× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

DLA paid to support housing costs, claims IDS

 < 1 2 3 > 

disgustedofbridport
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 20 October 2010

Paul seems to have forgotten that Iain Duncan Smith is not subject to the same laws as other people, whether that be the law of the land, like a Court of Appeal decision that hasn’t been overturned by the Supreme Court, or something else, like logic, or ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD STARING HIM IN THE FACE.

The following is from the entry for “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” on Wikipedia. It’s IDS all over, and Michael Gove, and quite a lot of politicians in fact.

“Narcissistic Personality Disorder… is a personality disorder in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process… Some people diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy… Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR, include:
- Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
- Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
- Envies others and believes others envy him/her
- Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
- Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
- Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
- Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic”

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Richard II is thought to have had a narcissistic personality disorder and look at what happened to him (deprived of his power and imprisoned in Pontefract Castle where he was starved to death).

Now there’s a thought….

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

With all due respect, could we try to avoid descending into a personal tirade against you know who? I understand people’s anger and share it but aside from some jocular references, there is a serious point here and I’d rather it not get lost in a Private Eye From The Messageboards tidal wave of hilarity.

Ta muchly :-)

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Tony Bowman - 28 August 2014 12:55 PM

What’s to debate?

This politician’s description of a social security benefit is, like many other descriptions he’s given about social security benefits, plain wrong. The only person to claim otherwise is the man in charge of the entire UK social security system: ie. the man that said it!

The point was made in the OP. What’s left to do but poke fun?

The court case on Sandwell and DHP’s. The fact that a report has been produced which is suspected to have been produced to try to persuade the court that IDS is correct somehow. The FOI request which apparently seeks to draw similar conclusions i.e. that DLA is explicitly paid to underpin a disabled person’s housing costs.

There’s 3 for starters.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

I see no problem in laughing this man out of his folly as well as trying soberly to persuade him. Bullies fear being made fun of.

I suspect neither course will work, because he is not listening and he was never listening. But we will have tried.

Points both serious and comic have their place. And that parts of current DWP policy and propaganda are laughable is a very serious point to make, a very serious point indeed.

benefitsadviser
forum member

Sunderland West Advice Project

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 22 June 2010

Great stuff guys!

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

benefitsadviser - 29 August 2014 09:37 AM

Great stuff guys!

Despite what I said above, you did make me laugh with this….

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1995

Joined: 16 June 2010

Is it possible that IDS and his ‘modest proposals’ are actually a satire that we haven’t rumbled?

Tom H
forum member

Newcastle Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 783

Joined: 23 June 2010

Paul, I agree that IDS’ interview was objectionable on a number of grounds.  I’m not sure that admitting that 1/3 of those subject to the tax are in receipt of DLA as a way of casting doubt on the two thirds figure really helps his cause.  It’s admittedly an altogether different and more gruesome context but I couldn’t help thinking of Chemical Ali who, when told by his generals that the Anfal campaign had killed about 200,000 Iraqi Kurds, is reported to have replied “Nonsense – it’s no more than 100,000”.

However, I’d be interested to know your precise objection to DLA being taken into account for DHPs.  Again, I agree it shouldn’t be but I’m not completely confident that the forthcoming JR will be a success.  I can think of a few reasons as follows:

• Numerous research shows that the cost of living for disabled people is far higher.  Therefore, as a matter of principle, the onus should not be on disabled people to individually account for disability related expenditure. It should go without saying.

• Disability-related expenditure by its nature is often not easy to quantify.  Whilst, it might be easy to prove, eg, higher energy bills if you’re housebound, or greater travel expenses if you’ve poor mobility, it’s more difficult attributing to a weekly/monthly figure (as required by DHP) payments to relatives/carers in recognition of the opportunity cost to them of caring for you.  That and the fact that DLA is awarded for needs occurring in “any period throughout which” which envisages needs may vary over the course of an award.  How would you account in a DHP application, for example, for money saved in case you have to visit hospital more often in future or to make emergency arrangements in the event of your normal carer being sick?  In fact, if the JR is unsuccessful and DLA does have to be explained away, the FOI response highlighted earlier in this thread, if anything, could provide justification for a person saving a fair bit of their DLA into a sinking type fund to pay for adaptations either needed now or in anticipation of future deterioration in health.  But I agree, Paul, that the purpose of including that example in the FOI response is to attempt to link DLA to housing costs.  Note also the FOI response’s ““DLA is not intended to meet the specific costs associated with disability”.  That’s not completely correct is it?  There’s a difference between saying DLA “need not” be used and that it “is not intended to” be used.  If the latter was correct then would DLA be taken into account as income under the social care at home means test?  And I’m not sure what they mean by “specific costs” either.  Of course, the desired inference is to the effect “Well, if it doesn’t cover your specific costs then it must be available to pay your rent shortfall”.

Whilst IDS’ statement that DLA is of itself “a payment to support housing costs” is wrong because, as we know, the things it can be spent on are not prescribed, even if that were not the case it’s hard to see how the bedroom tax could have been envisaged as a “housing cost” to be met by DLA when the tax applies to non-disabled and disabled people alike, not to mention the fact it didn’t exist when DLA was introduced. 

• It introduces through the back door (represented by DHP) a reasonableness test for DLA expenditure when that has never existed, as far as I’m aware, through the front door (represented by the absence of any rules prescribing what DLA can/not be spent on).  And that raises the question what criteria will DHP DMs use to decide whether expenditure is reasonable.  All very well restricting you to £30 per week, say, for food, if you have no special dietary needs, but who says giving £50 to a relative for doing your shopping and caring for you for a few hours each week is not justified? 

What I find really objectionable about the FOI response is the way the writer appears to attempt to re-write history by suggesting that reasonableness has always been a consideration in how DLA is spent.  It states: “it is for the individual to decide how to spend the money in a way that best fits their circumstances” (my emphasis).  Blink and you’d miss it.  “Best fits”? First time I’ve heard that.  Is that a subjective or objective test of reasonableness then?

I don’t think it’s a simple as saying, which I’m sure the government will say, that if you’ve got nothing to hide re your DLA expenditure then you’ve got nothing to worry about.

On recording expenditure generally, I tried some months back to record in minute detail my expenditure with a view to managing my money better.  I wanted to see, eg, how much I spent a month on Flat Whites.  I got bored after about 5 days.  In fact, it started to stress me out.  Found myself drinking more coffee than normal.

[ Edited: 29 Aug 2014 at 12:57 pm by Tom H ]
Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

I think you make some very cogent points Tom. As highlighted previously, the case of Burnip does demonstrate the Court of Appeal making an unequivocal statement to the effect that DLA is not intended to be a payment related to meeting housing costs.

Ever since the National Insurance Act 1970 established Attendance Allowance as a cash benefit paid to disabled people to recognise the extra costs of disability, it has been a cornerstone of the benefit that it is paid in recognition of the extra costs of care needs arising from an impairment, and more importantly, that it is for the recipient to decide how best to spend that extra money to meet some, or all, of those needs. Over time it has evolved to combine a mobility component as well and to be renamed Disability Living Allowance and now Personal Independence Payment, yet that fundamental intention has never, to my knowledge, been altered. If anything, it was part of the growing acceptance of the concept of independent living for disabled people more broadly.

The fact that welfare reforms more recently have caused many disabled people to find that housing benefit payments are now insufficient to meet their rental liabilities is bad enough. The fact that disabled people are reliant on discretionary housing payments to enable them to remain in their homes is even worse.

The notion that they should be expected, as a matter of course, to use a payment related to care and/or mobility needs to meet that shortfall, and thus lose the opportunity to access a discretionary payment is disgraceful, in my opinion. This effectively asks them to choose between securing a decent and proper standard of living, with a choice of how to meet any disability-related costs arising from their impairment, but with the attendant risk of losing their home, or meet some or all of their rental liability but at the cost of maintaining a proper and decent standard of living.

I’m reluctant to go into too much more on the court case, because we should allow the legal representatives the opportunity to make their arguments and see what they come up with. I do share your concern over the outcome, as there seems to be quite a few decisions on similar issues where Judges find evidence of indirect discrimination but also find if justifiable due to economic imperatives and managing the social security budget equitably. However, I can’t see a shred of equity in these cases, so I have my fingers firmly crossed.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Paul_Treloar_CPAG - 29 August 2014 02:18 PM

I However, I can’t see a shred of equity in these cases, so I have my fingers firmly crossed.

I shall join you in that Paul. And an excellent post if I may say so.

paulmoorhouse
forum member

Central and South Sussex CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 96

Joined: 25 January 2012

I also think Tom’s post is excellent however I’d add caveat about one point:

‘It introduces through the back door (represented by DHP) a reasonableness test for DLA expenditure when that has never existed, as far as I’m aware, through the front door (represented by the absence of any rules prescribing what DLA can/not be spent on).’

This has in fact already been introduced (albeit again by the back door) for people receivinging adult care services sunder the ‘Fairer Charging’ regime.Extending the same principal to DHPs raises serious questions about double counting (sometimes by the same authority!)

[ Edited: 29 Aug 2014 at 02:49 pm by paulmoorhouse ]
Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Yes, good point Paul. The guidelines on Fairer Charging are here Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services

The point about potential for double charging is especially compelling I think.

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

And in a peculiar piece of synchronicity, this just dropped into my mail box from the Centre for Welfare Reform….

Counting the Cuts

This report, published on behalf of the Campaign for a Fair Society, summarises the impact of the UK Government’s cuts programme. It demonstrates how the care, housing, and income cuts target people in poverty and in particular, disabled people.

I find the graphic a bit of a nuisance to scroll through, I have to say.

Tom H
forum member

Newcastle Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 783

Joined: 23 June 2010

Thanks both Pauls for those good points.  Paul T - good to reminded of the history and sound points “against” including DLA.

Paul M, thanks for mentioning Fairer Charging as an exception to the rule I mentioned in my third bullet point.  I don’t know why I omitted it given I’d referred to the “social care at home means test” (I always forget its name: Fairer Charging) in my 2nd bullet.  I guess I was thinking about the reasonableness of DLA expenditure within DLA regs/rules itself in my 3rd bullet.  But Fairer Charging is obviously an important exception to the normal rule so thanks for adding the caveat.  Also very good point about double charging.  I’d hope very worst case scenario in event of unsuccessful JR would be that person’s actual Fairer Charging contribution to care would be counted as actual expenditure for DHP, leaving the balance only of any DLA as available income for the DHP assessment, thereby avoiding a double counting of the same income.  I’m not familiar with the Fairer Charging means test (and too tired to start looking at it) so I’m not sure if my last sentence is oversimplification.