This is what's wrong with the benefit system
I wonder why a version of this story has been run in newspapers like The Sun every year since 2020? In fact this woman has been in the papers being held up as an example of 'what's wrong with the benefit system' at least once a year for the last 10 years.Ffs
We are currently WFH 60% and its being pushed down to 40%. Its amusing to me that they expect other companies to offer full WFH contracts but be unwilling to offer it themselves or be flexible.
This person is clearly on the take, but I think the point is people on PIP can work, and do all sorts.
Yeah.....chinny reckon
We had this discussion somewhere recently - in Liverpool there’s a particular set of people who think they’re winning at life and sticking two fingers up to the government by blagging benefits. It’s not just annoying that they’re faking it, but also that they feel entitled to do so and it’s a sense of pride. They look down on people working for a living.
Maybe I should to prove a point to individuals like you who reckon anyone with a different experience must be lying about it. And why would these ppl know my views? I mind my own biz and i wish they'd mind theirs not boasting to ppl who are struggling. I also have been on benefits when I was a single mum as stated previously. I was better off than i am working full time. But you won't wanna believe that either. I also know work not paying properly is not the fault of anyone on benefits. I do not demonise benefit claimants. Millions need them at some point in their life. My comments have all the way been about scroungers and fakers only.Yeah.....chinny reckon
It's funny that all these people are quite happy to parle their benefit fraud to you, particularly with your attitude on the subject. And it wasn't an arsey comment, it was a simple honest question: If benefits are so easy, why not go on them? I think that deep down you know the real answer.
A PIP claimant can only get a Motability car if they were awarded the 'enhanced rate mobility component' (currently £71 per week). The lease for the car is paid from the money that you get under PIP. How much you pay depends on which car you choose. I think the cheapest current car is around £60 per week.
You don't get extra UC simply for being "too sick to work" If you are assessed as having LCW (Limited Capability for Work) you get the standard UC amount. If you are assessed as having LCWRA (Limited Capability for Work Related Activity) i.e. you are so sick or disabled that you cannot even take part in activities to prepare you for work in the future, you get an additional £390.06 a month.
I accept that, absolutely. I'm not saying it should be more difficult to claim. I don't have any answers. I've observed my sister struggling to get what my nephew needs and deserves, I hope I understand the excellent points disability campaigners make about the process being an additional punishment. But everyone's excellent points also don't make mine untrue.
It's a difficult one. My job is to ensure that people have the best possible chance to get the benefits to which they are entitled. It's not to get benefits for people who should not have them. So I cannot and would not encourage people to lie in their application. Saying that a condition affects them everyday when it doesn't is a lie and thus effectively attempting benefit fraud. However I can understand the temptation because DWP often try to exploit every opportunity to deny someone benefits.
You can't. It would be impossible to design a system so sensitive that it could ensure that out of millions of people, everybody who should get help is helped and everybody who shouldn't, isn't. Part of the problem with the complexity of the system comes from years and years of efforts to make it more 'fair."
Obviously I don't know your situation but it's perfectly possible that someone with kids bringing home around £400 per week would still get some UC and of course all the other benefits that it brings.
I don't think that taking into account other income is "treating you like a criminal" or "incredibly cruel". The point of income based ESA is to provide an income to people that are not able to get it in another way. The technical term is an "earning replacement benefit". If someone has income from other sources why shouldn't it be taken into account. That's what means tested benefits are.
Yep. And you'll notice our stories are always 'anecdotal experience' never lived experience. That's only for the ppl who want to talk over and for us on the subject. (Not a dig at anyone on here.)
If you are getting income based ESA (now known as 'New Style' ESA) you can have up to £6,000 in savings without it affecting how much benefit you get. If you have between £6,000 and £16,000 in savings your ESA payment will be progressively reduced - for every £250 you have over £6,000 you lose £1 off your ESA payment. Once you have more than £16,000 in savings you will no longer be eligible for ESA.
Repeating something that someone else has told you is the definition of 'hearsay.' I've no reason not to believe that is what somebody told you. It might be true, it might not. You've chosen to believe it. Fine. You can hold any 'view' that you want but if you express it on a discussion forum there's a chance someone will challenge it.
So if one of the people in the couple earns an ok wage then yes the other theoretically could work less however once that 15 year old is no longer in full time education unless their housing costs are high its highly likely they wont be entitled to any UC.
