DLA/PIP - Good news and bad news

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by sunnoficarus, Dec 31, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The 'good' news is they are chickening out of reviewing anyone on an indefinate award until after the next election

    McVey postpones hundreds of thousands of PIP reassessments (posted 14.12.12)


    but McVey told MPs this was being delayed because ministers had “listened carefully to concerns about the speed of reassessment”.

    She only 'listened' after spin Doctors pointed out that removing DLA awards from the long term disabled just before an election would be a rather embarrassing shot in the foot.



    The bad new is, they've tightened up again the already much tighter PIP mobility rules.

    http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disability-in-the-news/dwp-lies-to-cover-its-tracks-on-mobility-cuts


    Previous drafts stated that a claimant who could not walk at least 50 metres would be entitled to the enhanced rate, making them eligible to lease a Motability vehicle. But this has now been slashed to just 20 metres.
     
  2. 20m is a complete ******* pisstake.
    It was futher than that to the toilet I was expected to get to a couple of days after my last TKR op.
     
  3. All very interesting.
    Right I'm off to get legless.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Why did they even bother with a distance in the first place, why not just stipulate loss of legs or complete loss of use of legs?
     
  5. That would really drop me in it as I've got legs, I just can't use them properly! As I need a shoulder replacement (which I won't get for another 15-20 yrs) I can't use a wheel chair either!

    Looks like I'm buggered sideways!
     
  6. Because dear boy, this is not a medically driven process. They have a target, 20% of working age DLA claimants are to be cured, so they keep moving the goalpost to reach that target, so 200m became 50m and is now to be 20m.

    I wish they'd just be frigging honest about this and just say, no high rate unless you are paraplegic and be done with it.
     
  7. What I'm saying is that setting a distance on it leaves it ambiguous, when I thought they were trying to make it as black and white as possible to **** people off.
     
  8. Well, they probably would like to, IDS seems to have a curiously Victorian attitude to disability, wheelchair bound = good crip, non wheelchair bound = bad crip, but with no majority, they have to keep half an eye on popular opinion while pandering to the daily hate.
    Of course, if they win next time round, all bets are off.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Well, they probably would like to, IDS seems to have a curiously Victorian attitude to disability, wheelchair bound = good crip, non wheelchair bound = bad crip, but with no majority, they have to keep half an eye on popular opinion while pandering to the daily hate.
    Of course, if they win next time round, all bets are off. I wouldn't even trust them not to cut back on AFPIP.
     
  10. I think there is case law. If you can move say 20 metres how long is it before you can move another 20 metres ? If it creates a long recovery period the answer is NO you cannot travel 20 metres. Answer NO and explain in box provided ?
     
  11. Or answer "NO cannot travel 20 metres after getting up two steps unaided apart from hand rails."

    Then on the steps question answer "NO because the steps might be 20 or more metres away".

    Just joking but you get the idea.
     
  12. It used to be that there was a requirement to be able to cover the distance safely and in a reasonable time, now, its a blanket question of distance with no apparent qualification to the task in the descriptors.

    http://www.latentexistence.me.uk/if-you-can-only-walk-twenty-metres-youll-get-no-help/