ForumGarden

A delay in paying welfare benefits to two disabled people was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Delays of at least nine months for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) for these "most vulnerable" of people were unreasonable, a judge ruled.

PIPs are benefit payments to help people aged 16-64 with "some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability".

They are available to employed and unemployed people, and claimants can receive £21.80 to £139.75 a week, depending on how their condition affects them.

This is determined by an assessment, and claimants are regularly reassessed, but government figures show more than 3,000 have been waiting for more than a year for their claims to be processed.

What is even more unacceptable is the fact that this had to be taken to the High Court to have the obvious stated officially. Thus far the Government has been relying on no-one bothering, or having the means to take their cases any further.

This is, of course, typical of the pathetic government (I was going to say something a little more offensive, but my overseeing conscience held back my hand ).

I feel sure that they are hell bent to make it as awkward as possible for the disabled and also making life fairly unbearable for the old folks, causing premature death no doubt. Well that is my opinion - it makes sense doesn't it, to reduce the causes of costly problems to our nation? Even though these old 'uns have paid tax all their working lives !

Just get rid of the old 'uns and make life hell for the disabled and long term sick, so that maybe they won't live for too long ?

I am more charitable and blame it on simple ineptitude, or isolated bloody mindedness, it just can't be part of the plan....................can it ?

Having the experience of applying for DLA years ago and then more recently applying for PIP on behalf of my son, the whole procedure is more difficult nowadays. I'm not surprised really given that too many people have managed to get benefits when they didn't need it. But for those with a genuine disability it is really frustrating and I can understand why people might give up trying.

My biggest issue this time round was the government deciding that at 16 my son is an adult. Totally bizarre if you ask me! Then they didn't want me to fill in the forms or sign them on his behalf. Apparently as his Mother I have to go through some odd checking process to prove that I am the best person to act in his interest. We had to go through a very funny phone call where they insisted on speaking to my son, he's not good at speaking to people he doesn't know face to face let alone on the phone. So we put the call on speaker phone, every question they asked him I had to explain to him and then I had to provide the answers for him to say as he didn't know the answers :wah: It was all a bit of a farce really!

I can understand why they are making it more difficult though, although I will never understand why they think any child with autism, aspergers, or learning difficulties etc can be considered an adult at 16!!

The whole process took months too! Far too long.

I am amazed they take telephone interviews as a way of dealing with such things at all.

Much of the information learned in an interview is visual, and how do they know who they are talking to any how ?

Bruv;1480385 wrote: I am amazed they take telephone interviews as a way of dealing with such things at all.

Much of the information learned in an interview is visual, and how do they know who they are talking to any how ?


It took more than that phone call. I think that was stage two, first part was filling in pages and pages of the form, saying the same things over and over. Then we had the forms returned because they didn't want to pay me the money but my son direct. We had to jump through hoops to get them to pay me (he still lives here I do everything for him, he has a stockpile of his own saved christmas/birthday money for anything he might like) he doesn't feel ready to deal with the money, he wants me to deal with it. That's why they rang, to speak to him directly, I could have got anyone to take that call and pretend it was my lad, I had to interpret all the questions and feed him the answers anyway lol.

The third and final part was attending an interview in Truro. The woman was pretty sensible, she asked my lad how he had got there, he answered mum drove him, she asked if he could have got there without me to which he explained that maybe if he'd done the journey many many many times and been shown exactly how to walk there from the train station many many times he might have, then he changed his mind and said no, I'd have got off the train at the wrong place :wah:

It was actually almost an informal chat where she asked him the questions first then asked me if that was a true representation, all he did say was true but there were things he left out that are important when it comes to deciding if he needs more care and prompting than the average lad of his age.

It sounds like you're describing the sort of things we have to handle at work. Was the phone call an NCS one?

I understand the frustrations you might feel about having to have him affirm things, but it's all part of the Data Protection Act, where the client must actively give permission to have someone speak as their proxy & they must be present at all times. The problem is that it's a question of where you draw the line as to the client's level of cognicence, and as to whether a telephone appointment is appropriate or not.

FourPart;1480391 wrote: It sounds like you're describing the sort of things we have to handle at work. Was the phone call an NCS one?

I understand the frustrations you might feel about having to have him affirm things, but it's all part of the Data Protection Act, where the client must actively give permission to have someone speak as their proxy & they must be present at all times. The problem is that it's a question of where you draw the line as to the client's level of cognicence, and as to whether a telephone appointment is appropriate or not.


No idea who we spoke to now, they didn't really let me speak by proxy either, it was a real jobsworth and I kept explaining that my son hates speaking on the phone, he has to process what the person is saying and therefore actually needs time to think, even though I said you need to ask the question and be patient, they still asked a question, got no immediate response and asked the question again in a different way. Makes me want to :-5 That's why I ended up putting them on speaker so I could help him answer. My biggest beef is still the fact that at 16 he is considered an adult. It is an utterly ridiculous idea! He's nearly 18 and not got the capabilities my 13 year old has!

Meanwhile, I have to apply to be his responsible adult apparently.

Bruv;1480381 wrote: I am more charitable and blame it on simple ineptitude, or isolated bloody mindedness, it just can't be part of the plan....................can it ?


Makes me wonder sometimes. If benefit payment is not being paid, that person isn't recorded as claiming that particular benefit, and doesn't appear on the figures. Also, the Govt. defers paying, thus saving money temporarily as well as earning the interest on the unpaid money.

Multiply that by a good many people and that's a tidy sum of cash....

Now apply that philosophy to a few of the other benefits, and blame it on cuts, or excessive demand on the system. Big money.

A couple of weeks ago I had to deal with someone with a very similar problem - having Aspergers & a phobia of using the phone, so I was speaking with his Father, as his Son was not yet home from the Job Centre. I explained that I understood the situation, having Aspergers myself. When he phoned back later he got through to my colleague, but refused to speak to anyone but me. At the end of the call I heard his Father tell him how proud he was of him managing to talk to someone on the phone - especially with someone he didn't know. Another thing that can be so rewarding about the job.

Unfortunately, though, I know only too well that there are those that don't understand the intricacies of dealing with cases on an individual basis & do things by the book. I'm sure you can understand why, and why there have to be such rules to protect the vulnerable, but there also needs to be some level of empathy, as well as Common Sense sometimes, but that is Analog. Rules are Digital & unfortunately can't be modified at the discretion of someone, certainly not at my level.

"Digital" rules are the problem. One size definitely doesn't fit all.