Whats the saving limit for people on benefits?

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That's the part i raised my eyebrows about when i read the article,

He claimed he saved the £50k to have a holiday which he's actually only prepared to spend £3.5k on, the rest he wants paid for by the council,

Later in the article he whined that as this is dragging on, he's no longer able to get the £3.5k early booking rate and it'd now be over £5k

Thats not what he said at all initially, he said that AFTER they took the money away from him.

The council are supposed to support him, which they recognise and accept.
The difference of opinion at that point is whether two random carers in the US will be up to scratch.

Its the sort of thing you see all the time, trying to save a few £ someone ends up costing £xxxxxxs when something goes wrong and creates a situation avoidable by not trying to save that few £.
IF one of those US carers misses something, or just does something the US way and it causes him a serious medical issue the council will end up with the bill.

 

[GGizmo]

I think all he did wrong was tried to sort payment out himself, which is what direct payment is all about. You're allocated money to spend as you wish, as you know what you need best.

The council knew what was happening as it was looking at his quarterly bills (they can monitor his account anyway). It seems like the council thought it was too expensive and are trying to force him to have carers not based on his medical needs but to save them money that they have already spent.

He might have a case against the council because they are undermining the ethos of direct payments. HE is supposed to be in control of that money not the council.

They should have at least talked to him and come to an agreement instead of becoming confrontational about it.

Using direct payments to employ a PA | Disability charity Scope UK

www.scope.org.uk

 

[Sythe79]

The lack of empathy in this thread is disturbing.

what lack of empathy ? No ones even claimed they shouldn't have a holiday, let alone they shouldn't be supported. Direct payments are an agreed amount of money FOR agreed upon private care services, it's not free money to do whatever you want with.

Gaming the system defrauds other people of services they might need, there is no limitless pot of money. If he didn't want to go to the cinema and instead wanted a holiday, he no doubt would have got the money to do it, if he'd put in a request for 50k in the bank he would have quite rightly been denied.

*Edited*

Yes sorry kids the council are short funded 40k this year so we aren't going to be able to run after school club at the YMCA this year, or the council run care home can't afford the 10k annual trip to the beach there's no budget, is hilarious to some.

 

[Richie]

what lack of empathy ?

Can I point you to this post - Post #21

Jesus that guy gets 11k a month in direct payments to pay for 2 careers etc :O

just stick him in a care home, that's literally insane.

I would suggest there is a significant lack of empathy here.

 

[dowie]

It's his carers that deserve the holiday. Not him per se.
It's s tough one. Asking for the money back is callous and it's all been budgeted and factored in so.... Really how can they even ask.

Because it's a condition of the funding, if it's not used for the things it was granted for it's to be returned, not doing that is a bit dodgy.

If you're in a workplace you can't claim for the equivalent cost of a Christmas party you didn't attend or submit some expenses for a client dinner that was canceled because you managed to have a Zoom call with them instead. Obviously if taking clients out you tend to use a company AMEX or similar so that gets into fraud too but if instead, you had a system where the company gives you the cash to cover the dinner then you'd likely be obliged to return it if the dinner didn't happen, you don't just keep it for yourself.

This guy had cash for specific things he then opted not to do, he should have returned it.

 

[Sythe79]

Can I point you to this post - Post #21



I would suggest there is a significant lack of empathy here.

Even that isn't really lack of empathy, however crass. Direct payment are FOR agreed private care, basically it's throw money at the problem of councils not having enough in house service provision, it's not money for you to do whatever you like with, or to make 10% on top for your bank account.

If people exploit the system then guess what everyone will end up just being stuck in a rubbish care home, where's your empathy for those that don't game the system or those that miss out because budgets are not limitless.

 

[danoliver1]

If your on benefits and you can "afford" to save up then your getting to many benefits in the first place.
I know plenty of people who work full time and still can't afford to save. Maybe they should just give up work?

 

[Bear]

I think all he did wrong was tried to sort payment out himself, which is what direct payment is all about. You're allocated money to spend as you wish, as you know what you need best.

The council knew what was happening as it was looking at his quarterly bills (they can monitor his account anyway). It seems like the council thought it was too expensive and are trying to force him to have carers not based on his medical needs but to save them money that they have already spent.

He might have a case against the council because they are undermining the ethos of direct payments. HE is supposed to be in control of that money not the council.

They should have at least talked to him and come to an agreement instead of becoming confrontational about it.

Using direct payments to employ a PA | Disability charity Scope UK

www.scope.org.uk

Thats not the case according to the BBC article (of course it could be incorrect). The direct payments were made on the understanding it would be paid for the care he requires and for the care he requires when out and about on agreed activities and for the agreed activity itself. It wasnt given to him to spend on whatever he wants, and under the agreement, any surplus can be clawed back which they did.

 

[sidimmu]

Guy on benefits(for justifiable reasons), wants more money to take a holiday that most working brits cannot afford and wont go on....
On top of:
"He receives £11,000 in Direct Payments each month to pay for the 24-hour support he needs,"

That makes him a top 6% earner in the UK not to mention, he wont pay tax on that 11k either.
Not surprised he has saved enough funds to go across the pond for a couple of weeks.

Not fair on pretty much every other person in the country though.

 

[Richie]

Even that isn't really lack of empathy, however crass.

So because it costs a certain amount of money to care for some people in their own homes, we should just save money by sticking them all in a care home? And you dont see that as lacking empathy?

If people exploit the system then guess what everyone will end up just being stuck in a rubbish care home, where's your empathy for those that don't game the system or those that miss out because budgets are not limitless.

Your counter to my point is to try some kind of logic about my empathy for those that don't game the system? What makes you think I don't have empathy for these people apart from your assumption?

Can I remind you of what I was posting about:

The lack of empathy in this thread is disturbing.

And you responded with:

what lack of empathy ?

I gave you a decent example of lack of empathy and you then go "off-road" with your argument? Why? Admitting an error, by perhaps not having seen the post I referred to highlighting an example of lack of empathy, isn't an issue (we can all miss posts)... Doubling down on your initial point ("what lack of empathy") by pulling in spurious counter-arguments to avoid admitting a mistake (even if only to yourself) is though...

 

[Ayahuasca]

If your on benefits and you can "afford" to save up then your getting to many benefits in the first place.
I know plenty of people who work full time and still can't afford to save. Maybe they should just give up work?

Do you realise the amount of work it would take to monitor each individual to the point where you know exactly how much they need and they don't get a penny more to save?

I'm not sure that advocating an even more complex and stringent benefits system is the right approach...

For every story like the one in the OP, there are many more where people on benefits with 'invisible' disabilities live in absolute misery.

 

[GGizmo]

Thats not the case according to the BBC article (of course it could be incorrect). The direct payments were made on the understanding it would be paid for the care he requires and for the care he requires when out and about on agreed activities and for the agreed activity itself. It wasnt given to him to spend on whatever he wants, and under the agreement, any surplus can be clawed back which they did.

The arbiter to decide what care he needs is him. The council then decide how to meet those needs via an agreement.

The dispute here is he wants to take the carers he knows while they want to get new carers in Florida that he doesn't know because it's cheaper.

I agree that he shouldn't have unilaterally decided to make the decision himself without speaking to the council first. It is possible the council might of backed down based on the suitability of having Florida carers. But sadly details that could have been ironed out early on was left to drift along until they realised they had allowed him to accumulate 10s of thousands of pounds. Both sides should have been quicker off the mark asking questions.

I wish we had the special savings account they have in the US that allow people on means tested benefits to put money into the account to save up for a big items and it not be counted against them.

If we didn't have the motability scheme in this country then disabled people who are too ill to work wouldn't be allowed to buy a new vehicle, especially ones with adaptions. Because we get punished for saving.

 

[Allnamestaken]

We live in a victim mentality state these days, everyone needs to be one it seems.

Pathetic response.

 

[Allnamestaken]

If your on benefits and you can "afford" to save up then your getting to many benefits in the first place.
I know plenty of people who work full time and still can't afford to save. Maybe they should just give up work?

You don't seem to undertand the concept of pip and other benefits for people with lifelong conditions.

Sure your friends can give Up work and live on the pittance that is UC and be miserable if they like.

Stop punching down.

 

[Efour]

looks like a lot of you have very personal axes to grind here.
you shouldn't jump on people that see it purely from another pov.

 

[Allnamestaken]

So because it costs a certain amount of money to care for some people in their own homes, we should just save money by sticking them all in a care home? And you dont see that as lacking empathy?



Your counter to my point is to try some kind of logic about my empathy for those that don't game the system? What makes you think I don't have empathy for these people apart from your assumption?

Can I remind you of what I was posting about:



And you responded with:



I gave you a decent example of lack of empathy and you then go "off-road" with your argument? Why? Admitting an error, by perhaps not having seen the post I referred to highlighting an example of lack of empathy, isn't an issue (we can all miss posts)... Doubling down on your initial point (what lack of empathy) by pulling in spurious counter-arguments to avoid admitting a mistake (even if only to yourself) is though...

People find it easier to punch down on people who can't defend themselves rather than be angry at the people who are really taking us all for a ride and are mostly responsible for the cost of living situation we are in.

Evidently dis is so insulated that the “record wages” he posted about seems to be reality for him. In reality just about anyone will tell you otherwise.

People who are on this type of benefit and pip are a minuscule percentage of the population they account for a tiny amount of gov expenditure. Yet people are so callous they would rob what little freedom and positives this does for people who have life long conditions because “people who work can’t be happy and afford things”.

I’m one of those people who struggle to afford things, yet I understand that the people who have these types of benefits didn’t choose their suffering. They are given these benefits so they can get some respite from their suffering and afford some degree of independence.

It’s absolutely nothing in terms of cost compared to the value it brings.

We lost hundreds of billions to tory mates contracts during covid, that’s where the real waste is. Not the poor and disabled.


Pfffttttt as you said thread lacking a shred of empathy.

 

[Allnamestaken]

looks like a lot of you have very personal axes to grind here.
you shouldn't jump on people that see it purely from another pov.

People don’t get a free pass to make horrible comments and make sweeping judgments about disabled people.

They will get challenged for their opinions and rightly so.

 

[Sythe79]

So because it costs a certain amount of money to care for some people in their own homes, we should just save money by sticking them all in a care home? And you dont see that as lacking empathy?



Your counter to my point is to try some kind of logic about my empathy for those that don't game the system? What makes you think I don't have empathy for these people apart from your assumption?

Can I remind you of what I was posting about:



And you responded with:



I gave you a decent example of lack of empathy and you then go "off-road" with your argument? Why? Admitting an error, by perhaps not having seen the post I referred to highlighting an example of lack of empathy, isn't an issue (we can all miss posts)... Doubling down on your initial point (what lack of empathy) by pulling in spurious counter-arguments to avoid admitting a mistake (even if only to yourself) is though...

No, it was a rubbish example if the harshest post you can find is "give people the minimum care needed" because they've proven untrustworthy to be given the cash themselves then you're setting a pretty high bar for acceptable empathy.

No you don't seem to have any empathy for those who will have undoubtably lost out when you defend actions like this, or at best are oblivious to the fact that social services run on razor tight budgets if someone falsely claims money like in this case it's set as high priority and is ALWAYS found by cutting money from "lower priority" needs no council is awash with so much money that it didn't matter.

 

[Raumarik]

Pathetic response.

Enlighten me.

Genuine request, I got nothing from your feedback.

 

[Richie]

No, it was a rubbish example if the harshest post you can find is "give people the minimum care needed" because they've proven untrustworthy to be given the cash themselves then you're setting a pretty high bar for acceptable empathy.

Hmm, you seem to have misunderstood me.

You are using this individual example of a person who gets £11k of direct funding to care for himself due to disabilities and saving £50k as the general example of what happens to every disabled person in similar circumstances. Arknor took exception to ANYONE getting £11k of funding for care costs and suggested that they should instead be put in a care home aka Warehousing of disabled people

Back in the 1970s and 80s, disabled people in Britain were routinely put in out-of-town institutions – or “warehoused”, as it was known – as a means to reduce the costs on the state. The term “warehoused” conjures up the chilling reality: human beings stored under one roof without autonomy, control or dignity."

If you believe that Warehousing disabled people is acceptable then go you.

No you don't seem to have any empathy for those who will have undoubtably lost out when you defend actions like this, or at best are oblivious to the fact that social services run on razor tight budgets if someone falsely claims money like in this case it's set as high priority and is ALWAYS found by cutting money from "lower priority" needs no council is awash with so much money that it didn't matter.

What actions am I defending exactly?

You seem to have formed some narrative where I am suggesting the person in this particular case was completely correct. Please point me to where I has inferred that, let alone said it.



To be clear - I haven't commented on this individual case; I merely pointed out to yourself of an example of lack of empathy in the thread when you questioned that very suggestion. The rest, you have made up in your head.