The information you have linked to is useful and interesting but to be honest, and speaking of one who has twice been subjected to civil service incompetence resulting in them reclaiming tax payments form me (after they had incorrectly read the forms that I had submitted) then I always remain very sceptical about any government department who ask questions that can be re-interpreted later to mean something else that will benefit them.


As an example...

[iThe term “repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed.
[/i

"Reasonably" is a very subjective word, indeed you will find that the word reasonably is interpreted differently between one and another assessor let alone an assesor and the assessed.

[iA decision maker will also take into account any aid or appliance you normally
wear or use or could reasonably be expected to wear or use when assessing your ability to carry out a descriptor.[/i

There is that word again, suppose that they reasonably expect that if you used a wheelchair then you'd easily be able to complete the 200 metre test, yet the use of a wheelchair will put you into a completely different league employment-wise ?

[iIf you have a fluctuating condition the most appropriate descriptor will be the one which is likely to apply for the greatest proportion of that time
[/i

Massively open to interpretation is that one, you claim one thing and they'll pay you, turn up next year for a re-assessment and they'll decide it was inappropriate and you owe them twleve months over-payment.

Personally, with my subjective experience I would be very wary of claiming anything under these terms, unfortunately if I needed to claim then I wouldn't have the luxury of refusing - there but for the grace etc etc

Those descriptors you quote have just been amended this week. All during the consultation period it has been 50metres and cannot mention repeatedly, safetly and in a timely fashion. The Spartacus Group have worked hard to make changes but it was bittersweet; they got the repeatedly etc changed but in doing so the governement changed it to 20 meters without mentioning it in any of the consultation periods.

In any event, the descriptors still don't allow for fluctating conditions, nor the pain level it would mean for a lot of people. Maria Miller has already stated the aim of PIP is to save 20%of the DLA/PIP bill so why people are so intenent on pretending otherwise is beyond me

HWS: When is achool a hospital? Apparently they stopped Miss D's mobility allowance for days she is in "hospital." The 'hospital' being a school which has nurses.

Sigh all you like ... but pain / discomfort are simply not addressed and the only terms coming close to recovery time and repeatability are so vague as to be meaningless.

The [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/08/dwp-fitness-to-work-fiasco?commentpage=1Public Accounts Committee[/url don't seem too impressed with the fitness to work programme.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how finding more people fit for work will actually create the job vacancies for them to move into

I don't interpret the rules I'm afraid.

If I did, every disabled person would get what they needed to live a full, independent life



As I understand, if you go into hospital for more than 28 days you lose your benefits for the number of days you are in. I only know this because it states on your paperwork you must inform them if you go into hospital, which I did but I was only in for a week each time. Rubbish, I know because your rent/bills don't get cancelled because you are in hospital.

I'm more suprised (or am I?) that its taken 2 years of disability groups, charities, organisations, TV programmes, Lords and individuals of relentless campaigning to shout it from the roof tops to anyone who'll listen that its not fit for purpose. Its what we've all known for 2 years but no one would listen, with some "news" papers prefering to focus on the "lazy, scrounger, sponger, workshy, liar" propaganda instead of doing some proper investigive journlism into whats really going on.

Quote ="samwire"i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs.'" disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/0 ... f-nowhere/ This may help clear up a few things you are unclear of

Quote ="samwire"i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs.'" disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/0 ... f-nowhere/ This may help clear up a few things you are unclear of

Interesting point raised on Radio 4 this evening re the Phillpott arson case - It stated he stood to lose >£1,000 a month in benefits after his girlfriend and her 5 children moved out - £1,000 a month why would he ever consider working?

Because he could earn more than £1000 a month if he did in order to feed, clothe, house, transport, entertain, one adult and five children ?

If he was on the minimum wage he would get about the same for a 40 hour week - stay at home or work for the same money!! Given he didn't work I assume the incentive wasn't sufficient enough? With 11 kids I assume he was drawing > than double that so >£2k a month - you need to earn >30k to draw that money

No because the majority of the benefits he'll have been receiving would continue regardless of whether he was in work or not. So any work he did would only affect the £71 a week JSA not the other benefits which im assuming are Child Benefit and Housing Benefit.

See reply above, the assumption in cases like this is always that the claimant recieves a big wad of cash every month as the total sum of the quoted amount whereas the total amount will include, for the sake of journalistic affect, things like council tax and rent alowances, and of course a child allowance (that he would get whether workign or not) which for all of those kids will be a large part of the £1000, I doubt though that a person would be able to live a life of luxury when trying to house and feed 11 children and three adults on that sort of money.

Of course its all semantics if you are just talking of the total amount, the total amount could be anything if you don't actually approve of the principle of giving the unemployed or very low waged any public money at all.

Are you saying if he was earning 30k a year he would also get and additional £1,716 a month (2000-71pw) in benefits? Surely he would not get his rent and rates paid if he earned that much - he would get child allowance which would be approx £700 month that's all?

The average household income is £22k so he is already well above that, it begs the question - I know this will be controversial - should irresponsible behaviour be rewarded? Having 11 kids and no means of supporting them other than the state is surely irresponsible?

He would get child tax credit and working tax credit but they do taper off, unless someone knew his exact circumstances it would be hard to work out if they got any housing or council tax benefit, these taper too and drop off quickly after a certain figure.



To borrow one of the tory mantras, if he didn't have the state to fall back on he wouldn't be able to breed so much, I agree that many without the means to support them is irresponsible in the extreme. But cases like this are very much the odd few and make it hard for those who have fallen on bad times through no fault of their own to get any sympathy at all.

How has this gone from benefits stopping people working in your eyes to and irresponsibility with regard to kids?
As said above, it all depends on his circumstances - his dependants, the size of house, local authority rates, who he rents from etc with 10 plus dependants its highly likely he would continue to receive sizeable benefits but as Big Graeme says they taper off.

On the first point - if the only benefits he would receive would the £700 child allowance then he would effectively working full time for £700 a month - why would he?

On the second point that is just about broadening the debate. It is a frustration to some tax payers when they see the abuse of the benefits system, Mr Philpott's is clearly an abuse of what benefits were intended for.

Yes, it is.
It irritates me to know that there are such irresponsible people out there (if such he is, I don't know the whole story) ... but do I want to punish the kids, who after all, come into the world innocent, didn't choose the situation for themselves and would likely suffer worse than the apparently irresponsible parent if the benefits were taken away?
No, I don't.
In situations like that we, as a civilised society, have to take the responsibility.
My irritation is tiny and almost irrelevant compared with the issues around the children.

But, to be realistic, if you look at such things as the massive levels corporate tax avoidance/evasion that goes on, this is small fry.

Tax avoidance is a global issue - unless you can get a global agreement this will always happen. Benefit abuse is a national issue that can addressed internally.

As Big Graeme said, he would get working tax credit and child tax credit on a sliding scale. I reckon he would still get about £3k a year child tax credit on top of child benefit and possibly some working tax credit. Housing benefit is almost impossible to work out without knowing his details.
Maybe he wants that £700 a month?

Tax avoidance in certain industries like financial markets is a global issue that requires global agreements. Tax avoidance of the likes of Starbucks, Vodafone and Amazon is a national issue that can be addressed internally.

Quote ="Him"Tax avoidance of the likes of Starbucks, Vodafone and Amazon is a national issue that can be addressed internally.'" Funny how quiet this government chooses to be when it's the other way around though, isn't it? Presumably the Zambian people need to stop buying Kingsmill, Ryvita and Silver Spoon to send a message that this simply will not do. www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... ax-scandal

Quote ="Him"Tax avoidance of the likes of Starbucks, Vodafone and Amazon is a national issue that can be addressed internally.'" Funny how quiet this government chooses to be when it's the other way around though, isn't it? Presumably the Zambian people need to stop buying Kingsmill, Ryvita and Silver Spoon to send a message that this simply will not do. www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... ax-scandal

There is plenty that can be addressed internally and the amounts involved totally dwarf benefit scams.

Its probably a good point here to highlight the fact that the person in question does not appear to have been abusing or defrauding the benefit system.

Don't go spoiling his imaginary outrage.
It just won't do.