Disability benefits: PIPs should be for 'really disabled'

But how ever do you get in the industry if you have no experience in the first place?

I'm fed up with the circle jerk when it comes to CV writing and Interviews, where you just embellish the truth for a few minutes for just the possibility of job, regardless of all the lies/half truths you'll be telling to climb the corporate ladder.

and this is why things get so cac, cos you end up w/ a load of numpties who don't know the job and only have the position cos they lied on the CV and denied a properly-qualified person from getting the job.
 
I dunno what's worse, that this idiot doesn't understand what PIP is/how it works yet thinks it's a good idea to comment on it, or that he feels trash talking his own party's idea is going to go well with regards to his career prospects XD
 
Losing consciousness is incredibly rare and doesn't mean you can't have a job. Frankly it is pessimistic to write people off and the whole defeatist attitude some have toward these things is perhaps part of the reason some people don't break the cycle.

No one is saying they shouldn't have benefits! I'm simply saying they shouldn't be receiving PIP and instead should be on JSA if unemployed.

You are being completely unrealistic, if you think an employer is going to keep someone on who is fainting or otherwise incapacitated by panic attacks you're on another planet, businesses don't employ people who cost them money. Only people who are fit for work are allowed to claim jsa, you must be available and looking for work full time, if someone is certified as sick they need to be on jsa.

And yes if someone incurs costs such as transport costs because their mental illness makes them unable to drive etc they should be on pip.
 
Our eldest son was starved of oxygen during premature birth and is lifetime disabled with cerebral palsy. He was swapped from DLA to PIP last year and someone came to the house to interview him. He was awarded the highest level same as he had with DLA.

This is one of the big problems with PIP, if you know that a person has a lifetime DLA award then just issue them with a lifetime PIP award, don't waste thousands having them reassessed lol. The amount of effort they put in via administration/etc and medical assessor just to ensure I hadn't evolved past my genetic disorder or regenerated my missing limb must have cost four if not five figures. How is that wastage supposed to save any money when they're doing it on mass? lol.
 
This is one of the big problems with PIP, if you know that a person has a lifetime DLA award then just issue them with a lifetime PIP award, don't waste thousands having them reassessed lol. The amount of effort they put in via administration/etc and medical assessor just to ensure I hadn't evolved past my genetic disorder or regenerated my missing limb must have cost four if not five figures. How is that wastage supposed to save any money when they're doing it on mass? lol.
I shouldn't laugh at your situation but it's so true. My mum has a genetic nerve disorder that basically has the appearance of severe parkinsons disease. She can't hold anything as a result. Yet she had to have repeat assessments. It's a bleeping genetic disorder, it's not going to spontaneously cure itself!
 
I have schizophrenia and had to quit my job because of anxiety, i just couldn't sit at my desk, I was having panic attacks and had to go lie in bed for a few months.

I now work 2 days a week and get ESA and PIP.

It shouldn't be reduced, hard enough being skint.
 
This is one of the big problems with PIP, if you know that a person has a lifetime DLA award then just issue them with a lifetime PIP award, don't waste thousands having them reassessed lol. The amount of effort they put in via administration/etc and medical assessor just to ensure I hadn't evolved past my genetic disorder or regenerated my missing limb must have cost four if not five figures. How is that wastage supposed to save any money when they're doing it on mass? lol.
Yes, my wife had a lifetime DLA award for a genetic heart condition, and has now been moved to PIP with a review in 4 years. Pointless.
 
Though the link in the original post has been highlighted as a way to deny people the benefit, it ought not to be forgotten many, in genuine physical need are simply being denied their entitlement because they are uneducated, clueless or incapable of filling in the forms correctly. Too many previously awarded their entitlement through Disibility Living Allowance make the mistake that automaticly having a genuine disibility leads to an award. PIP is not interested in or about the fact that people are ill or disabled: It's about assessing how that disability effects you personally. Two people with the same condition will not, according to the criteria, respond in the same way. The application form and award process is a game of semantics with the Devil being in the detail and how competently you can write and explain how desperate that need is.
 
Last edited:
You are being completely unrealistic, if you think an employer is going to keep someone on who is fainting or otherwise incapacitated by panic attacks you're on another planet, businesses don't employ people who cost them money. Only people who are fit for work are allowed to claim jsa, you must be available and looking for work full time, if someone is certified as sick they need to be on jsa.

And yes if someone incurs costs such as transport costs because their mental illness makes them unable to drive etc they should be on pip.

You're being completely unrealistic if you think fainting is a regular thing. Writing people off because of anxiety is pretty defeatist IMO.
 
You're being completely unrealistic if you think fainting is a regular thing. Writing people off because of anxiety is pretty defeatist IMO.

It doesn't matter whether it's a regular thing or not, you are not legally allowed to drive if you have experienced a loss of consciousnesses in the past 3 years or so as a result of illness. And it's not just fainting, when you have a panic attack it leaves you in a state completely unable to do anything productive, we are talking lying down on the bed waiting for it to pass or medication to kick in.

No one is writing anyone off for life, but you have to understand that in some stages of a persons illness they are not suitable for work, doctors will even advise taking time off work. And PIP may be appropriate for a period of time.

For you to say that these people should be put onto jsa and encouraged to work is contrary to expert medical opinion.
 
It doesn't matter whether it's a regular thing or not, you are not legally allowed to drive if you have experienced a loss of consciousnesses in the past 3 years or so as a result of illness. And it's not just fainting, when you have a panic attack it leaves you in a state completely unable to do anything productive, we are talking lying down on the bed waiting for it to pass or medication to kick in.

No one is writing anyone off for life, but you have to understand that in some stages of a persons illness they are not suitable for work, doctors will even advise taking time off work. And PIP may be appropriate for a period of time.

You're the only one mentioning driving - sure if you work as a driver then you lose your job and/or if you're in the middle of no where and cut off from public transport then you're a bit screwed too. But it doesn't prevent you from holding a job.

Yes GPs will advise taking time off from work due to stress, anxiety etc.. and can sign you off sick, I've had a GP recommend that for me in the past - you receive sick pay from your employer and/or statutory sick pay. I don't see it as a reason to have enhanced benefits. Perhaps people on JSA who need to be signed off for a period of time should have their requirements to attend meetings and/or interviews set aside for that period or reduced.
 
Go watch "I, Daniel Blake". It is all about the DWP and beureaucracy and failure to address the real world problems that people face. It's depressing but important, imo.

Reading the wiki for that one of the pivotal points of the story is an administrative error, Daniel Blake has heart problems and is in fact someone who would be eligible whereas this thread is about the eligibility of people with mental health issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Daniel_Blake
As a result, he is deemed to be able to work. Daniel had assumed that the unspecified healthcare professional who carried out his Work Capability Assessment, a simplistic box-ticking exercise, had contacted his doctor for information on his condition, but she had not. Consequently, the test's criterion for people who are at risk – which would have qualified Daniel for sickness benefits by itself – is not applied by a government "decision-maker".
 
I know what the film is about... I watched it on Saturday. Anyone who has had any interaction with the DWP should be able to sympathise with the central character, regardless of the specifgic nature of his interactions.
 
OK but we're discussing who should be paid in principle, that there are administrative areas in the actual implementation or that some DWP employees are jobsworths is a bit of a different subject.
 
It's not great they reassess people who are clearly not fit for work however there are huge numbers of system cheaters out there and lots of "fake illness" going around - the estate I grew up on had everyone on benefits of some sort and it was either fake or self-inflicted (alcohol dependency). There were only 1-2 genuine cases in the entire estate of hundreds of families.
 
It's not great they reassess people who are clearly not fit for work however there are huge numbers of system cheaters out there and lots of "fake illness" going around - the estate I grew up on had everyone on benefits of some sort and it was either fake or self-inflicted (alcohol dependency). There were only 1-2 genuine cases in the entire estate of hundreds of families.

See, it's ironic but I think i've mentioned on here before that out of the people I know who have gone for the assessment more frauds have been passed than those genuinely in need. I gave the example of a guy I know who was laid off from work because he was judged by their medical assessment board as being medically unfit. He then had his disability benefits removed and was told he was fit for work. One of the people that had judged him unfit turned out to be on the board that judged him fit. There'd been no change/improvement to his condition.

prime example;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sabled-unfit-work-told-job-lose-benefits.html
 
Back
Top Bottom