Is this ethical?

petra

Most people who tell the truth and the whole truth will fail the test ( because that’s what it is)
It’s not just people on line but people who work in benefits help people to avoid failing.

Then my husband (and myself who completed the form for him) are in the minority.

Perhaps if one tells the truth and isn’t successful then the attendance needs are not sufficient to be eligible?

keepcalmandcavachon

My goodness £150 plus access to all of your private and financial information!

The attendance allowance form asks for no financial information except the bank account you would like the money paid into if successful.

If people are trying to exploit the benefit system it is they who are behaving unethically. If the advisors claim to be qualified but are not, then that is unethical, as would be implying that the only way to get the information would be to pay for it. But if someone is offering a service at a fixed upfront price and customers are willing to pay someone else to complete the forms for them, I don’t think it is more or less ethical to pay a freelancer than to wait for an appointment with a salaried welfare officer, particularly as such appointments are thin on the ground.

Going back quite a few years I was foolish enough to help a neighbour with her DLA form. It was not difficult to fill out but long winded and repetetive. Her concentration was limited so it took up 2 entire afternoons of my time. Of course I did it free but I would never again do so for anyone. I no longer have expertise in benefit claims.

I lived to regret my kindness because she began to make all kinds of requests for help with shopping, phone calls etc. I felt like an unpad PA. Thats why I now inform people who ask for cheeky favours that I will think about it and "give them a price".

I also make it extremely difficult for people to get in touch with me.

Doodledog a service at a fixed upfront price and customers are willing to pay someone else to complete the forms for them, I don’t think it is more or less ethical to pay a freelancer than to wait for an appointment with a salaried welfare officer, particularly as such appointments are thin on the ground.

This.

Many of us pay for things we could diy. Many of us diy most tasks. I see no difference to paying or me properly filling in the forms, fitting a new kitchen or diy, yard care, cleaners. Choices, how to spend.

Benefit Officers will do this free . I suppose if someone offers a service and charges for it that's OK. You would expect to pay the gardener or the cleaner.

You can put your information into Chat GPT for free and get the wording for your form without paying. I wouldn't ever pay for somebody to fill in a form for me and I think it is a shame that anyone thinks they need to. However, I do know people who would struggle to fill a form in but I would always advise them to get charity help. Who knows what experience this woman has.

these forms are daunting but there is online help. Otherwise i think i would be inclined to go to something like CAB which you can trust

If you can read and write,the attendance allowance form is 100% straight forward.

Having filled in pip forms for a physically very fragile relative for the past 23 years (I'm their 'appointee') I can tell you it's a huge amount of work collecting all the medical evidence and matching it up to the criteria on the huge form and finding a way to describe the condition. I'd happily pay £300 if it was successful. I find it so stressful and exhausting.

I filled in the Power of Attorney forms online and paid something like £168, a solicitor wanted to charge over £1k - I think that’s unethical.

vegansrock

I filled in the Power of Attorney forms online and paid something like £168, a solicitor wanted to charge over £1k - I think that’s unethical.

Yes, I agree. What is more you have to give the solicitor all the information anyway so you are just about paying that thousand pounds for typing it.

It's not ethical. She's taking advantage of people.

Nanato3

It's not ethical. She's taking advantage of people.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Is a hairdresser taking advantage of someone who can't (or doesn't want to) cut her own hair, or a grocer taking advantage of someone who needs vegetables but doesn't like gardening and growing their own?

How is this different? If someone has training in and understanding of the forms, why shouldn't they offer a service that people can take or leave?

As I said upthread, the fact that advice should be freely available to all who need it is a separate issue. People can't have both low taxation and high spending on public services.

We have a lady in our local library that does this free of charge, some forms can be quite daunting.

Iam64

butterandjam, the people I’m talking about did not have the money to pay a trusted helper. They approached a charlatan to help them exploit the benefit system

You said she was advertising in an FB page. How do you know who responded, what their financial situation is, that they are exploiting the system, or that she is a charlatan/ untrustworthy?

FYI some benefits are not means tested . Claiming n-m-t benefit is not necessarily an indication of poverty. Those entitled to claim are not "exploiting the system".

You might bear in mind that there are circumstances in which A) many people become entitled to benefits/state help as their right, AFTER they have worked and contributed for many years .

Sago £150 that is awful, if she does get someone attendance allowance at the lower rate she will be taking the whole month allowance . It’s not unethical it’s immoral😡

Not a good idea to give personal financial information to a stranger! How can you know for sure they are who or what they say they are!

Jackiest

Maybe the unethical bit is that the forms are too complicated for the average person claiming to fill in.

Then the average person must be a bit thick.

I'm wondering if she's the woman who does this to make a living for herself. Mind you - she's not the only one. I presume she/everyone here is talking re getting other benefits than "dole" money.

I have mixed feelings re this and that particular woman was certainly out to get all sorts of money for people regardless of whether it was really due/really needed or no.

I recall years back when I was having to claim unemployment money it was because I'd had a series of "redundancies" (aka unfair selection for redundancy or unfairly dismissed in actual fact....hmmm...) from jobs and I did need a little help for that (pretty easy to get) benefit. The first time I was glad I knew of myself that I was supposed to have all my rent and all my council tax covered for me (it was the 1980s before all the cuts) and to get the money indefinitely. A married woman would have only got it for 6 months and no money for rent and Council Tax. Good that I knew the basics as the DWP person was all set to have me paid like a married woman!!!! and I knew enough to put her right. So I knew, from my own experience, that they do employ people who don't know their own jobs properly - or, on the other hand, do know their jobs but are out to deliberately do them badly to deprive people of income they're due for and need.

For jobs generally - I was a personal secretary...possibly other office jobs and that means my workhours were around 9am-5pm Monday to Friday and I didn't travel far for a job (not on that low-level pay) - but fortunately I read an article in the Socialist Workers newspaper then which told me "You have to say you are prepared to work at any hour - even if you're someone that only works in office hours. You have to say you're prepared to spend an excessive amount of time to get to and from the jobs. You have to say you're prepared to do any type of job besides your own". So cue for I knew I was sticking to MY terms for what I was really looking for (yep....and travel to work time would normally be walking and would certainly not involve changing buses or trains and would not take more than 30 minutes - for that low level of job and pay). But I duly put I was prepared to work any hours at any distance away at any type of job and was not very happy at knowing I couldnt put the truth down - or my money would have been at risk. It would have been even worse if I'd added "By the way - I won't do a job that's immoral - so don't expect me to do anything that's involved with wars or finding places to store nuclear waste or anything else I disapprove of" goodness knows how things would have gone.

It is difficult...and sometimes not that clearcut.

There's "wrongs" on both sides of that divide. Don't get me started on the way the Government is planning to start paying benefit for a 3rd child onward again - as I struggle with why anyone had a 3rd child onward after they'd been warned not to expect benefit for them some years back and it was at least 10 months notice given of that coming in (ie 9 months plus 1 extra month to be on the safe side).

emilie

Jackiest

Maybe the unethical bit is that the forms are too complicated for the average person claiming to fill in.

Then the average person must be a bit thick.

Does the bit thick comment apply to claimants with dyslexia?

Doodledog

Nanato3

It's not ethical. She's taking advantage of people.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Is a hairdresser taking advantage of someone who can't (or doesn't want to) cut her own hair, or a grocer taking advantage of someone who needs vegetables but doesn't like gardening and growing their own?

How is this different? If someone has training in and understanding of the forms, why shouldn't they offer a service that people can take or leave?

As I said upthread, the fact that advice should be freely available to all who need it is a separate issue. People can't have both low taxation and high spending on public services.

We've got different opinions and that's ok , no need to question me .
Move on

I have sometimes noticed on threads discussing filling in welfare claims forms, that there would be an offer of help from a poster. I did wonder at the time just how wise it was to give personal financial details to a total stranger online.

emilie

If you can read and write,the attendance allowance form is 100% straight forward.

You'd be surprised how many adults (native English speakers) can't read or write well enough to fill in a form.

Nanato3

Doodledog

Nanato3

It's not ethical. She's taking advantage of people.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Is a hairdresser taking advantage of someone who can't (or doesn't want to) cut her own hair, or a grocer taking advantage of someone who needs vegetables but doesn't like gardening and growing their own?

How is this different? If someone has training in and understanding of the forms, why shouldn't they offer a service that people can take or leave?

As I said upthread, the fact that advice should be freely available to all who need it is a separate issue. People can't have both low taxation and high spending on public services.

We've got different opinions and that's ok , no need to question me .
Move on

I have stated my opinion, just as you have yours. This is a discussion. not a list of points of view, so the whole idea is that people interact.