The atrocities go on and on and no, lessons are not being learnt, for to learn you have to have a willingness to do so and by doing so would you then qualify for your bonus. See https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/06/20/dwp-gave-out-10k-bonuses-while-it-was-losing-a-record-number-of-appeals/
Personalisation and Person-centred care, NHS England currently have a project to promote the aforementioned in Hospitals and admit there is a long way to go.
If this is being progressed in Hospital care, why not promote it within the benefits system.
Is it that no one notices how benefit claimants are, because they are not dealt with on a human basis, but are just a number within the system and treated as inanimate objects.
Bring personalisation and person-centred processing into the benefit system and benefit claimants may be treated better.
But if there is a long way to go in health, then in the benefits system the way is so long it could go to infinity.
A stock Statement from a DWP spokesman “We’re committed to ensuring that disabled people get the support they’re entitled to, and PIP is available for those who need help with the costs of additional support for their daily living and mobility needs.
“Universal Credit is available for those who need help with day-to-day living costs, and Ms Lyth is receiving her full entitlement.
“PIP decisions are made following careful consideration of the evidence provided by the individual as well as their GP or medical specialist, and anyone who is unhappy with their decision can appeal.”
However, what does it really mean, not much in effect. It is something to say, but is it meant?
More thought and effort should be given to all applications and ‘lessons learnt’ from the many mistakes that are made. Another stock saying and again is it meant, for the lessons never seem to be learnt.
For it is not appeals that should be pushed, but correct Assessments and decisions made, with appeals being there as a backstock.
Where is the caring, common sense and many other aspects in the process.
For myself it appears that the assessors first action is to refuse a benefit claim and in many instances not correctly doing assessments, for in some there are blantant lies emanating from Assessors for which there are being paid to do.
If an assessment is proved to be wrong is the assessor penalised, I doubt it, but the claimant was.
When will the DWP or more especially the Government realise the suffering they are causing by the stringent rules they have created within the benefit system.
To do nothing of note, which they are effectively doing is not caring, but uncaring.
Uncaring is the impression they are giving and the longer they stay in thier current mode the more uncaring they appear to be, which may be the reality.
Disabled people expect PIP to make their life easier, however, the bureaucracy and complexity of the process itself often wears applicants down.
The PIP assessment, in fact, only looks at a limited range of daily living activities which rarely give an accurate or holistic indication of the actual disabled people’s support needs. As a result, many applicants are rejected and apply for ‘mandatory reconsideration’, an internal review of a decision by DWP, which rarely overturn the original verdict. The next, final chance is for the disabled person to appeal.
‘We’ve found that people have a higher cost of living due to the need for help with domestic tasks, having a restricted diet, and needing therapeutic treatment to maintain health which is not available on NHS. None of these difficulties or additional needs are covered in the PIP assessment’, said disability campaigner Catherine Hale, referring to the research work of ‘Chronic Illness Inclusion Project’, which she leads.
The Project aims to bring the chronic illness community together online to explore their experiences under a social model for disability and look at ‘how cultural attitudes and social organisation create unnecessary disadvantage’ to the disabled people’s wellbeing.
Managing such an inspiring online community has given Ms Hale the chance to identify further flaws in the PIP application form.
Yet another very disturbing account of the DWP welfare benefit process, a system not ‘Fit for Purpose’.
In Social and Health Care we are trying to promote ‘person-centred‘ principles and this should also be so with the welfare system.
Every time you apply or reapply foe a welfare benefit you have to repeat the same information you supplied in all previous applications. Even repeating parts of this information numerous time, in different formats, within the same applications.
Yes, in some instances information will change, but in these instances why not just mention the changes, be they an improvement or a deterioration, which in many instances will be the latter.
But this is too simple for the DWP or are they just trying to catch you out, as though you are lying on this or previous applications.
Yes, this may be for some persons but nowhere near the majority. In my opinion this will be less than 1% of all applicants.
Not like the percentage of MPs who will be fiddling their expenses claims, which is more likely around 10%, but that I feel will be a conservative estimate.
What you do need to do on each and every application is fully answer each question, and in doing so state and provide evidence of both good and bad evidence.
Q14: moving around
What this question means
This question is about how your condition makes it difficult for you to:
stand safely without help
walk safely without stopping and without help
How far can you walk taking into account any aids you use?
less than 20 metres
between 20 and 50 metres
between 50 and 200 metres
200 metres or more
You may be able to walk some of these distances or stand, but what effort does it take, are you in pain, how long would it take you, how many rest breaks, how long will you need to rest afterwards and many others.
You do not need to lie and this you should not do, but be honest, not only on the form, but with yourself.
Unfortunately we are not usually negative about ourselves as being negative can bring on other conditions, but negative you need to be, provided you can fully explain and, if possible, have written evidence, even an Assessment of Needs, medical evidence or anything that proves what you are stating.
Be fully frank.
Shows you can not rely on the DWP to get it right, even advising you how to fill in their own forms, if you need help contact your local CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau).
I have queried with a DWP manager that, could not home visits be part of the agenda and have been informed that home visits can be requested and that they do take place.
However, what I failed to ask was, what is the criteria, which I should have done.
As it has been stated before that this whole processed is geared to produced as much stress as possible and in many instances, if not all, the assessors and the system is not open to reason.
Unlike our legal system, where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty, the benefit system appears to make everyone guilty until found innocent.
As though the conditions people have are not enough to cause concern and stress, this benefit system only adds to it, thus making people feel even worse.
If people are already distress and/or stressed, this additional stress could make a person worse, which could result to create a situation where they are in a state where they have no hope, which is a state where persons could take their own lives. Creating situations which is the final straw, until you have been there, you will not appreciate those feeling of extreme despair.
Has the system been designed to create this? It certainly makes you wonder, a case of permanently removing people from the benefit system.
Would this Government really do this!
DWP staff shortages are causing thousands of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants to be sent home unseen from health assessment appointments.
Figures revealed by a DWP minister show that in 2018, 5,700 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants attended their health assessment, only to be turned away due to the unavailability of a health professional .
PIP, which replaced the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been widely condemned by experts, charities, and front-line services, with some saying the controversial new system shows a “lack of humanity” from the Tory government, and has caused a culture of “inherent distrust” of the welfare system.
Source: Thousands turned away from benefit assessments due to staff shortages : Welfare Weekly