anyway. 
  • WhatThe
    WhatThe Online Community Member, Scope Member Posts: 3,862 Championing

    That's no more reassessments after these though..

    And a Claimant Commitment for everyone


  • WhatThe
    WhatThe Online Community Member, Scope Member Posts: 3,862 Championing

    That's no more reassessments after these though..

    And a Claimant Commitment for all but special rules cases 


  • WhatThe
    WhatThe Online Community Member, Scope Member Posts: 3,862 Championing

    That's no more reassessments after these though..

    And a Claimant Commitment for everyone with a process yet to be decided for exempting special rules cases 


  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 892 Championing
    update on the claimants bank account monthly checks:

    https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/dwp-to-be-allowed-more-checks-on-bank-data/#:~:text=The%20plan%20has%20been%20announced,over%20the%20benefit%20eligibility%20threshold.

  • Ralph
    Ralph Online Community Member Posts: 146 Empowering
    ‘only a minimum amount of data will be accessed and only in instances that show a potential risk of fraud and error.’

    Is this not the way it is at the moment?
  • WhatThe
    WhatThe Online Community Member, Scope Member Posts: 3,862 Championing

    What was the name?


  • Rumi
    Rumi Online Community Member, Scope Member Posts: 5,933 Empowering
    @Albus_Scope l heard that the dwp will be checking benefits claimants’ bank accounts on a monthly basis. Can they do that? Apparently they want to know what we use the money for.
  • Rosie_Scope
    Rosie_Scope Posts: 5,558 Scope Online Community Coordinator
    edited November 2023
    @Rumi, I know this sounds very worrying, but there's currently no confirmation if or when this will come into policy.

    If it does, as woodbine said above, it's more likely that it will focus on checks to see whether people are going over their saving limits, not checking what they are buying with their money. We'll keep everyone up to date if we get any more information :)
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 64,463 Championing
    I agree with biblioklept, with legacy benefits the agreement is in the actual claim itself. 

    For UC and New style ESA you actually have to agree to those commitments. You can’t expect to claim benefits without agreeing to do what is expected of you. 

Categories