Attendance Allowance to Be Abolished

The decision not to change AA was in the papers at the time. I both knew AA was under threat and later that the threat had been withdrawn.

I was puzzled when I opened this thread. I assumed it was new threat in the last week or so.

Same here, MamaCaz.

I read the first page of posts and went to sign, and found out that there was no longer any need because, as chrispalmer has said above.

UPDATE! We won the campaign!

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid slipped out an announcement backing down on the plans at at the Local Government Association (LGA) councillors' forum on 19 January 2017

You can read his full speech here: www.gov.uk/government/speeches/supporting-local-government

Specifically this bit
“Today I can confirm that the localisation of Attendance Allowance is no longer being considered as part of the business rates reforms.

I’ll be announcing further details on business rates reforms shortly.

But I can tell you now that Attendance Allowance will not be included.”

This is fantastic news, and thank you so much to everyone that signed the petition and emailed the minister to help put pressure on him.

It looks as though Attendance Allowance is safe for now!

Bloody hell! I'll just stop taking the tablets.

If they can manage the inco pads with no assistance = nil points

“Many councils have offered the provision of incontinence pants as a solution to toileting needs. Not for people who are incontinent, but for people who will have to make a conscious decision to soil themselves in full knowledge of how many hours it will be until care arrives.”

From this article. standardissuemagazine.com/in-the-news/lets-not-resign-disabled-people-to-this-fate/

As Anno said in the OP, who knows when any one of us might be struck down with a debilitating condition. Or just get too old.

Agreed some do! But money advice centres are advising people to claim benefits who have minimal disability as part of an income generating try..
I have seen cases where the claim form had been filled in by the 'adviser' and at the appeal the claimant has stated that that they had never said that and the statement was untrue.
When pointed out that the claimant had signed it, they said the adviser had told them they'd recorded what they'd said and to just sign it!

This is a letter from someone in the House of Lords about benefit cuts, and attendance allowance.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/22/disability-benefit-cuts-that-ruin-peoples-lives

No, I do not disagree. Surprised you there.
The problem is where the line is drawn.
From my knowledge of disabled people, which is more than just my husband, they do not like to admit to having disabilities. Lots of people put up with minor disabilities without applying for benefits.
The examples I find and put on here are not minor. They are obvious miscarriages of justice.
That's why I think if there is any spare money, it should go towards paying for better initial assessment.

The government is obviously very worried about being seen to mistreat disabled people. It stopped the BBC from filming a demo today.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/23/disability-campaigners-occupy-parliament-over-benefit-cuts

It did not help the government's image one bit.

DJ
I know you are going to disagree with what I say, so don't get hot under the collar about it.
One of the problems with PIP is that the the minimally disabled find it too easy to qualify under the aids and appliances points.
Whereas the more severely disabled ( particularly those with mental or fluctuating conditions ) fail to achieve enough points.
Unlike ESA where we can if necessary use regs 29 and 35, under PIP we are bound purely by the points system

Yes, Galen, you do a good job overturning that many decisions.
I still think it shouldn't be necessary.

I do not suppose it's possible to find out how many people just accept the decisions even if they think they are wrong, just because they cannot take the strain any more.
The idea of that man telling his wife just to go to her mothers and leave him, then he would stop taking his medication and insulin, and it would be better all round. It just makes me shudder. And angry.
I can see why you hate PIP.

The HCPs forget to apply the test 'can the activity be reliably repeated'
Also with PIP it has to be for at least 50% of the time.

I hate PIP. Bring back DLA. It had its faults but!

See what a good job we do.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/22/sick-man-benefit-hell-suicide-tory-cuts-devastating-families

I've just been reading this. Appalling. Disabled who have lost money already.

The problem is, like the writer said, the people affected seem to have been forgotten in the IDS/Osborne debacle.

I find it hard to believe the way benefits like AA, DLA, PIP, etc. are now processed costs less than the original way of claimants attending a medical examination by a doctor. It's like the replacement system has grown into a huge out of control monster. So much for simplifying the system to make it more cost effective.

Yes! But I think a lot of the old atos examiners are employed by the new firm.
When we have asked if it was appropriate for a physiotherapist or paramedic to be giving an opinion on mental health, we were assured that they had all been given adequate training.
I've just seen something pink with navigation lights pass my roof going "oink, oink"????

Would it not be better to have more experienced people making the initial decisions so that there were fewer appeals?

I think I read that 51% of PIP appeals are won, 60% of ESA.
I read today of a man who had his DLA taken off him, i.e., not awarded PIP because he was able to lean forward and cuddle his daughter.
That was actually a comment on his letter of refusal.
He is terminally ill, and thought that the woman who came to his hhouse to fill in the forms had no medical knowledge.

Is it an American firm that does these now, taken over from Atos?

The additional information is important, because the tick list did not allow for enough variation in the response.

Many try. Few succeed. The sitting on a bed is use of aid came about as a result of an appeal to UT

Thanks for that Galen. I think the guidance on the attendance of a PO must be applied more rigorously now, probably to save money. Strictly speaking a PO was only required in certain circumstances, one of which was to do with an element of judgement involved. In my day, it was thought there was almost always an element of judgement involved.

The 'additional information' aspect is a direct result of the introduction of the long claim form donkey's years ago.

Galen do you know how many decisions are being taken further on a point of law these days? So handy to have a resident expert!

Never see one since pip came in and rarely before. Usually only on fraud and overpayment cases. Oh! And in SMI cases.
Most of the old POs were amicae curae or whatever the correct Latin is, but some would defend the DWP decision to their last breath, even it was blatantly wrong.
A lot of the appeals succeed because fresh evidence is produced which was not available to the DM.

Sorry I got distracted and missed the last few posts.

Appeals Officers used to be experienced decision makers who knew the law from back to front. Appeals Officers prepared the appeal documents and presented appeals (not always the same ones they prepared). Appeals Officers and POs were never 'recruited' as such, they were usually decision makers moved into Appeals work from other parts of the organisations.