Benefits for older people with mobility needs


This is pure discrimination of which the UK Legal System is also guilty of.

While isolation can occur at any age, it is very common with the elderly and could increase as age increases.

So the age restrictions on PIP and the former DLA for new claims is a direct action or non-action to increase the rate of isolation, when more should be occurring to combat it.

It is purported that the UK is a caring country, but all the fact show it is far from it.

This is a situation which all former Governments are guilty of and it goes without saying that the current is more guilty than the others.

Former carer who waited months for disability benefit was turned down because he was in hospital for too long


Why do these problems keep occuring with Disability Benefit applications, irrespective which benefit is being applied for?

Could it be that the systems lack ‘common sense’, it would appear so.

The system is adhered to rigidly, when, if common sense was applied the rigidity could be overcome.

However, the benefits system is under the direction of the DWP, a Government department and that is the problem for there is no common sense in Government, in fact, in politics completely.

Capita benefits assessor who ‘laughed‘ at disabled woman is suspended


Is this a change for the better by the DWP in PIP assessment or even any assessments, well we need to wait for the final outcome. But I do welcome the speed with which Capita offered the £600 compensation.

T%hese actions have been a long time in coming, as many other assessments should also have been dealt with accordingly.

However, the best outcome would be the total withdrawal of all these assessments, which are plainly an insult to all claimants.

Petition for dead man DWP said ‘wasn’t sick enough’ is axed because of election


This is a shameful act as the Epetition should be reinstated once the General Election has finished.

If this is not achieved then petioners should boycott the EPetition site and go to others which are not affected,

It is a Gross infringement of Freedom of Speech.

But then the DWP is a Gross Infringement.

Ministers are pushing ahead with controversial plans to merge two disability benefit assessments into one


Is this another Government Benefit disaster waiting to happen, for while the theory sounds sound the practical aspects never appear to go right for the benefit claimants.

Is this just accidental or is it Government policy?

Only one disability charity fully supports Jodey Whiting petition


Is this a surprise, for it should not be.

For some of the national charities do receive some form of Government funding and it has been suggested that theyreceive this funding to undertaken some specific work and in doing so they are required to sign a clause stipulating that they will not criticise the Government. For if they do, they may not receive the funding.

This is a dilemma for these charities as they would like the funding as this will enhance the charity funds and enable them to do more inaccordance with their aims.

But, if the Government is appearing to not fully support persons with disabilities these charities voices will be mooted.

Disabled People Hit Four Times Harder By Welfare Changes


In general having a disability or disabilities means it costs more to live, therefore if the benefits system penalises persons with disabilities, not only do they not have the additional income, but effectively less income.

How can this be equality?

Advertising watchdog launches investigation into Universal Credit adverts


The DWP are continually stating that these new benefits are better than the old ones, but where is the proof.

There are many stories where the new benefits appear not to be good, be they ESA (Employment & Support Allowance), PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and now UC (Universal Credit), ranging from the assessment processes and then the beginning of payments.

We are told that the majority of claimants are OK with the new benefits, but how is this known for are they going to come forward and state this, but maybe when things go wrong the claimants may object.

However, do all the claimants advise when they are not happy, but just put up with it.
In my experience in dealing with Local Authorities many who are not happy do not complain for numerous reasons, they cannot be bothered, do not know how to, think it will be a waste of time, perhaps do not have the time, some will feel they will be treated worse if they complain and many other reasons.

So just looking at the percentage who come forward to state they are not happy is not an accurate record. But unfortunately, it is the only record or the only record that is recognised.

Now do we have to assume Governments and Government departments are always telling the truth, when it has been proved that there are instances when they are not.

Quite a few of the population are fearful of Authorities and will therefore never complain.
What we need to do is work from the premise that things will go wrong and not that they will not.
People are treated like ‘cattle’, where what is done for one will be done for everyone, but people are different and maybe different from one day to another and in many instances different through the day and night.

Systems need to be based on ‘person-centred’ principles and not on ‘institutional’ principles, but it is easier for systems to be based on the latter, rather than the former and maybe more cost effective.

But to make systems equal for all the person-centred principle needs to be costed into the process, that is, if these authorities even understand, or are willing to understand the principle of person-centred.

Systems should not be there for the sole basis of the respective organisations but for all, now that will be true ‘equality’ and not just some play on words.
People have ‘rights, ‘human rights’ and should be respected.

DWP figures show PIP complaints against Atos and Capita continue to rise


Yes, complaints are rising regarding Atos and Capita, but they are just an arm of the DWP, albeit a private arm, so are they not just doing the bidding of the DWP.

Why do I say that?

Well if they are not doing the bidding and complaints are coninuing to rise, why are they still doing the assessment as this implies they are not only not capable to do assessments, but are not able to follow the explicate direction of the DWP.

But are they able to follow the explicate direction of the DWP and are in fact doing so. Should this be so then, the complaints need not be addressed to Atos and Capita, but to DWP themselves.

We will never know if the DWP is explicately responsible, which technically they are, or whether Atos and Capita are not abiding by DWP directives, in which case the contracts to undertake assessments should be withdrawn.

However, again will we ever know, are there any penalty clauses in the contracts from the DWP to Atos and Capita to provide penalties for early cancelations of the contracts.

Could be as many of the contracts re privitisation are not in the interests of the population of the UK or the UK fullstop, but solely in the interests of the private companies, which is what I believe.

You only have to look at the PFI contracts to see these were not in the public interest, for yeas it was, so called, cheap money at the outset, but the real profits for the PFI companies is in the long-term.

In reality the DWP should be doing the whole process with all Welfare Benefits, not saying it would be any better and perhaps worse, if that can be believed, but at least it would be easy to see where the blame lies.

Really these whole processes should be held liable in the criminl system and effective criminal actions be taken against all concerned.

The Government is not litening to the UN, but would have to listen and then act accordingly to the law of the land.

Thousands Of Terminally ill Are Denied Benefits


Yet another large area of problems with the welfare benefits system and the processes concerned, based on Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Benefits.

As stated in the article the 6 months rule incorporated in the Welfare Reform Act 1990 was not based on any medical input and even if it had been clinical knowledge has advance by ‘leaps and bounds’.

Clinicians should be solely responsible, in these situation not some DWP offical with no clinical knowledge and therefore has no creditability to make any form of clinical decisions.

I have said before and will do again the the DWP processes should be ‘person-centred’ and not ‘system-centred’.

This, of course, assumes that the DWP and its officals are willing to ensure fair representation for all benefit claiments, which, currently is hard to believe., for it appear that they assume no one is eligible and even when there is much documentation to prove they are this is discounted. One would assume that DWP officials prime consideration is to refuse all benefit applications, based on the results of their practice to follow inhuman conditions.

Are DWP officals really devoid of any feelings and just react as automatons, surely not!!