Worthless?? Why? He has quoted factual figures that are showing an approx. 11% reduction in claimants following the introduction of the 'bedroom tax'. Those figures may or may not be directly related to that reason - they are just as likely to as they are just unlikely not to. But the important thing is that which ever way you look at it, 25,000+ people are no longer claiming benefits since it's introduction. Make what you may of it, but please don't be so blinkered as only to see it from your singular point of view. The government are gaining on the overall reduction of the numbers claiming welfare which has to be a good thing however it is achieved 'bedroom tax' ATOS, sanctions or whatever.

Why on earth are you so dismissive of good news? 25,000 claimants no longer claiming benefit for whatever reason surely is good news? Phibbs is saying that it is because of the 'bedroom tax' - who knows he might well be right.

We all know what they are supposed to do, but in my own two hearings, they didn't and when I pushed the matter with the Chair he said that he was quite happy with the DWP's explanations as to why they shouldn't respond.

The figures were revealed by Harry Phibbs, a Tory councillor, in an investigation for the ConservativeHome website. He surveyed councils across the UK and 141 responded. In their areas, 25,238 of the 233,732 people stripped of the spare bedroom subsidy – or nearly 11 per cent – were no longer claiming any benefits. Figures show the move has encouraged thousands to look for work Mr Phibbs said that extended across the UK, it would be the equivalent of 71,000 out of the 660,000 claimants predicted to be affected stopping claiming benefits. ‘Before this change it wasn’t rewarding for people to work,’ he said. ‘This is giving people a reward for working – they are able to stay in their homes rather than downsizing into a smaller home. ‘Because work is now being rewarded, many people are coming off benefits altogether and getting full-time jobs

And your reply as to your experience/qualifications as evidenced by your ESA/DLA claims are still awaited? You see some are more qualified to pass comment on the Welfare Reform given the awards made without recourse to the Tribunal or multi applications.

I beg to disagree with you. Yes scans can and do prove injuries. But there are many cases where they don't yet people complain of the symptoms with no evidence to back them up. I could once again cite ME CFS, there are no tests that can prove that they exist, if they actually do. Then we have the scans that do show an injury but cannot actually prove to what extent the true pain level is. Amongst my many problems, I have a damaged lower back (sports injury 30 years ago) Yes it aches, but it would be so easy for me to exaggerate the level of pain as it can never be determined medically nor can the level of mobility be properly assessed. The consultants would say that the level of disability is consistent with the injury but how much of that is true and how much of it is not? Hence why PIP is better placed to assess this as opposed to a consultant and a GP being told by the patient that they are suffering more than is true. How many claimants do actually exaggerate? Having said all of that I still will argue that 20 metres is a far better distance to find the most serious cases, as the higher the figure goes the more people will become eligible - something that this country can no longer afford.

Thanks for that, but I don't know what you are going on about. Why is it that when somebody disagrees with the majority they are deemed to be a troll? I, along with many many others fully agree with PIP - it should have happened years ago. What is this, you are only allowed to post if that post is all about keeping the status quo and allowing people to claim as much as they can? I can see the two sides to Welfare Reform - you appear to only see one side - yours! And as for making this a personal issue, could I ask how many attempts you had to make to be awarded ESA? Maybe my single attempt which resulted in being put in the Support Group for 3 years more than qualifies me to comment on issues surrounding the DWP and the Welfare Reform Act. By the way one attempt only for DLA, no Tribunal - awarded HRM & MRC indefinitely on medical evidence only!!!!

The DWP for some reason are now more and more deciding what evidence would suit their purpose and keeping quiet about other evidence that they hold that could well be of great help to the claimant. I have had two similar situations. One where the Tribunal demanded disclosure and that the DWP said were irrelevant and refused to supply them citing that the case was open and shut in their favour no matter what they disclosed. (Evidence that a decision notice had been sent to the wrong address - they only had to show that it was posted to the last known address in any event). the DWP won that case (when this became apparent it was beyond the 13 month time limit). And a second one where they refused to include a letter in their submission, that a copy hadn't been kept by me which clearly stated that it was to be treated as an informal appeal. I subsequently, at the request of the DWP, had to complete a GL24 as they wouldn't accept the appeal letter which was then immediately refused as it was outside the 13 month time limit. (The Tribunal required disclosure of this letter but the DWP cited that it was irrelevant as a formal appeal was issued which made the original informal appeal null and void and which was subsequently out of time. I do have a strong feeling that instructions have been issued to the DWP to tighten up on appeals and claims and to use whatever means that are available to stop money being awarded. Previously (years ago) these situations would never have arisen as decisions and awards were sometimes given if it was reasonable and just to do so despite legally they were not due.

The reason for the reduction is that the government want to target the most disabled in society. One way of doing this is to reduce it to 20 metres. Anybody that can walk further than that cannot be classed as the most disabled and deserving. I'm not saying that reducing the limit won't hurt some people, but with the limited resources that this country has isn't it better to give it to the most disabled? I can walk just about 50 metres, 20 metres is easily attained. Would it be right for me to get the same enhanced rate as those who can't walk 20 metres? I don't think so. Would I give up my award so that the most disabled can have theirs? Course I would and would expect everybody else to do the same. There are only so many times that the government can divide the Welfare Budget into.

Absolutely. I don't consider myself as being labelled 'disabled'. Yes I am awarded HRM & MRC but those were awarded based on medical evidence that fitted exactly what the DWP consider to prove a disability. There is a whole world apart from what the DWP consider proves a disability and what the reality actually is. It's a bit like sitting exams. You can spend hours learning all about the subject or you can be taught how to pass an exam, with only those elements that are expected to be in the exam paper. I also receive ESA and am in the Support Group. Again because the correct medical evidence submitted proved that I qualified. It's all about proving that you fit the right descriptors and the maximum number of points. For example if you can prove that you have limited use of both arms to such an extent that you cannot get something out of a top pocket of a jacket you will immediately qualify for ESA AND be put in the Support Group. Whether you are too sick to work has nothing to do with it - it's a question of passing the right descriptor.

I would say that on balance there are fewer genuine claimants than there are [problematic], if my towns are anything to go by. Normally on a Saturday morning I go into town and have a coffee close to a large disabled only parking area. I sit there and watch them. Crutches under both arms and stick merchants that never touch the floor. Go and have a look at the tax disc - hey ho disabled nil tax!! Of the car park of the village pub, there are three cars parked up every Friday and Saturday evening that have nil tax discs- yet go inside and not a stick or crutch to be seen. What you can see are 6/7 guys in their early 30's swilling beer for the next 4 hours, then at 11.30pm they all pile into the 3 cars and head to the local nightspots in town!

Thanks at least you are seeing what is happening. What should happen? The DWP must believe the claimant as it is impossible to prove it? And where would that get us? Treat all claimants as being totally honest - as if! If it cannot be proven and it is entirely down to how a claimant fills in a form or is able to act in front of a Tribunal - that will lead to a dangerous place. What happens to those claimants that can't fill out these forms properly or are so nervous at a Tribunal that they come over as being unsure - should they lose out? The best parts of PIP are the continual re-assessment and assessment by descriptors. It is quite possible that if I went for an assessment for PIP I would be well able to make out that I could only walk a maximum of 10 metres and would be in agony for hours afterwards. Should I be given the enhanced rate. No, I would have to prove the 10 metre limit using medical evidence and tests. It wouldn't matter what state I was in afterwards as I would have proven the 10 metre limit. However if my statement of 10 metres was proven to be exaggerated and the consultant said the figure was more like 100 metres, then I would have to rely on the non ability to do the whole thing again which I couldn't prove was the case and the DWP couldn't prove it wasn't. Hence a Tribunal which would rely entirely on how the claimant comes over - good liar or poor honest and nervous individual.

Now that is being really really silly! I was talking about ADHD, ME, CFS and a whole bunch of other 'diseases'. In fact with ME & CFS there is no known test that can actually prove that you have it - much akin to the bad back and stiff neck of the 90's. And to actually suggest that someone that has had both arms and legs blown off in Afghanistan is classified as disabled in the same way as someone that claims to have ME/CFS astounds me. Yet DLA allows it to happen.

I know it has - since 1992. And there hangs the reason why DLA has become a shambles - people pushing the boundaries of what the benefit was never intended to cover. Hence why it was the intention to not have it included in PIP. Now that it is we will have all and sundry putting up arguments that in reality can never be proven one way or the other. Surely it would be better to have a 'black & while' approach. Anyhow, I can walk to a proven maximum of 40 metres before the pain and severe discomfort becomes too much to cope with. However I will admit that if I want to I would walk for more than 100 metres whilst enduring pain and severe discomfort to prove a point. I also could only walk 10 metres before severe discomfort actually starts. Could I do it again after a short break - who knows? I have never had it tested on the treadmill at the hospital. Those are the facts. and on those facts I will not be awarded the Enhanced element of PIP but the Standard element Do you agree? However I know full well that there would be many appeals lodged stating that 'do it once fine' but could you do it again'. Which basically cannot ever be proven and we end up with the same argument that caused the demise of DLA. It's all academic anyhow, as I won't be putting myself forward for PIP as at my age I just want a peaceful life. I am eligible for Attendance Allowance in 8 months so I will go down that route and leave you all to argue amongst yourselves.

Not at all. Daytime care Frequent means more than twice Throughout the day means at intervals during the day Significant period means more than an hour in total. http://www.lawcentreni.org/EoR/benefits-and-tax-credits/dla-and-attendance-allowance.html#1.DLA

What I have said is what the DWP look for. You should have appealed.

But that is your opinion. You would certainly need to back up that argument with medical evidence. Otherwise everybody would be saying the same thing. Once maybe, twice, I don't know, three time damned impossible. You may think that it is reasonable, but what you think is immaterial, it's what is proven and accepted by the DWP. As I have said, the DWP by having those words included will give rise to countless unnecessary Tribunal hearings.

In the first place you would have to prove that you couldn't do it twice a day with medical evidence. Take you back to the origins of DLA and PIP - Mobility Allowance. Given what you say - you wouldn't qualify as under those regulations you had to show that walking 20 metres would be impossible at any time.

I agree, but then if you take those three words literally everybody is going to have their own interpretation. Are they defined in law? If not why not? The day they put those words into the PIP regs totally devalued what PIP stands for. No doubt there will be countless Tribunal hearings in the future as people try to define those three words in the context of their own circumstances. My way of looking at it should be 'you can or you can't'. Can you walk 20 metres Yes/No.

Where did I say that it was easy to claim DLA?? It isn't. What I did say was that far too many conditions that needs arise out of have become acceptable for DLA purposes. If you go back to when DLA first started out in 1992, it was designed for those conditions that were already covered under the Mobility Allowance regulations. As for granting DLA on the basis of a diagnosis, governments over time have allowed this to happen. Their own data is set up in such a way that conditions are listed in accordance with the volume of claims being awarded. The highest being arthritis. Now I have no objection to that condition applying, but what has happened is that every arthritis sufferer now believes that it warrants a DLA award. Every claimant swears blind that their circumstances are the worst that can be imagined. Then we have the ME & CFS brigade. How on earth was that envisaged in 1992? Then we have ADHD. If you move slightly away from diagnosis towards assessing what the needs are - I am all for that. Diagnosis is important and has a place in claiming a disability benefit. Surely the answer is that ALL claimants should be assessed fully on a regular basis backed up with medical evidence. Isn't that where DLA has failed and PIP is rectifying? Shouldn't a disability based benefit be all about providing financial help to the MOST disabled and MOST vulnerable in society? If that is the case we should start at the top and draw a line and say that those above that line are entitled and those below are not. How can it be right to award HRM to someone that is so disabled that they cannot walk 5 metres without suffering extreme pain and at the same time give it to those that can walk up to 50 metres? I think that the most important aspect of this is having regular assessments backed up with indisputable evidence allied to a diagnosis that the DWP can refer to to confirm the facts. PIP will do all of those. As for that list, it wasn't confidential at all - I have a copy myself. It was a list that signified that depending on what the diagnosis was, it determined if you had to have a face to face assessment. Finally, if you argue that two people with the same diagnosis can have totally different levels of needs, then you are right back into my camp. I have been slated for what I said this month about what people can do AND still be entitled to DLA & ESA. As I have said I receive HRM & MRC, yet can function as good as a fit person in many respects. I am able to climb a 30' ladder, cut a hedge up to 10' high and 120' long, but still be entitled to my DLA. I could work full time if I wanted too albeit from home. yet I am entitled to ESA - Support Group. The mockery of the DLA system comes alive when you look at Carers Allowance and DLA (Care element). To qualify for either MRC you only have to prove that your needs would indicate that you need help at least twice a day throughout the day and that that help should total more than 1 hour. So for a MRC award to be made you would have to prove day needs of say 10mins in the morning, 15mins at lunch time and 40 minutes in the afternoon. Yet with Carers Allowance you have to show (well you don't actually, the DWP take it on trust) that you provide care of say 5 hours a day. Shouldn't the DLA regulations be changed from 'at least one hour a day' to 'at least 5 hours a day'? The whole DLA benefit needs to be binned. Far too many people are being awarded it for far too many reasons. Let's get back to basics - PIP is to redefine what constitutes a disability and what needs actually arise out of it.

That was the worst thing that the Tories did in 1992 was to provide cars. Now people have become far too reliant on the 'Motability car'. Very few would be housebound if the car was taken off tem - they would survive and find a way around the problem - maybe buy their own like everybody else does?

Hang on, I too have been awarded HRM & MRC indefinitely, so you can't say that I'm not in the same boat as you! I tend to look at the bigger picture, not just my own misfortunes. The bigger picture is that the DLA criteria has over the past 21 years has gained more holes than the Titanic had. It is right that the government go right back to the days pre 1992 when only the most severely and vulnerable were awarded a similar benefit - Mobility Allowance. Now you have kids with goodness knows what - ADHD etc - enabling mum and dad to get DLA for them. Then we have the arthritis claimants that are supposed to need 24 hour care and can't put one foot in front of another making claims. Then the ME - CFS claimants - what is all that about. None of those conditions or the effects of them would have seen the light of day pre 1992. There was one woman recently on he JK show who had a stick and appeared to need it to move 1 metre. She was described by JK as being severely disabled. Yet she managed to get up and out of her chair 5 times unaided and the stick went from the left hand to the right hand and back again unsure as to which side of her body needed assistance! Why also have these claimants all of a sudden become so dependent on a car being provided for them when most people in this country have to buy their own and run it themselves. I don't have a mobility car. Independence means looking after and taking control of your own life, and not expecting the state to nanny you. What do you think people did pre 1992 who couldn't afford a car? What do you think that people that work now full time on NMW if they can't afford a car? Sorry, but you need to take a reality check. You may have had a 'soft' life for years, but unfortunately the time is now to realise how hard life can be. I don't get any sick enjoyment in what I say. I look at the cold facts no matter how uncomfortable they are. There is a serious shortage of money in this country - life on benefits has been far too easy in the past. Of course I may get PIP I may not. But I don't bleat about it being unfair. If we lose over £262 a week from our benefits DLA + Premiums so be it. I've lived through a hard life and had extremely hard times in the past, going back doesn't worry me just as long as those that are the most severely disabled and vulnerable receive help, I would willingly give up our £262 a week. I've been homeless, and poor in the past through alcohol. I've begged for money - so don't tell me that people will suffer if they lose their DLA.

I accept what you are saying, but should there be one rule for you and another different rule for someone else? Besides which, the government has to appease the general population who are of the opinion that those that claim benefits are nothing short of being scroungers and parasites on those that go to work. By the general public seeing that something is being done will help to reinforce public opinion that the government are cracking down hard on ALL benefit claimants. Maybe when the Welfare Reforms are complete the benefit claimants of tomorrow will have a much easier ride away from public distaste.

But you might - you may well go into remission. I thought my future life would be like it was for those 7 years. Yet, with the excellent care, surgery and medication they have been able to hold it back for a while. I'm thankful for these past 2 years. I am never pain free, but after those 7 years I now feel that I could take on the world. Diary? I never did that, my GP & OT simply told the DWP that what and how I have described my situation is entirely truthful even to the point of me under stating quite a fair chunk of it. As for why the DWP would think that giving me money from my HRM & MRC award would help my health problems I don't know. Like everyone else, I just claimed it because I could.

164 feet? That's far enough to say that there is nothing wrong with your ability to walk! Yet the DLA criteria says that 164 feet is an acceptable distance to prove that you cannot virtually walk? Who's kidding who? Now 66 feet is a more realistic limit to judge walking ability. But no doubt those that only a few years ago swore blind that they couldn't manage 164 feet without pain or severe discomfort will tragically find that when PIP comes about they will have the same problem with 66 feet. I have visions of claimants going back to their consultants asking for a rehash of their letter which originally stated that 164 feet was the maximum that they could walk - can you please substitute that figure for 66 feet? Yes I too have a written report from the spinal unit that 164 feet was my maximum, bit I am blowed if I am going to embarrass the consultant to vary the distance to suit the new regulations. None of this actually deals with the new figure, so I presume that everyone is like me and thinks that it is reasonable.