The poor girl probably in all innocence and out of compassion asked the guy (the OP) some general question about his health. All of a sudden he sees it as a threat to his well being? She wasn't a bully, nor was she trying to undermine his rights. For goodness sake the OP has blown this out of all proportion and is now on seemingly a one man war mission. For goodness sake I have a neighbour that works for the DWP in the local BDC and deals with ESA claims day in day out. He knew what I claimed and why, yet I didn't let it stop my life when he quite regularly asked me how it was going and appreciated the fact that I trimmed his front hedge on a weekly basis as I had time on my hands. If he thought that I was 'playing the system' then that was his problem not mine. I live a normal life, enjoy being chairman of various charitable bodies and enjoy activity holidays. Yet I have medical evidence that supports a DLA HRM & MRC award as well as a Support Group award in ESA for 5 years. I don't worry about what other people think or say, life is too short.

Well said!!!

As I have said, sad as it may seem, but your attitude is not really going to help you. I choose my battles to the ones that I know I will win!

What you think of my views is up to you. But what I can say is that you appear to have a serious attitude problem with INGEUS and the advisors. For me, I wouldn't want the aggravation and certainly wouldn't want to give myself any more stress especially when you knew from the beginning that you would not win. Is it really so difficult to walk away from a problem, and to work with these people instead of setting yourself up for a heart attack? Life is for living, not creating a personal vendetta with a WP who is really doing nothing more than carrying out instructions handed down by the DWP.

I was in the Support Group AND over 60, yet the WP insisted that I go every other week on pain of loss of benefits. I had 28 weeks (14 visits) before I found out that it was voluntary! When I approached the DWP they tried to blame me for not asking enough questions early on and for not taking the initiative to question why I was being told to go - eerrr I assumed that you (DWP) and the WP were applying the law correctly?

Thanks For the sake of clarity I will telephone them in the morning and see what they say, reporting back here for further advice or comments.

It is certainly not a wind up, and yes they are my views. There are 1000's of genuine claimants, and only a small number of dodgers. However, I can't see how any scheme can be brought about to only affect those that dodge without it impacting on the innocents. I know quite a bit about benefits having had to claim them for many years due to various health problems. I have had to cope with the horrors of ESA after having had an assessment that was a pack of lies from start to finish. I have had to fight for all of my and my wife's benefits. Yet I have always played ball with the DWP and have done everything that I was told to do and more. I could have moved over to Pension credit in Sept 09 and would have avoided the whole assessing and re-assessing saga. But no, I stayed with ESA until they took it off me when I started to get my SRP in June 2014 I would sooner work with the system than against it. I would sooner do without the benefit if I could manage without it. If I feel that I am being treated as a liar and a conman by the DWP then sobeit. I'm not that is all that matters. I feel sorry for the government departments having to save money at the expense of making people stressed and ill - but then what choice do they have? They have their instructions to follow.

I agree entirely, and that is what I am seriously thinking of doing. The only trouble is that when I do have to re-claim, they would be asking questions of where the money had gone as to them I would have got rid of it as quickly as I could so that a new claim could be put in. They could very well determine that there would be a considerable amount of notional capital still existing which would stop my new claim before it got started. It will take no more than a few months to get rid of the entire £140,000!! I have to laugh though, before I became entitled to this money we were more than happy with our little lot. The money hasn't brought us anything but aggravation except the opportunity to pay off our mortgage.

Try finding a car that fits the criteria that we have. Diesel, at least 2 litres for our caravan, 4x4 due to where we live, height in getting in and out, good residuals, good reputation for reliability, cheap to service and maintain and cheap insurance (less than £200 fully comp). What we would like is over £36000 new!!! Even Motability cars are up to £25,000. Yes I agree with your comment about the council, hence if we can pay off the mortgage, the property will be going into a Vulnerable Persons Discretionary trust. The council would then have one heck of a job trying to get at it if and when we may need help with caring in the future - as do most of our politicians!! The idea in closing it down would shut down the argument. Leaving it running would lead to a protracted argument that I know that I don't have the ability or capability to go to court with.

I presume that you are suggesting that in addition to paying off the mortgage and buying what we intended, we should then inform the Pension Service of what we have done? Alternatively should we do the above but NOT tell the Pension Service and wait until they find out and come back with a demand for a large overpayment of benefit? If the former, would it not be better to put the money in our savings account and ask the Pension Service if what we propose doing to try to keep our benefit would not be deprivation? If they say it would be, then we would be back with both of my options.

That does appear to be the case, but to be honest I wouldn't trust the DWP to think the same way!! They do have a habit of not following what is in front of them in their handbook or the legislation. They seem to look for the best option for the government whether it is right or wrong. I still can't see why Pension Credit rules should be any different from the rules relating to the other benefits - deprivation is deprivation which ever way you look at it. Put simply, I am trying to put the money into our home which is obviously an exempt asset thereby protecting our entitlement to Pension Credit. The knock on effect will also increase our net spendable income as we would no longer have to pay the mortgage top up every month - but yes I know I can't very well tell the DWP what I would like the end result to be!! To protect ourselves against any eventuality and taking the worst case scenario, I think that we have two options. The first is to use the inheritance as we intended and close down the Pension Credit claim. They can't very well ask questions or get involved with the matter if there is no valid claim in place. We could just about manage to live on what else we have coming in. Or, close the Pension Credit claim and use the inheritance money to keep us going for as long as it is possible and not worry about paying the mortgage off. I just don't feel comfortable in having a long drawn out argument with the Pension Service over the question of whether paying the mortgage off and the other things would or would not be deprivation when looking at the different rules of it for ESA/JSA/IS and PC

As mentioned above, the carer and the cared for have to confirm that at least 35 hours a week are treated as 'cared for hours'. There are no checks made by the DWP other than you may at some point in time have to explain what you do in those hours. However the definition of what constitutes cared for hours does not exist other than to say that for those hours you cared. As an example, you may live 2 hours drive away from the cared for person and you visit twice a week. Those 8 hours of travelling will count. If you deal with the cared for person's financial affairs, do their washing etc in your own home, those hours are counted. Even time spent with the cared for person providing support and encouragement are caring hours. In other words if you believe that there are hours in each week that you carry out some form or type of caring for the benefit of the cared for person, then you count them. Over a week that would be at least 5 hours a day on average. You may stay with the cared for person for 24 hours and go back the following day, then those 24 hours are counted as well as are the hours taken to get there and back. A case that I am aware of is where the carer lives 200 miles away and stays from 12noon on the Saturday (the time that they arrive) to 2pm on the Sunday (the time when they set off to return) with the cared for person every weekend. In that case the travelling time of 5 hours each way added to the 26 hours that they spend with the cared for person adds up to 36 hours each week!

UPDATE This is most confusing. We had a meeting yesterday with AgeUK and they can only refer back to the legislation and the DWP handbook. They agree with what has been said on here in that paying off a mortgage early out of the inheritance funds whilst in receipt of Guaranteed Pension Credit will NOT be treated as deprivation of capital. However they went one step further and considered the same scenario as if we were claiming another means tested benefit (JSA/ESA/IS) as well as Housing Benefit. Under those benefits the legislation and certainly the DWP handbook states clearly that if paying off a mortgage early it WILL be treated as deprivation. Since coming home, I have researched this and can agree that the situation with Pension Credit seems to be a lot 'softer' than if you were claiming any other means tested benefit. Am I right? Can there be two totally different decisions depending on which means tested benefit you are claiming? Personally I am a little worried that I am missing something here and that what is said in the DWP Pension credit handbook is wrong and that Deprivation of capital in respect of ANY means tested benefit should follow the SAME rules. Does anybody have any idea please?

Unfortunately that is exactly what I meant - it has to be a 'one size fits all'. It would be impossible for the DWP/WP to deal with each and everybody's different problems. The cost would be enormous to the taxpayers. The system works on the basis that if the DWP 'catch' 20 people that have been swinging the lead for years, it is worth the stress that is caused to the 1020 people that are honest and have to suffer the same treatment. In fact you could say that the DWP are being correct in that they treat everyone with suspicion initially. You could never devise a system that is tailored to each individual beit for JSA or ESA claimants. You can only devise a system that fits most people in a similar way. As for me I know that I had to work with them, there was no choice at the time. In fact we were awarded Guaranteed Pension Credit as a top up benefit from when I was 60. Yet I also continued to follow the ESA road up until I was 65. You could say that I put myself through all of that aggravation, when I needed not to have done and just had a higher PC award instead. I saw that it was right to claim ESA instead of trying to play the system to avoid the ESA regime by closing it down and claiming PC instead. The actual amount we received would have been no different. If more people just played along with the system you would find that on the whole you would have a much easier time of it.

I had 28 weeks of being assigned to a WP whilst over 60 and in the Support Group. It was a real wonder that I managed it being on highish doses of Morphine - 100mg every 12 hours + as much Oramorph as I needed to cope together with a cocktail of anti psychotics + lithium daily plus a another bucketful of other drugs. I never complained once and carried out every demand placed upon me no matter how I felt. When I found out that it was voluntary and not compulsory, the only people I was annoyed with was the JCP for not informing me that I need never have attended. The WP was only doing what their contract stated that they should do - try to get you back into work, no matter what.

No it isn't that at all. For far too many years those that were sick and unemployed were on the whole basically left to their own devises. There were no real regular checking of continuing entitlement. It was basically left to the claimant to look for work and for the sick to tell the DWP that they had improved and needed to be transferred to the JC to sign on. It was found that a high proportion of both were quite happy to carry on regardless and make benefit claiming a way of life. As soon as pressure was applied to regularly check their sickness benefit and the job searching activities, some claimants started to shout that it wasn't fair - why can't you leave us alone? Pressure is needed on every claimant so that the minority are made to comply, whereas in the past they hadn't. Like everything, it is always the innocent and honest that get caught up in the changes all because of the minority.

The system has been re-designed to do exactly that. Gone have the days when those on either JSA or IB could be found in the pubs everyday, or maybe doing a little bit of moonlighting for cash in hand payments. The public at large clearly agreed with the government that those on JSA/IB/ESA should not be seen as having a 'normal' way of life whilst those working are having to fund their lifestyle. Whether I agree or not, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that those that fund the benefit payments do have a right as to how the money should be spent.

First of all, have you been placed in either group? If and when you are and it is the WRAG, you may well find yourself back with the same provider!!! To be honest there is a lot in what she said about always looking to the future where you can be productive again that is true. She may have come over as being nosey, but do you not think that you over re-acted a little? Maybe she meant nothing by what she said, maybe she was genuinely trying to be positive. If it was me I would put it down to you being a little too touchy. It comes over to me that one of or the main reason for swapping over to ESA was to avoid having to go to the provider as they were causing you stress? If that is the case, that is part of their brief - to put people under pressure so that they can look at themselves from another perspective. Being positive and having a positive attitude can only be good for someone. Being negative only feeds an already depressive mood. I would just let bygones be bygones, there are bigger battles for you to win, like getting well again and getting back into the workplace never mind the ESA assessments, appeals form filling etc which is bad enough.

Then I would be bringing it to the attention of the Pension Service. Where one or both parties to a Pension Credit Claim reaches 65, the Pension Service having carried out the '65th birthday review' and have made an award for Guaranteed Pension Credit, they MUST set an Assessed Income Period unless there is a very limited good reason not to. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284304/foi-636-2014.pdf Well that wasn't as painful as I thought it would be. She wasn't interested that our savings had reduced - only if we had over £10,000. There will be a slight decrease in payment however as my wife's private pension increased last April by a few pounds, and we should have declared that. With an AIP being set from Dec 2013, any increase in any pension in April 2014 is NOT reportable and will NOT affect the level of GPC you receive. Personally my first question of them is ' On what grounds are you relying in stating that we are not entitled to an AIP following my wife's 65th birthday on the ** December 2013?' As I have said before we have 8 pensions that all increase at different rates and at different times, but none of these increases need be notified. Indeed when I was 60 and my wife 65, we had an AIP in place for just under 5 years (until my 65th birthday) and 6 of those pensions increased at the compound rate of 5% per annum which never affected what we received via the Pension Credit. We don't currently have an AIP in place because I told the Pension Service that within the next 12 months we will inherit approx. £140,000 - but that is another story.

Thanks, yes I did, but not after 28 weeks of hell, plus £5 of fuel per visit x 14 visits which I had to pay for!! When I approached the provider (RBL) all they could say that EVERYONE that claims an off/out of work benefit MUST do all they can to find/get back into full time employment. Eventually and after many fruitless telephone conversations/visits (effectively thrown out on each one as I didn't have an appointment) I managed to speak to a manager at the JCP. He told me that I was right, in that no one over 60 and/or in the Support Group of ESA is required to attend those meetings. I asked why then was I 'instructed' to do so? He said that the letter wasn't clearly written and I had probably misread it, but nevertheless most if not all ESA claimants of my age and those in the SG know that it is only voluntary - 'I could have asked the JCP when I received the letter but chose not to'.

There should be a part of that letter (it is generally about 6/8 pages long) that tells you what you have been awarded and (it has to be Guaranteed Pension credit) the section is normally on page 2 at the top headed Assessed Income Period. It should say whether it has been awarded or not. The rest of the letter details how the award has been calculated.

To my disgust, the DWP didn't advise me of my rights when I claimed ESA and was in the Support Group aged 60 and 7 months. I simply received a letter telling me to report to the Work Provider to discuss how I was to get back into work and what actions I needed to take. I had over 6 months of two weekly 1 hour sessions of aggravation and stress until I found out by accident that it was only voluntary for me to attend because of my age and ESA award.

There are two systems in place. The DWP/Pension Service can put you on notice to supply the statements if they think the claimant may have been a little economical with the truth. If the statements aren't sent in they can suspend/terminate the claim. The second is that if they think fraud is involved, they have access with the bank direct to get the info. As I have said, we have claimed Guaranteed Pension Credit for the past 5 years since I was 60. I/we have never been asked to prove what is or was in the bank/purse/under the mattress etc. They have asked for proof of our many pensions, but not the capital held. Part of what you say I do agree with. Our Pension Credit award is reduced considerably by the amount of our private pensions. If we didn't have these pensions, then the Pension Credit would be higher. We get no more than someone who has never saved or invested in a private pension for the Guaranteed element, although we do get the max savings element of just over £20 a week. Should people spend, spend and spend? I would have done with what I know now, but then if you have to rely on a benefit for your income, that benefit can in the future be withdrawn or reduced. They can't touch my pensions.

If that is the case, then as from your wife's 65th birthday there should have been a review and an Assessed Income Period should have been set for up to 5 years. Was a review undertaken by the Pension Service? last December? Having that AIP in place, the amount of Pension Credit, beit Guaranteed and/or/both Savings Credit will remain fixed for that 5 years. On the latest Pension Credit award letter, it should say if an AIP is in place. If it isn't you are entitled to appeal against that decision as from December 2013.

So you have gone from being told that you are fully fit to being accepted as unfit - good!! However, given that the Tribunal have 'trashed' the assessment report as well as the DWP's decision, and that the Tribunal will notify the DWP of their new decision, the DWP do have the right to put in an appeal against the Tribunal's decision. It isn't always the case, but it sometimes does happen especially when there is such a vast difference in outcome. Just thought that I would warn you.