Should we continue to pay benefit to this person

[dejongj]

My wife had an Atos assessment a few years ago. THeir 'medical professional' had no medical training at all. In fact, she told my wife that before she had the job she was a driving instructor!


Steve.

That is just madness. But then again they got what they bought, the company is only operating by the commercial agreement as endorsed and procured by the labour government at the time.

 

[Mr Bump]

Unfortunately God put us on this earth with free will to achieve or not achieve as we see fit. Much as it saddens me to see someone waste what is their life experience it is a choice. A choice we also make to contribute and help the less unfortunate among us.

 

[kennethwfd]

Some of the assumptions written in this thread are just that, assumptions, from my experiences. I had to give up work about five years ago due to Arthritis and Fibromyalgia plus other medical problems, I had worked for 28 years or so and paid a far bit into the system as I had a good job(s).


From what has been written above you cannot get a car with a value over £25k so the Range Rovers will be ruled out.`.

I was in fact quoting from the Lymington times re the Range Rover and stated my opinion that if you wish to claim state aid because you are unable to earn enough to support yourself, then you should not lead an extravagant lifestyle

I could make a coarse suggestion regarding how she got the car in the first place, in fact oe of my first jobs was with the DHSS. There was a case of a lady claimant under surveillance. turned out she was of the oldest profession and one of her boyfreinds brought her a Mini One of the most frequent opinions amoungst the staff was regarding these lazy and greedy people who try to get as much from the system for as little as possible, as opposed to many elderly claimants who were not even claiming their full entitlement

 

[Swanseajack]

I totally sympathise. Then include the monetry value as savings. allowance for a car, say £5,000 Personalised plate a luxury so 100% of its value

I can barely afford to keep an old Astra costing around £300 together.and plan to start a new business...will I get any help? (oink oink overhead)? It will be financed from a private pension from previous employment

I was in fact quoting from the Lymington times re the Range Rover and stated my opinion that if you wish to claim state aid because you are unable to earn enough to support yourself, then you should not lead an extravagant lifestyle

, in fact oe of my first jobs was with the DHSS. There was a case of a lady claimant under surveillance. turned out she was of the oldest profession and one of her boyfreinds brought her a Mini One of the most frequent opinions amoungst the staff was regarding these lazy and greedy people who try to get as much from the system for as little as possible, as opposed to many elderly claimants who were not even claiming their full entitlement

The whole point of my posts have been for the people who assumed that it was just a matter of going to the DWP and stating your sick and they hand you benefits. From my experience with dealing with the DWP it's not the case. I am dealing in facts in what I have written.

The unemployed women who was driving the Range Rover could have been a footballers wife or similar. A housewife who doesn't claim benefits. You wrote " I'm reminded of a recent hit and run by, and I quote "the unemployed mother of two in her £30k Range Rover with personalised number plate..." The article did not confirm she is/was in recept of state aid, but assuming so in my opinion those who claim should have their assets assessed" Why should a housewife or kept women have her assets taken. What facts have you got on this women or the Lymington Times as to what benefits she's claiming??

You then wrote "I could make a coarse suggestion regarding how she got the car in the first place"

When I was made redundant 15 years ago I had a private number plate and newish Mercedes. I signed on to look for work and to continue my NI contributions. Should I have handed my keys over there and then, would you?

And I repeat what I have said before, some of the comments on this thread are just hearsay and assumptions. There doesn't seem to many factual posts like my earlier one.

I just hope that some of you don't end up in the position I am in, it's not nice.

 

[Moadib]

As someone who weight trains I eat 5 small meals a day and the 5 meals a day are enough, the only time I feel hungry is if I'm late for my next planned meal. I'm not hungry again after the last.

That could be the case - typically to gain you need to convince the body that food is plentiful, and in such a regime regular meals may work well.

But the point is that for most people it's not a choice - eating more small meals will make a person hungrier, IF those meals spike blood sugar (and therefore insulin / glucagon). So it's not "eat many small meals to better control hunger" - the issue is why someone is becoming hungry regardless of how many meals they ate. Even when I was young we didn't eat several small meals a day, and we weren't hungry (and I'm not THAT old!), so we need to understand what's changed in our environment that's driving the need to eat more regularly (and gain more weight with it).

 

[ChasG]

@Swanseajack On the basis of having to lose assets would that include camera gear too? or my 300 books?

I am agreeing with your statement no criticising it

 

[nilagin]

That could be the case - typically to gain you need to convince the body that food is plentiful, and in such a regime regular meals may work well.

But the point is that for most people it's not a choice - eating more small meals will make a person hungrier, IF those meals spike blood sugar (and therefore insulin / glucagon). So it's not "eat many small meals to better control hunger" - the issue is why someone is becoming hungry regardless of how many meals they ate. Even when I was young we didn't eat several small meals a day, and we weren't hungry (and I'm not THAT old!), so we need to understand what's changed in our environment that's driving the need to eat more regularly (and gain more weight with it).

From age 34-44 I had to give up training due to an injury, but I still maintained the 5 small meals a day, never felt hungry. I resumed training 8yrs ago, everything still good.

 

[Swanseajack]

@Swanseajack On the basis of having to lose assets would that include camera gear too? or my 300 books?

I am agreeing with your statement no criticising it

IMO no, what is a camera kit worth when sent to a bankrupt or goverment auction, probably not very much and would possibly cost more to administrate.

The main assests people have is there home. A crazy example, a young married couple who have a wife at home looking after there baby, the man is then made redundant or long term sick etc, do we exchange there asset and hand them a tent to go and live in. Doesn't seem right IMO. The benefits system are there to help people in need and we pay a fair chunk of cash maintaining it.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there is only a very small minority who abuse the system and wrongly so, but the problem gets sensationalised by some newspapers who are trying to whip up a frenzy.

Sometimes life doesn't seem fair.

Why should childless people pay for there neighbours 6 kids education (as in my case) and child benefit or tax benefit etc........
Why should ambitious high earners pay more stopages than the person happy to work in Macdonalds all there life.
See where I am going with this.

We live in a great country (although weather could be warmer) and I think we have the balance just about right IMO.

 

[kennethwfd]

The principle of taking assets into account when working out a person's entitlement to benefits is already there

1. A claimant with more than £6k in bank accounts, savings, investments etc will have the amount over £6k counted as income
2. For those seeking help with housing costs will also have "excessive" space deemed as being able to let and raise income (bedroom tax)
3. A cap already exists on the amount awarded for housing costs
4. A claim for a mortgaged property will only pay for the interest and not the capital Quiote "Why should the state buy your home for you?"

Hence my suggestion of taking major assets into account. I did not say they would be forcibly removed or low value items taken into account The bottom line as others have stated is that why should the welfare state support a lifestyle beyond many in full time employment? This situation is bound to raise resentment

I don't see anywhere the statement that getting benifits is easy. In fact local news story regarding disabled person having to attend an interview regarding his claim. So he turns up in his wheelchair only to find the building has no disabled access.

My situation regarding housing is that the state has no obligation to provide me with housing. I can apply to my local council but I am of low priority, so in pracice there will alwys be someone whoose needs are deemed more important,. There were times last year when it was almost the car or park bench - literally dusk and I had nowhere to go to

Today I am settled, the other day remarked "You pay your rent on time" Too damn well, I can't afford to lose my home so why should someone half my age be offered free housing as a result of lifestyle?

Oh, well if you can't beat them, join them....off to the local tateaway for a dieit of pie and chips (only kidding)

 

[kennethwfd]

IMO no, what is a camera kit worth when sent to a bankrupt or goverment auction, probably not very much and would possibly cost more to administrate.

The main assests people have is there home. A crazy example, a young married couple who have a wife at home looking after there baby, the man is then made redundant or long term sick etc, do we exchange there asset and hand them a tent to go and live in. Doesn't seem right IMO. The benefits system are there to help people in need and we pay a fair chunk of cash maintaining it.
.

I have indeed been forced to live in a tent for a couple of months. You then run into the issue that campsites are for touring and not resiidential

Your example would not arise. Usually one loses one's home over rent/mortgage arrears and this is a commercial decision by a third party, and no, they would not end up in a tent because of the child and the local authority would be obliged to house them, even in a B&B or hotel room

An adult without dependants, long term illness or disability has no saftey net regarding homelessness. The state is under no obligation to provide them with housing

 

[Steve Smith]

Why should childless people pay for there neighbours 6 kids education

I had this conversation with someone at work who asked "Why should I pay tax to go towards education when I don't have any kids?" My response was that he should think of it as paying for his own education instead. It makes more sense that way.


Steve.

 

[Swanseajack]

Ken, If you read my post again I was referring to the house being an asset and a crazy example in my reply to Charles.. You brought up the point of taking away peoples assets in the case of the Private Number Plate and Range Rover. Which was based on you assuming the women was claiming benefits.

My crazy example is based on what most peoples largest asset, which is there home. I then wrote for my example "The benefits system are there to help people in need and we pay a fair chunk of cash maintaining it" So if people fall on hard times the system should help them out IMO.

As you have worked for the DSS you should know that DLA is not based on assets or any other wealth. Katie Price (AKA - Jordan) gets DLA for here son who is disabled and whom Dwight York is the father (ex-footballer). It's estimated there wealth is about 50 million. The system allows them to claim for there disabled son.

I have been writing on DLA benefits and what has factually happened to me, except for my crazy example.

Anyway enough from me.

 

[Swanseajack]

I had this conversation with someone at work who asked "Why should I pay tax to go towards education when I don't have any kids?" My response was that he should think of it as paying for his own education instead. It makes more sense that way.


Steve.

Totally agree Steve, I was putting out the thought of fairness. We have all paid into the system and should get something back out, if and when needed.

 

[kennethwfd]

[QUOTE="Swanseajack, post: 6705439, member: 62112"

As you have worked for the DSS you should know that DLA is not based on assets or any other wealth
Anyway enough from me.[/QUOTE]

This limit applies to everyone. The lower limit used to be £3000 for those under 60 but this change about a year ago. So now the lower limit is £6000 for everyone. For every £250 you have over £6000, an extra £1 is added to your total income. If you have over £16,000 you will not qualify for benefit. Hope this helps.

Lucy (Benefits Assessor)
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?s=d1ec85bb1965615500a5cd4f088e02d4&t=694709

 

[Swanseajack]

[QUOTE="Swanseajack, post: 6705439, member: 62112"

As you have worked for the DSS you should know that DLA is not based on assets or any other wealth
Anyway enough from me.

This limit applies to everyone. The lower limit used to be £3000 for those under 60 but this change about a year ago. So now the lower limit is £6000 for everyone. For every £250 you have over £6000, an extra £1 is added to your total income. If you have over £16,000 you will not qualify for benefit. Hope this helps.

Lucy (Benefits Assessor)
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?s=d1ec85bb1965615500a5cd4f088e02d4&t=694709[/QUOTE]




You are reading this wrong, DLA is not means tested as a benefit. Hence my post mentioning Katie Price who is a millionare. Your quote is from a general benefits question, which would then be correct.

Have a look at the second post from this website. The website is used by health care proffesionals, social workers, carers etc............. for benefits advice.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?view=topic&catid=10&id=97879

And the site you have used above, again look at second post.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4053663

And page 19 of this.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/E...Disability_Living_Allowance_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true



Hope this clears things up.

 

[Moadib]

From age 34-44 I had to give up training due to an injury, but I still maintained the 5 small meals a day, never felt hungry. I resumed training 8yrs ago, everything still good.

It’s good that such an eating pattern works for you - others can eat only once per day and be equally fine. But the discussion was not n=1, but rather what fits best for the population overall, and health overall. For certain our ancestors didn’t carry several small meals per day, they ate when they hunted or gathered food, and then went long periods until the next meal was available. Even when I was younger we ate three times a day, never more. It’s a relatively modern thing to eat more frequently, and especially to NEED to eat more frequently.

There are some issues with such an eating frequency. first is that insulin secretion has two phases. The first lasts for 10 minutes or less. Our pancreas stores insulin ready for an upcoming meal, and during this first phase that stored insulin is released. Then in phase 2 the pancreas produces more insulin - insulin is then present in the bloodstream for 2-3 hours after the meal is consumed.

Eating several small meals a day puts a strain on the pancreas because it is only able to produce the stored insulin for phase 1 at the first meal of the day. For subsequent meals it is still secreting phase 2. The pancreatic beta cells are therefore working nonstop, which is not an ideal situation (a stressor toward diabetes)

Second is that leptin and insulin together manage our energy (consumption and storage), and we have leptin receptors on the pancreatic beta cells. When we eat leptin levels should rise, and that in turn increases our satiety plus signalling pancreas to stop producing insulin. However an increase in insulin also increases leptin. If we are continually secreting insulin, and therefore increasing leptin, we can risk leptin resistance and from there metabolic syndrome.

So it’s a strategy that can work for some, but on a wide scale may cause far more harm than good. Indeed we already see a rise in both metabolic syndrome and diabetes, as we see people “grazing” throughout the day, with many small meals. So need to be very careful how we interpret widespread results based upon individual experience.

 

[kennethwfd]

This limit applies to everyone. The lower limit used to be £3000 for those under 60 but this change about a year ago. So now the lower limit is £6000 for everyone. For every £250 you have over £6000, an extra £1 is added to your total income. If you have over £16,000 you will not qualify for benefit. Hope this helps.

Lucy (Benefits Assessor)
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?s=d1ec85bb1965615500a5cd4f088e02d4&t=694709

Your quote is from a general benefits question, which would then be correct.

.[/QUOTE]

which is exactly what I intended So some benefits are indeed means tested which would include HB (for sure, for the record I recieve a contribution, but hoping next year's accounts will show that I can support myself and withdraw my claim) and JSA (presumably)

I have no issue with the welfare state in principle

 

[Swanseajack]

But we were discussing DLA...................... Sorry Ken, but it seems as if you have changed your tune for the discussion as you was proved wrong.

Also, I don't know whats happening with the quotes. Your quote above looks as if it was written by me when it was you who wrote.



Anyway, enough of me for this thread

 

[kennethwfd]

So where were we specifically discussing DLA to the exclusion of all other benefits? It seems that you have changed your tune for the discussion as you were proved wrong

going back to the original article this states that this person is on income support. This is a means teated benefit which is governed by the rules stated above
Over £16k capital not eligable
Between £6k and £16k taken into account
Below £6k disregarded

Also disregarded are those who work hard for the minimum wage and to keep a roof over their heads

 

[ChasG]

Being pedantic there is no DLA it is now PIP and if you are sent to Atos and have a pulse you are fit for work

 

[Keith W]

Being pedantic there is no DLA it is now PIP and if you are sent to Atos and have a pulse you are fit for work

No quite correct, there is very much still DLA - If you are a new claimant you would be placed on PIP or if you report a significant change in circumstances you would be re-assessed and placed on PIP

 

[nilagin]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there is only a very small minority who abuse the system and wrongly so, but the problem gets sensationalised by some newspapers who are trying to whip up a frenzy.

That small minority are the ones who get rumbled, what about the ones that haven't been rumbled yet, you have no way of knowing how many are at it.

 

[nilagin]

So it’s a strategy that can work for some, but on a wide scale may cause far more harm than good. Indeed we already see a rise in both metabolic syndrome and diabetes, as we see people “grazing” throughout the day, with many small meals. So need to be very careful how we interpret widespread results based upon individual experience.

That is probably more down to what the people are actually eating rather than the number of meals.

 

[ChasG]

No quite correct, there is very much still DLA - If you are a new claimant you would be placed on PIP or if you report a significant change in circumstances you would be re-assessed and placed on PIP

Or have to renew at the end of the original DLA claim

 

[Steve Smith]

Or have to renew at the end of the original DLA claim

No. My wife recently (last week) received a DLA renewal form. I think they are so far behind changing over that they are just continuing with the same scheme.


Steve.

 

[Swanseajack]

So where were we specifically discussing DLA to the exclusion of all other benefits? It seems that you have changed your tune for the discussion as you were proved wrong

going back to the original article this states that this person is on income support. This is a means teated benefit which is governed by the rules stated above
Over £16k capital not eligable
Between £6k and £16k taken into account
Below £6k disregarded

Also disregarded are those who work hard for the minimum wage and to keep a roof over their heads

For clarity this is what we were discussing, it's all there above in black & white.

I wrote:

"As you have worked for the DSS you should know that DLA is not based on assets or any other wealth. Katie Price (AKA - Jordan) gets DLA for here son who is disabled and whom Dwight York is the father (ex-footballer). It's estimated there wealth is about 50 million. The system allows them to claim for there disabled son.

I have been writing on DLA benefits and what has factually happened to me, except for my crazy example."

You then wrote in reply:

"As you have worked for the DSS you should know that DLA is not based on assets or any other wealth
Anyway enough from me" > This is what you quoted from me and then replied with the below in your message.

"This limit applies to everyone. The lower limit used to be £3000 for those under 60 but this change about a year ago. So now the lower limit is £6000 for everyone. For every £250 you have over £6000, an extra £1 is added to your total income. If you have over £16,000 you will not qualify for benefit. Hope this helps.

Lucy (Benefits Assessor)"


To my eyes we were discussing DLA. If you ment other benefits, you didn't make it clear and certainly not in your reply to me, as seen above.


Anyway, I'm of to pastures new.

 

[cambsno]

The whole benefits system needs ripping up and looking at sensibly - local to me - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Pro...victim-Tommi/story-25973820-detail/story.html

On the face of it how can that be justified...

 

[ChasG]

No. My wife recently (last week) received a DLA renewal form. I think they are so far behind changing over that they are just continuing with the same scheme.


Steve.

It would appear that I must bow to your superior knowledge despite having documentation here clearly stating that I have been awarded PIP from December to Nov 2019

 

[Swanseajack]

Was the PIP award a matter of swapping over or have you had another medical?? For me it's estimated late 2016 to change. I have been awarded indefinite in my DLA.



Edit: sorry if this personal and you dont wan't to reply.

 

[ChasG]

Mine was a renewal and I had a medical home visit from mental health nurse from Capita although my disability is physical.

 

[Moadib]

That is probably more down to what the people are actually eating rather than the number of meals.

I agree it's more down to meal content, but increasing meal frequency will exacerbate it (for the reasons I explained). Any given style can work for any given frequency, but on average more frequency is not better (and shouldn't be required - as mentioned, highly unlikely that style is what we evolved with).

 

[new2me]

Those of you discussing eating patterns and fat etc .... do you believe your 'theories' apply to everyone and we would all react to food/exercise in the same way, if we all followed the same eat, exercise/work sleep regimes?

 

[h14nha]

Mine was a renewal and I had a medical home visit from mental health nurse from Capita although my disability is physical.

Mine was from a non medically trained person. Funnily when work sent me to an independent doctor she disagreed and assessed me as having a disability. But the way PIP is assessed, unless they have to dig you up for your assessment, you've no chance. For me though, I didn't want any money, i wanted to be officially classed as having a disability, to get some form of protection at work.............
I'm typing this at half one in the morning as my back is too sore to go to bed yet, I have to be up in 5 hours for work too

 

[Moadib]

Those of you discussing eating patterns and fat etc .... do you believe your 'theories' apply to everyone and we would all react to food/exercise in the same way, if we all followed the same eat, exercise/work sleep regimes?

new2me, honestly speaking I don't think that is known. I think there are broad aspects that will mostly apply, but genetics are different from person to person, and that will have some small impact. The biggest difference, in my opinion, but as yet still subject to a lot of debate and research, would be from gut bacteria. Some foods are taken in by us directly, but a heck of a lot of what "we" eat is actually going to feed the bacteria in our gut. We feed them, and they in turn provide us with an array of things from vitamins to improved immune system. Depending upon our background, our parents, our lifetime exposure to places and things, and our history of antibiotics, we will all be very different in that regard. Therefore what we need from food (and what we can extract from food) will be slightly different.

 

[jakeblu]

Ive been on a low carb highish fat/protein diet for the last 18 months. For the first time in 12 years my diabetes is under control with minimum medication, in fact I may stop all medication this year, and I have lost 5 stone in weight. I don't count my calories and eat when hungry. What I do not have is bad breath, lethargy or high cholesterol. Its not necessarily the weight loss that improves my blood sugar levels as I found out this xmas. Any relaxation in the amount of cabs I eat whether good or bad carbs spikes my blood sugars.

It seems that they may have been wrong about cholesterol and heart disease and about the amount of carbs required in a diet. In fact since they have advocated a low fat diet the western world has seen an obesity epidemic. Sugar is the enemy, especially the hidden sugars in processed food.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

No. My wife recently (last week) received a DLA renewal form. I think they are so far behind changing over that they are just continuing with the same scheme.


Steve.

My Wife and I have very recently (in the last 2 months) started claiming DLA for our Daughter. It stated DLA on the forms we filled in, and on the award confirmation letter we received, so id say the above probably isnt far from the truth.

 

[viv1969]

Ive been on a low carb highish fat/protein diet for the last 18 months. For the first time in 12 years my diabetes is under control with minimum medication, in fact I may stop all medication this year, and I have lost 5 stone in weight. I don't count my calories and eat when hungry. What I do not have is bad breath, lethargy or high cholesterol. Its not necessarily the weight loss that improves my blood sugar levels as I found out this xmas. Any relaxation in the amount of cabs I eat whether good or bad carbs spikes my blood sugars.

It seems that they may have been wrong about cholesterol and heart disease and about the amount of carbs required in a diet. In fact since they have advocated a low fat diet the western world has seen an obesity epidemic. Sugar is the enemy, especially the hidden sugars in processed food.

I know several people who have managed to become asymptomatic of type 2 diabetes through adopting a similar diet, and without exception they have been taken off medication, lost weight and lowered their cholesterol.

 

[dejongj]

As I said before, eat healthy, eat fresh and exercise. It isn't rocket science. Especially not when cutting out added sugars and loosing lots of weight.

I'd argue people safe a lot of money as well doing that. Remember you don't even have to be a member of a gym to exercise

 

[Steve Smith]

Remember you don't even have to be a member of a gym to exercise

Absolutely. And I like the irony of people driving to a gym then doing seveeral miles on a treadmill or an excercise bike!


Steve.

 

[nilagin]

Absolutely. And I like the irony of people driving to a gym then doing seveeral miles on a treadmill or an excercise bike!


Steve.

I drive to the gym, but then I don't go anywhere near the treadmills or bikes. There are much better things you can use (weights) to get in shape and get fitter and a lot faster tooo.